: : Why does wealth turn people off? Wealth is a sign of success, so what's wrong with it?
: Wealth is a sign that you have successfully ripped other people off, or ripped off the planet's resources.
Ripping off the planet...never heard that one before. Depending on what the hell you're talking about, it could be argued that we all are, as we *all* use resources.
You can't get rich without paying workers less than the value of what they're producing,
Value is subjective.
...or without charging customers more than what the product cost you[to make].
Yeah, it's called profit. You know where profit goes? To workers and back into the business, not into people's pockets. If no one made a profit, the world would never create anything new, as no one would have the wealth to do so. Aside form that, the value of a product is decided by the consumer. If the consumer doesn't like the product, it's value plumets. If he does like it, the value soars. You probably posess something of great value to you, although it doesn't(or didn't) cost that much to make. It is still valuable, and the same is true with all products.
: Your wealth makes other people's poverty.
How? Trade creates wealth, not producing anything does the opposite.
: : So what? Charity is good whether or not you go bankrupt givign to it.
: Charity is not good full stop. Even when given with the best of intentions it does nothing to alter the power imbalance that led to the recipient 'needing' charity, and you being able to give it.
It is not my or anyone's fault if someone has failed to produce anything. Charity is supposed to help people get back on their feet, and the fact that someone has more wealth than someone else says nothing about an "unfairness" or imbalance that lead to it.
But charity for advertising purposes is positively evil and dangerous, because its purpose is to manipulate people into thinking that the company cares and is therefore ok, diverting attention from the fact that companies like McDonald's are making their profits from exploiting people and damaging the environment.
You can't make the generalization that no one in the company cares. It is not evil for a company or indivivual to give charity, no matter what their goal.
How does McDs exploit people(I know you know, Rex, but let's keep this seperate)?
Its much more effective than normal advertising, people realise that is designed to sell them the product, but they don't always realise that 'charity' by corporations is also designed to sell them the products, so they view it more positively.
So would you rather the company not help people in need and just do regular advertising?