To Be Superflous Is to Be Charitable

Peter Singer wants to make the world better place, and he thinks that the best way to do that is to have people spend their excess money on charities as opposed to useless commodities that we really don't need. This idea seems nice at first glance, but as you look closer at it, the more things fall apart. One specific example used was why not spend money you were going to spend on a new TV on a charity? He extends the question to why avoid eating out and give to more charities? Both of these examples have something in common. They both involve you spending money. Now I will pose a question. Where do you get money from? Depending on your age, you could get if from parents, or family. But in the end, money winds up coming from jobs. Why do we have jobs? We have jobs because there is demand for jobs. Who creates the demand for jobs? People with money who want to spend it. So what happens when people stop wanting to spend money? Jobs begin to disappear. What happens then? People become impoverished and now no one can spend money. By spending money on "useless luxuries," you are contributing to the economy, and therefore the welfare of the whole country. That being said, you still need to spend money. In order to keep people happy and in a good position, money must continue to move. That means that rich people also need to spend money instead of just squirreling it away somewhere where they can feel comfortable. In reality, most of the need to be charitable should fall on the wealthiest in the country. After a certain point, the amount of money that you make is far greater than anything you could hope to spend, so giving money away is really the best option. When those in the top 1% sit on their money, they just suck funds away from those who need it. So they must redistribute their wealth either through higher taxes (which won't happen), or through donations (which also probably won't happen). When money ceases to be an issue for people, then I think it's fair to talk about cutting the fat out of your purchases and focusing on improving the world.

To wrap things up nicely, spending on "useless" things is a necessity for maintaining the health of the economy. Sitting on money isn't great, and neither is selflessly throwing it away unless you can't feasibly spend it properly. So I think that it's ok not to get guilt tripped too hard about not spending the $200 on charity that you just spent on a few months of Netflix. But on the off chance you are raking in millions of dollars every year, do the world a favor and be a bit generous. The responsibility does fall to you.