"Is it me or are the people on this list to blame for economic problems? Surely it can't be good that a hand full of people own the economic production for a fair percentage of the world?"
Yes - it is just you. You're probably making the old student politics error of assuming that wealth is a non-zero sum game; that is if one person has more then another person has less. This is not the case.
Firstly, the non-zero sum proof:
Capatilism can be loosely defined as the transformation of goods or services from one value plane to another, for example if I grow potatoes I transform seeds to saelable potatoes with my land, water and labour. Where there was a few kilos of seeds at (say) a price of £100 I now have created a crop of potatoes worth £1,000. Enough to feed me, pay my expenses, reinvest in next years seeds and make a small profit. I have created wealth.
Were it a zero-sum game then we'd have a finite amount of wealth to go around, and given a the rapidly expanding population that we have we'd all be getting poorer. The fact that 1Bn chinese people have been lifted out of poverty in the last decade is eqally proof that wealth can be, and is, created.
Addressing "to blame for economic problems", not knowing precisely which problems you mean I'll give a couple of answers;
Famine, povery, war, high infant mortality et al can almost every time be blamed on bad government, although being land-locked as a country has quite a high effect too. The best round-up of the factors and routes out of economic pigmy status is probably The Bottom Billion by Paul Collier. It's a damn tragic book, but one that everyone should read.
At the other end of the developed-nation spectrum (economic problems) are largely and simply down to human nature. For some reason (greed, stupidity, poorly designed bonus schemes) people bought high-yeilding commercial paper (CDOs, CDO squared, MBSs and so on) without making the mental connection between high yeild and high risk. The "no free lunch" principle does apply, even in the world of complex derivatives. I'd recommend Traders, Guns and Money by Satyajit Das if you want to know more about that whole area of the world. (It's pretty damn, fascinating)
Buffett, quite the contrary to your assertation, has actually been trying to stabilise the commercial paper market by offering to buy one of the larger municipal bond insurers (although they did reject the offer) and in the last few weeks as reportedly insured US6bn worth of bonds under a company he's just set up. That, thankfully for a lot of US states, means that their cost of borrowing has been stabilised - something that was a big worry for a lot of people.
As other commenters have pointed out, Gates and Buffett are the biggest philanthropists the world has ever seen. The Google Guys have recently unveiled their own initiatives too, en passant.
(Mine's the one with the leather patches on the elbows... thanks...)