How we treat our poorest and weakest citizens exemplifies quality of life in the world. The global elite, who have plenty of money, should voluntarily spend more of their resources aiding the poor and destitute masses. Food and housing are two of the biggest issues facing our economy today, and the more comfortable everyone becomes, the better the entire world is in regards to peace and prosperity.
I do believe that those with wonderful resources should use them for the greater good of the masses. This would be the "Do unto others as you would have them do for you" code, or the Golden Rule. However, we do not always do this, and we cannot legally require people to do this. For instance, we cannot arrest someone for not stopping to help someone who dropped their stuff, when this is obviously what most people would want from a passerby. We also have the Silver Rule: "Do not do harm to others as you would not want them to do harm to you." This we can hold people to. Should the rich help the poor? Yes. Must they? No. God will be their judge, not me.
Yes, I believe that the world's global elite should serve the masses. There is a quote from the movie Spiderman that fits this issue quite well, surprisingly: "With great power comes great responsibility." While nobody is saying that the ultra elite should hand their resources out, they could help countries that are in dire straits and that need aid badly, either from disaster or poverty. If the global elite of the world gave just 1% of resources and money to the poorest areas, it would vastly improve their situation.
The elite have the most ability to effect change on the world, and we hope that the change is positive. Money and status give ability to get things in motion that even the most ambitious of the non-elite can never approach. This is how big things happen, and it is best for everyone.
Rich people don't have to help the poor, but they should. I'm not saying all of the wealth should be given to the less fortunate, but how we treat our poorest citizens is reflective of how leaders are perceived. True leadership happens when the least of us is edified by the rich and well-to-do.
In most democracies (and even in many oligarchies) the leaders consider themselves "public servants." They say that they are there to carry out the will of the people, either directly, or, in a less democratic system, to still apply their judgment and rule in the way that is best for the people. They don't do this quite as much in practice, but it's a nice idea.
Should they? Yes. Are they required to? No, that is their choice. I believe that it is ultimately their riches and status that they have achieved and it is up to them how they distribute it. Morally and socially, it would be a nice thing to do to serve the masses and would create a good influence. But again, not a requirement.
The world's global elite acquire money by providing services and products to people. The methods may change but the result is the same, global elite have the money and access to information necessary to supply demand, be it food, services, vehicles or other variety of products. I do not mean to say that every "global elite" serves the masses. The question basically reads like "should super rich and powerful people serve me." I don't believe that those who are not global elite should be entitled to servitude from the global elite simply because they're not globally elite. If 2 boys go to a field and collect flowers, and one boy collects more flowers, why should the boy who was more shrewd and swift in his flower picking split up his flowers to have an equal amount with the boy who picked less? The question is too simple to warrant a yes, there are situations when cooperation is essential and beneficial but not "just because they have more"