I was gonna include a third option about how money is easier to achieve without considering the morality of your actions but that’s not really a philosophy as much as it is an objective fact.
I was gonna include a third option about how money is easier to achieve without considering the morality of your actions but that’s not really a philosophy as much as it is an objective fact.
The weird thing is that people still believe in the trickle-down effect.
Musk is due to become the world’s first recognised trillionaire. Putin was probably the first.
Very rich people are not philanthropic in any way that is noticeable.
I would say “meaningful”. Billionaires can have a very noticeable effect with their philanthropy, while making essentially no sacrifice on their part. The Gates Foundation does very noticeable good, but Bill Gates isn’t giving of himself very much.
Yup.
OPs point stands, though, because we could still do that without Gates, and for every Gates there’s a Musk that does evil and a ton of Arnaults and Bezos’s that just spend it on whatever.
Their harm is hidden and any benefits sung from the roof tops.
So what exactly would you propose he would do?
So what exactly would you propose he should do?
You invite my “billionaires shouldn’t exist” TED talk.
Some of the royal families in the Gulf are also thought to be trillionaires.
My bad. Can imagine that too.
I mean, given that it’s all speculation that’s not really a mistake. I just thought it might be good to mention.