this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2024
120 points (96.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43851 readers
706 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.