There’s an estimate floating around that it would cost about $20 billion to end all homelessness in the US. Whether or not that’s an accurate estimate, there is an amount that could do it, and every day that billionaires wake up and choose not to do it they choose evil.
If your standard for ‘a good example’ is being a bit more creative with his tax-dodging PR stunts than other billionaires, that’s a pretty low bar. A better example to set would be to not exploit people to accumulate wealth in the first place. It takes a whole lot of people like you and me staying poor to make Bill Gates that rich.
but I am determined that “he died rich” will not be one of them.
Bill Gates has a net worth of ~$168 billion. Even if this isn’t just PR intended to launder his image, even if he does in fact give away 99% of that, it will still leave him with $1.68 billion dollars. Even if he ups that to 99.99% that’ll still leave him with $16.8 million, which is still rich by anyone’s measure. Bill Gates’ idea of ‘not dying rich’ is radically different than yours or mine; he was never not going to die rich.
Nah, it’s more that the answer to ‘why is <some company> doing this?’ is virtually always ‘because money’. People forget that sometimes.
It’s weird to juggle anywhere, but you shouldn’t let that stop you cause everybody’s weird in some way or another and that’s fine. A park seems like as good a place as any.
Hmm, obvious troll is obvious. My apologies for assuming that you were merely confused rather than confused and malicious. I won’t make that mistake again.
Here’s a tip: don’t shove that phone in my face unless you want it smashed.
Because The Guardian is using the article written by The Guardian about what good people The Guardian are to raise money for The Guardian. :P
(Premise - suppose I accept that there is such a definable thing as capitalism)
I’m not sure why you feel the need to state this in a discussion that already assumes it as a necessary precondition of, but, uh, you do you.
People blaming capitalism for everything then build a country that imports grain, while before them and after them it’s among the largest exporters on the planet (if we combine Russia and Ukraine for the “after” metric, no pun intended).
…what?
What does this have to do with literally anything, much less my comment about innovation/competition? Even setting aside the wild-assed assumptions you’re making about me criticizing capitalism means I ‘blame [it] for everything’, this tirade you’ve launched into, presumably about Ukraine and the USSR, has no bearing on anything even tangentially related to this conversation.
People praising capitalism create conditions in which there’s no reason to praise it. Like, it’s competitive - they kill competitiveness with patents, IP, very complex legal systems. It’s self-regulating and self-optimizing - they make regulations and do bailouts preventing sick companies from dying, make laws after their interests, then reactively make regulations to make conditions with them existing bearable, which have a side effect of killing smaller companies.
Please allow me to reiterate: …what?
Capitalists didn’t build literally any of those things, governments did, and capitalists have been trying to escape, subvert, or dismantle those systems at every turn, so this… vain, confusing attempt to pin a medal on capitalism’s chest for restraining itself is not only wrong, it fails to understand basic facts about history. It’s the opposite of self-regulating because it actively seeks to dismantle regulations (environmental, labor, wage, etc), and the only thing it optimizes for is the wealth of oligarchs, and maybe if they’re lucky, there will be a few crumbs left over for their simps.
That’s the problem, both “socialist” and “capitalist” ideal systems ignore ape power dynamics.
I’m going to go ahead an assume that ‘the problem’ has more to do with assuming that complex interacting systems can be simplified to ‘ape (or any other animal’s) power dynamics’ than with failing to let the richest people just do whatever they want.
Such systems should be designed on top of the fact that jungle law is always allowed
So we should just be cool with everybody being poor so Jeff Bezos or whoever can upgrade his megayacht to a gigayacht or whatever? Let me say this in the politest way I know how:
LOL no.
Also, do you remember when I said this?
‘Won’t someone please think of the billionaires’ is wearing kinda thin
You know, right before you went on this very long-winded, surreal, barely-coherent ramble? Did you imagine I would be convinced by literally any of it when all it amounts to is one giant, extraneous, tedious equivalent of ‘Won’t someone please think of the billionaires?’
Simp harder and I bet maybe you can get a crumb or two yourself.
Funny how every time anyone talks about replacing capitalism everybody trots out the examples of innovation and competition as things we would lose. Meanwhile capitalists are over here doing their level best to sabotage innovation and buy or legislate their way out of competition so they can remain complacent in their dominant market position. ‘Won’t someone please think of the billionaires’ is wearing kinda thin when they’re actively undermining the purported benefits of their wanton exploitation and delivering nothing but stagnation and enshittification.
…and still be a billionaire.
Why should oligarchs get to decide where the proceeds of their exploitation get spent?
I don’t appreciate that one oligarch is better at lying to us than another one, that kinda makes it worse in my mind. Instead of telling ourselves comforting stories about how generous these societal leeches are we should be telling ourselves stories about how much better everyone else’s lives could be if they didn’t exist.