Sergey (Whom I spent an afternoon with when he was a grad student) has gone full MAGA and is apparently moving to TX to avoid the one-time wealth tax in CA. He was not an asshole in 1997.
Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door. Then demand that you don’t deserve to be paid for your mousetaps.
Many modern billionares are billionares on paper. The billions don’t become real until they sell stock in the companies that they created. Selling stock means selling away part of their influence in how the company is run. They would rather have that influence than spending money.
According to Wikipedia, the 2025 budget for the US AID was $34 billion. Even if a bunch of philanthropists got together to replace that money, just how long do you think they can keep on doing so?
What philanthropy is going on, and it’s nontrivial, isn’t directed at subsidizing trump’s cuts to USA services to fund his own thefts. If they did he’d just steal even more of the US government’s budget.
It’s directed mostly at raising the prospects of the poor of the world. Not the USA’s working class who are upper class to rich on the world-wide pecking order.
If I was a super fatcat I’d do the same thing.
Good point.
This begs a good question for MAGAs: “Why have no MAGA billionaire philanthropists donated money to help the “struggling” Americans who put them in power?”
I think I know the answer (MAGA bilionaires don’t give a shit about anyone but themselves) but I’d like to know what a 50-year old roofer in West Virginia would say.
I mean, so not only do they need to donate large amounts of money, they need to do so to causes that you deem worthwhile?
sure, sure…totally coincidental that it’s always the non-wealthy class saying this
I’m not sure why you think that matters or why their billions are any less “real” if they are on paper, in corporate stock, or a Scrooge McDuck vault full of gold coins.
If anything, the corporate ownership is more real as a corporation is a tangible entity that produces some product or service to continuously generate revenue. They can always borrow against their corporate holdings if they need cash.
a) The National Trust for Historic Preservation has an ongoing lawsuit against the ballroom.
b) Are you saying that if one person breaks the law, then it’s OK for everybody to break the law?
c) Is your argument that since billionaires seeking favor from Trump donated money to his illegal ballroom, then the best policy is for billionaires to spend more money currying favor with the government?
While I’m asking questions. Did you just say billionaires should borrow against their corporate holdings to give the money to charities?
To jump onto @msmith537’s comment: (typically credited to Hobbes): “wealth is power and power is wealth.” Cash, gold, stock shares … all representations of the abstract of power possession of which provides a means to exert it.
Need to? Of course not. There is no literal noblesse oblige. But do I hope to see great power used with great responsibility? Of course. Whatever form that power manifests in.
The world will never have a completely flat power/wealth structure. But having almost all power in the hands of very few, intergenerationally, is … not ideal.
I don’t think so as the words I used were spelled and pronounced differently.
I mean they could if they wanted to. My point was simply that saying someone is “rich on paper” is a meaningless statement. If you’re rich on paper, you’re rich. Period.
Chuck Feeney (founder of Duty Free Shoppers) gave away most of his billions before he died, all in a pretty low key manner. He built about 1000 buildings worldwide including hospitals, AIDS clinics etc none of which have his name on them.
No; I’m saying the world would be a better place if billionaires didn’t spend a dime currying favor with the government and instead spent their money promoting the general welfare for purely altruistic reasons.
Wonderfully utopian. But you were asked what particulars billionaires are not already plowing billions into that would be good. So far all your particulars have been illegal. I’d like to read some legal suggestions beyond the “general welfare.”
You are describing how things work right now. The people who actually build a better mousetrap work for the people who make all the profits. They see none of it. If personal profit was what drove innovation technological progress would have long since stopped entirely.
Ok, I literally gave this 30 seconds thought, so bear with me.
How about opening and staffing a chain of childcare centers that provide free day care to single working moms?
Or I see that some generous people are funding cancer research, and that’s great . But cancer is still here How about more research for a cure? And there’s ALS, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s…
I never said that. I said the wealthy class shouldn’t exist. I never said people shouldn’t be compensated for their work and ideas.
I don’t see what point you’re trying to make. Should the working class be perfectly content with the exploitation, mistreatment, horror, etc. they suffer at the hands of the wealthy class and the systems they’ve put in place for their benefit? Also, even some billionaires like Zuckerberg have explicitly said they don’t think billionaires should exist.
How are those not contradictory statements?