he does not get labeled as such in the news anymore
That’s because the philanthropy is working exactly as intended - to white wash his reputation, and make him out to be “the good billionaire”.
Moving down from no. 1 to no. 5, at that scale of wealth literally has no impact on him, but rather it’s money well spent to take the heat and attention off of him so he can continue exploiting an hoarding in peace.
I genuinely don’t understand why this perspective is so popular.
He spent a boatload of cash vaccinating kids which has undoubtedly saved 10s of millions of lives.
Fuck him right? What an asshole.
Yes he gets a tax deduction for money contributed to the foundation, but it’s still a net loss to him.
Yes the foundation probably pays for jets and flights but its audited regularly so it can’t be used as a personal slush fund for private purposes.
Yes I’m sure there were some unintended consequences and failed projects, but solving problems and helping people particularly in impoverished nations is hard.
Are other billionaires doing a better job of saving the world ?
Because we shouldn’t be, and don’t need to be, relying on the goodwill of Billionaires to solve social problems. Instead of giving tax breaks for billionaires to pick and choose which issues to fund, we should tax the billionaires out of existence and democratically decide what to do with our money.
Philanthropy rhetoric is used to justify the existence of billionaires. We don’t need them.
🤷🏻♂️ Pay attention, look for it and you will see this argument come up a lot. Trickle-down economics is a similar idea, and that was a national talking point for years.
Dude. Pay attention. We’re here discussing why everyone hates BG. Your point is “yeah well idiots think we need billionaires to pay for vaccines”? Is that why we should hate the person who is actually spending their fortune on vaccines?
My point is that we can and should criticize any billionaire no matter their philanthropy, noone becomes a billionaire by accident and it is shameful to be one.
I don’t want to help spread pro-billionaire sentiment by just being “oh yay Bill Gates” for donating the money he got from intellectual thievery and violating anti-trust laws.
Sure. Microsoft was a scumbag company in the 90s with some pretty aggressive corporate practices, and gates was the beneficiary of that.
I also agree that billionaires just generally shouldn’t exist.
That said, I guarantee that 99% of commenters in this thread have pension funds holding investments in infinitely worse scumbag companies.
Also, Gates more or less just stopped. He still has a 1% holding in Microsoft or something, but he’s not grinding away burning baby dolphin oil for personal gain.
There’s plenty of hatred for terrible corporate practices to go around, but I don’t understand why Gates is targeted more than anyone else.
Well of course kids should have vaccines for free.
Who gives out the free vaccines though? If governments don’t then who? If a wealthy person chooses to use their own money to do so, should we hate that person?
Also, I don’t really follow your claim around harming 10 million kids? Or return on investment? What harm and what investment? Can you elaborate?
Certainly one of us is the victim of misinformation.
There is a lot of evidence from numerous independent parties that the foundation has saved many millions of lives through its vaccine programs. It’s indisputable.
Do you have any evidence of widespread exploitation of those people?
the foundation is a smokescreen to make observers feel that he’s a “good billionaire”, and thus, making us feel we shouldn’t be mad that he’s hoarding a gigantic pile of money that could do even more. (In effect : we should still be mad)
This is the vast majority of his wealth and the very reason he’s moving down the list of wealthy people. Maybe he won’t make good on his pledge, but he appears to be doing exactly that.
The only evidence that this is a “smokescreen” is that these contributions make him look good.
There’s no evidence that he’s hoarding a gigantic pile of money in comparisson to the amounts he’s contributing. There’s plenty of other billionaires who aren’t doing anything at all.
My point is, if we’re looking around for billionaires to hate because they’re hoarding money and not helping why are we so fixated on the one who actually is contributing most of his money to these causes?
That’s because the philanthropy is working exactly as intended - to white wash his reputation, and make him out to be “the good billionaire”.
Moving down from no. 1 to no. 5, at that scale of wealth literally has no impact on him, but rather it’s money well spent to take the heat and attention off of him so he can continue exploiting an hoarding in peace.
I genuinely don’t understand why this perspective is so popular.
He spent a boatload of cash vaccinating kids which has undoubtedly saved 10s of millions of lives.
Fuck him right? What an asshole.
Yes he gets a tax deduction for money contributed to the foundation, but it’s still a net loss to him.
Yes the foundation probably pays for jets and flights but its audited regularly so it can’t be used as a personal slush fund for private purposes.
Yes I’m sure there were some unintended consequences and failed projects, but solving problems and helping people particularly in impoverished nations is hard.
Are other billionaires doing a better job of saving the world ?
Because we shouldn’t be, and don’t need to be, relying on the goodwill of Billionaires to solve social problems. Instead of giving tax breaks for billionaires to pick and choose which issues to fund, we should tax the billionaires out of existence and democratically decide what to do with our money.
Philanthropy rhetoric is used to justify the existence of billionaires. We don’t need them.
What a silly thing to say.
No one is saying “oh yes well we need billionaires because they donate all their money to worthy causes”.
Billionaires shouldn’t exist, but if we’re getting out the guillotine I don’t really understand why Gates should be first in line.
People absolutely say that, “philanthrocapitalism” is a nerdy word for it it, but that basic argument comes up in a lot of contexts … pay attention.
Only an idiot would make such a claim. Lots of idiots say lots of stupid things. It’s still not a reason for the hatred of gates.
🤷🏻♂️ Pay attention, look for it and you will see this argument come up a lot. Trickle-down economics is a similar idea, and that was a national talking point for years.
Dude. Pay attention. We’re here discussing why everyone hates BG. Your point is “yeah well idiots think we need billionaires to pay for vaccines”? Is that why we should hate the person who is actually spending their fortune on vaccines?
My point is that we can and should criticize any billionaire no matter their philanthropy, noone becomes a billionaire by accident and it is shameful to be one.
I don’t want to help spread pro-billionaire sentiment by just being “oh yay Bill Gates” for donating the money he got from intellectual thievery and violating anti-trust laws.
deleted by creator
My issue is that we allow people to amass these massive fortunes to then choose what problems they fix.
Not to dissuade from anything good BG has done, that doesn’t excuse all the terrible things he did to amass this fortune.
Sure. Microsoft was a scumbag company in the 90s with some pretty aggressive corporate practices, and gates was the beneficiary of that.
I also agree that billionaires just generally shouldn’t exist.
That said, I guarantee that 99% of commenters in this thread have pension funds holding investments in infinitely worse scumbag companies.
Also, Gates more or less just stopped. He still has a 1% holding in Microsoft or something, but he’s not grinding away burning baby dolphin oil for personal gain.
There’s plenty of hatred for terrible corporate practices to go around, but I don’t understand why Gates is targeted more than anyone else.
I mean not to go against the propaganda but shouldn’t we allow kids to have vaccines without a boatload of cash?
Just cause you save a million kids doesn’t mean you can harm 10 million more, though that could mean a 10x return on investment
Well of course kids should have vaccines for free.
Who gives out the free vaccines though? If governments don’t then who? If a wealthy person chooses to use their own money to do so, should we hate that person?
Also, I don’t really follow your claim around harming 10 million kids? Or return on investment? What harm and what investment? Can you elaborate?
Removed by mod
Certainly one of us is the victim of misinformation.
There is a lot of evidence from numerous independent parties that the foundation has saved many millions of lives through its vaccine programs. It’s indisputable.
Do you have any evidence of widespread exploitation of those people?
you guys are both right.
the foundation does good work.
the foundation is a smokescreen to make observers feel that he’s a “good billionaire”, and thus, making us feel we shouldn’t be mad that he’s hoarding a gigantic pile of money that could do even more. (In effect : we should still be mad)
The smokescreen thing just doesn’t make any sense though. Up to 2020 he had contributed ~$50b to philanthropic endeavours, and then a few years ago “pledged” to contribute another $110b.
This is the vast majority of his wealth and the very reason he’s moving down the list of wealthy people. Maybe he won’t make good on his pledge, but he appears to be doing exactly that.
The only evidence that this is a “smokescreen” is that these contributions make him look good.
There’s no evidence that he’s hoarding a gigantic pile of money in comparisson to the amounts he’s contributing. There’s plenty of other billionaires who aren’t doing anything at all.
My point is, if we’re looking around for billionaires to hate because they’re hoarding money and not helping why are we so fixated on the one who actually is contributing most of his money to these causes?
deleted by creator