> doesn’t seem to further the goals of materially improving the world.
why should that be a goal of his? I mean, unless you expect that just because he's rich, that he's obliged, how his enormous amount of money is spent is not something anyone else can critisize.
> He has demonstrated his frugal lifestyle, has publicly given away an incredible amount of money to good causes, and has stated his future goals for his businesses will be for charity.
Pretty much all of this is typical “rich philanthropist” stuff, just dialled down to appeal to a demographic cohort of 20-35 year olds.
It’s incredibly easy to be altruistic when literally every financial and social incentive says you should. I think people are uncomfortable with this because he hasn’t sacrificed anything. His financial incentives just line up with “doing good things”. When they no longer align it still remains to be seen whether he will act the same.
> It's a hugely privileged position to be in, and the idea that it comes with exactly zero responsibility to Rest of World is nonsensical.
and tell me if you also spend a portion of your income on donations to under-developed countries. Because that's what you're asking the billionaires to do - altruistic giving.
I m of the position that if they legitimately made their money (i.e., nothing illegal), they are entitled to spend it however they see fit. It's _good_ if they spend it on altruism - but it's not an entitlement that i expect of them.
> On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence on the diminishing marginal utility of wealth.
For the average person, but who are you to decide? He clearly already spends his money productively by largely self-funding ambitious projects, and I suspect that he would be pursuing even more if he had infinite resources.
>The problem is that it's one man's perspective vs. a whole world of reality
This was the point I was trying to make. I agree I don't think in this case he's trying to serve his own personal benefit. However, given he used his money to to implement a program he wanted, it just demonstrates the opportunity exists to use your wealth to push programs that are to your own benefit.
Maybe you're familiar with the social contract? The guy has made billions in the business world, he doesn't deserve to be lauded for donating a small fraction of the wealth he'll never need to survive.
It's the equivalent of a grocery store clerk donating $10 to the salvation army. I don't see news articles written about them. Hell, the poor consistently donate a greater portion of their wealth than the rich.
> That is no excuse. I am extremely disappointed. You need to figure out where your priorities are. We're changing the world and changing history, and you either commit or you don’t.
> A lot of rich people have decided the best thing for them to do is get as much money as they can and leave it to a worthy cause after they die.
Yeah I don't know about that. The majority of rich people decide what they want to do is make as much money as possible and distribute it to family members. It's there money so obviously they have the right to do just that.
I have a lot of respect for Bill Gates in that he has chosen to be as effective with his money as possible in positively impacting the world. I believe he has committed to giving away 99% (or 99.9%?) of his money to noble causes before he passes. As well as inspiring others to make similar pledges.
> He HAS to be doing it on purpose, no-one is this retarded, especially when he just paid 44 BILLION for it.
The idea that having lots of money on the line prevents bad decision making, when in fact it can just as easily be evidence of bad decision making, is silly.
>Because I don’t think it should be up to an unelected individual what to do with this kind of money.
Take that to its logical conclusion: where is the line? Are you not allowed to donate $50 to a charity of your choosing because The Government knows better? There's plenty of reasons to hate billionaires but this one doesn't seem sound.
> Diminishing returns don't apply for SBF - his life's goal is to fund effective altruist charities, so each billion is as valuable as the last as long as there are good projects to fund.
Let's be honest: we don't know what his life goals are. He said that his goal is to fund charities, but that's a pretty common thing for wealthy people in the U.S. to say because saying so gives you a lot of social status at no cost. Very few people actually proceed with any plans of significant charitable donations.
> He is and will remain obscenely rich and this will make absolutely no difference to him in terms of how he lives his life.
It will make a difference in lives of millions of others - absolute good is better than relative good.
> ... day to day impact on what he can and can't do, it's probably less significant than someone on this board giving away $10,000.
It's much better for the world for billions to go into productive endeavors than $10,000. You shouldn't award extra points for suffering. In fact, I award extra points for a person being able to do massive good without hurting themselves.
why should that be a goal of his? I mean, unless you expect that just because he's rich, that he's obliged, how his enormous amount of money is spent is not something anyone else can critisize.
reply