You're viewing a single thread.
Bill Gates really doesn't belong on this. He donates a ridiculous amount of money to several different charities every year without even using them as tax right offs.
Yes being a billionaire is in itself deplorable but he's one of the best we have in terms of giving back to society.
Lmfao, this one man is hoarding enough money to solve world hunger 10 times over, and enough influence to change the entire way the world is run, but what he wants (and I know this because of his actions) is to never drop out of the top 5 richest people on the planet list.
And he has you not only convinced that he gives a shit about anyone but himself, but so much so that you are willing to publicly lick his boot.
Good to see the PR is serving its purpose I guess..
You're right, but 100 billion is definitely not enough to solve world hunger. It an enormous systematic problem and can't be solved by just throwing pocket change at it.
Now, influence maybe, that's hard to quantify.Actually, you could solve world hunger for free, by destroying the system that creates it, and fairly distributing the food already being produced
But even if you look at actually tackling it within capitalism, I was basing my estimation on when the UN told Musk it would take 6 billion.
That link confirms that that figure is out of date, but yours is still off Current estimates suggest that as of this year, we need donor governments to invest around $37 billion every year until 2030 to tackle both extreme and chronic hungerThat really is pocket change if they split it between them, even just the top 5 or even ten richest, let alone all of them.
They choose not toThank you for this. So sick of pretending our problems are unsolvable when we have both the resources and the knowledge to solve them. "It's just too big/complex to tackle!" is capitalist propaganda.
I believe in most estimates that 100 billion would get us 33% to solving world hunger. Definitely not enough, but also not a drop in the bucket
-
He made that money by stealing the surplus value of other people's labor, which probably would've done much more good in the hands of the workers instead of being hoarded, as much of it is now.
-
His business practices harmed consumers.
-
His meddling in education has caused much harm.
-
He met with Epstein many times, and probably committed statutory rape.
-
Were he not evil, he never would have become a billionaire in the first place.
Extend, Embrace, Extinguish
he is literally one of the most deplorable people known to man and is the literal definition of a capitalist. Whitewashing, propaganda, proprietisation, he does all and everything detrimental to society
looks like someone fell for the propaganda. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GOOD BILLIONAIRE. which charity does he mainly donate to again? oh yeah, the one which his family controls. he has painted himself as a genuinely good person. idc how much he pledges to donate when he dies, if he still has the money now, he is evil.
The dude single handily fucked the American education system by mainstreaming voucher schools. His "gifts to education" was a poison pill and that really does sum up the entirety of billionaire philanthropy.
If being a billionaire is inherently deplorable, why are you defending one?
Because out of all billionaires in today's world he gives more back to society than almost any of them.
Yeah he gives so much back, like the time he was lobbying against lifting the patent on covid vaccines at the height of the pandemic so developing countries can afford them because he invested in vaccine companies.
How does that boot taste tho?
https://www.google.com/search?q=bill+gates+charity+harm
There are endless articles about all the ways in which that is bad.
imagine a society not dependent on individual charity (with wealth expropriated from the working class) for improving material wellbeing.
does a 'nice' king justify monarchy?
Does it justify it? Not at all.
Does it make it slightly less bad? Yes.
slightly less bad
What is even the point of making that point though? Do we give him a cookie for being a "nice" exploiter?
