this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2025
104 points (95.6% liked)
United States | News & Politics
4087 readers
243 users here now
Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
No pics of text
Memes are now allowed, as long as they're US centric, general political memes please see !politicalmemes@lemmy.ca
Post news related to the United States.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Everything "good" he has ever done was an investment against pitchforks that he knows he deserves.
When he doesn't have to fear pitchforks, it stops being a good investment for the commoners to think he's on our side.
If a billionaire cared about humanity, they'd give over the vast amount of their wealth immediately.
Doesn't mean refuse what they give away freely, just means never settle for just that, and never trust it'll be there next time.
To who? I don't think your average starving child has much use for the sort of assets Bill Gates is sporting. He and other billionaires should be taxed to the ground, but failing that using the monetary returns from one's wealth to make the world is the strat here.
To potential international organizations that would spearhead development of impoverished or struggling countries - enabling agriculture and building infrastructure for clean water, cutting edge sanitation, sustainable energy production, and other essential ingredients for society. It'd have to be be no strings attached, personalized, cooperative, and consent-based. The idea would be to support these countries in their sovereignty, to create jobs, and to spark collective purpose and global community.
It'd be a fucking start instead of just applying bandages over the problems, acting like we are so fucking generous, while raping these countries with our imperialist and colonialist practices at every turn.
But here's the thing: The only thing those organizations (which kinda do exist) would need is the monetary returns on wealth; they have no use for factories or Microsoft shares. Therefore, if you were a billionaire trying to do the maximum possible good with your wealth (most of which is tied up in assets), you'd want to give these organizations the cold hard cash you get from your actual wealth while either keeping or gradually selling off said wealth. It's the same principle as an autocratic regime: Autocratic regimes shouldn't exist, but if you somehow find yourself in a position of power in one the right thing to do would be to use your power for good, not immediately resign.
I'll just say that I believe that billionaires could be enabling the creation of a better society and world order in any number of more meaningful ways - without resigning or blowing significant chunks of their wealth.
Absolutely. I'm not defending any billionaire or group of billionaires here, only pushing back against the idea that "if a billionaire cared about humanity, they'd give over the vast amount of their wealth immediately."
You'd rather give that money to the current US federal government than starving kids?