Given that he gets tax credits, it feels more like he's rich enough to single-handedly decide how to spend a decent chunk of the government's money (not that th

Given that he gets tax credits, it feels more like he's rich enough to single-handedly decide how to spend a decent chunk of the government's money (not that they can spend it effectively, but normally thousands of people work to squander that money). He's so much exponentially richer than everyone else that whatever thing he thinks is worthwhile is effectively free to fund (and lost money otherwise). His net worth is ~50,000,000,000; in 2013 the median net worth of a college graduate across all age groups (Zuckerberg is normally in the lowest age group) is 365,000. Just a cool 136986 times the median. A little over 2^17 times more seems pretty reasonable. And I'd expect it to increase at a greater rate (percentage) than normal person's income. Honestly, I'm not sure he even knows HOW to spend that money, nor does he have time to determine an effective way of doing so. Capitalism has worked well, but it seems to have an odd way of dealing with certain things at an exponential scale. Charitable giving does make all the inequalities and injustices defensible of course as the author has said. At least Bill Gates knows how to effectively target and solve large problems.