3 ms·
> 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 live
by lionhearted 16y ago
> 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.
- Tyrannosaurs 16y agoI'm not talking about suffering, I'm talking about not even slightly restraining the most astronomical privilege. The man is worth $13bn. He could give away 99% of his wealth and still live out his days in a level of luxury which will never be experienced by 99% of Western world's population, let alone the world's.
- c1sc0 16y agoAnd what is wrong with that?
- mrtron 16y agoGiven our economical system - it is a certainty that certain individuals will be so wealthy they can afford anything. The inevitable is hardly wrong!
- Tyrannosaurs 16y agoIt's only inevitable if you assume that our economic system is right and immutable. Personally when it creates gaps as big as it does between rich and poor I dispute that's the case. Don't get me wrong, we need to encourage risk takers and wealth creators but how many sports teams or super yachts does one man really need as just reward for his efforts? Particularly in the case of Paul Allen when many will dispute that the actions of the company who made his wealth were in the best interests of the industry.