4 ms·
Allowing any one group of people to amass so much wealth and influence seems anti-democratic.
by rednerrus 8y ago
Allowing any one group of people to amass so much wealth and influence seems anti-democratic.
- penagwin 8y agoThey aren't exactly handing it out to "spread the wealth", at least not in the sense you're talking about. They'll still ensure they are ammassing money don't worry.
- ahoy 8y agoThis is what drives me up the wall whenever Bill Gates comes up. His net worth is double what it was a decade ago. He's not doing philanthropy, he's doing investing.
- batmenace 8y agoI mean... The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. If Bill Gates gives away 49% of the money his investments make a year (hypothetically), he makes money, and he gives money away. If he funds the Series A of a biotech company to help it continue its research and the company then gains value, it's not just investing, it's also philanthropy.
- tathougies 8y agoAnyone who has invested broadly in the stock market should have more than doubled their wealth from a decade ago
- nearbuy 8y agoHe has also pledged to give 95% of his wealth to charity, so most of that net worth increase should end up going to charity eventually.
- JetSpiegel 8y agoAfter he is dead? Does it mean it is moral to kill him ASAP?