>Haven't they both pledged to donate 99% in their lifetimes? Didn't gates massively increase his wealth in the period in which he said he'd give away half of i

>Haven't they both pledged to donate 99% in their lifetimes? Didn't gates massively increase his wealth in the period in which he said he'd give away half of it? >Plus you could argue the companies themselves (where at least Musk's wealth is mostly locked up) are helpful. At least Tesla. But would they exist without him? He's certainly been good at marketing himself and by extension his companies. On the other hand he also just bought the rights to the title founder at tesla so the actual original founders can't call themselves that which many people don't seem to realize. Meanwhile they kept hostage battery tech advantage via Panasonic. And then there's spacex and Solar city which happily survived on tax payer funds whilst the later maybe didn't help green energy adoption as much as a competitor might have in it's stead as they basically did Chinese solar panel resale which were going at dumping prices and the EU was blocking for that rezason....And i think they also had/have some fun gov bribery accusations against em which reflects badly on the billions in taxpayer subsidies they managed to waste. Meanwhile whilst an increase in NASA's budget wasn't politically feasible it's been a notoriously monetarily efficient institution.