3 ms·

May I add a controversial comment again please? It will be downvoted again, sadly, I'll create a new account after this thread. People who say that Musk should

May I add a controversial comment again please? It will be downvoted again, sadly, I'll create a new account after this thread. People who say that Musk should use all his resources to help society, usually do nothing themselves (I'm not speaking about you personally). It's pure virtue signalling. Elon musk can loose 10% of his money switching from producing Teslas to producing ventilators. But everyone can use their 10% of time to help homeless, care for elders. Or at least donate 10% of their income to coronavirus charities. But somehow people think that Musk has to spend his resoures, but they don't have to. That's not fair.

creddit 7y ago
There's nothing controversial about saying some people demand from others that which they won't give themselves. The point, though, as I made in my response to yours, is that people's duty will vary by their means. Some people won't be able to do anything more in this case to help society than simple sheltering in place, some may just be able to donate a few dollars here and there but some people have the ability, because they own the capital, to make outsized impacts. That said, it is classic whataboutism in this context. That some demand more than they will give doesn't absolve someone of their civic duty in an existential crisis.
int_19h 7y ago
10% of Musk's money is much less of a burden on Musk, marginal utility and all.
- lightgreen 7y ago
  This might be true only for the poorest people who are starving, or for people who only spend money, not make them. When I was younger and did not have savings, I did not care about money at all: I could spend money wherever I wanted, and it did not matter, because I could not spend more than I had. Money were worthless to me. But now I have to save: every extra penny spent is subtracted from my future home. But for Musk money even more valuable: I imagine the risk of loosing business is much more important than having to live in a slightly cheaper home in 20 years.

creddit 7y ago

There's nothing controversial about saying some people demand from others that which they won't give themselves. The point, though, as I made in my response to yours, is that people's duty will vary by their means. Some people won't be able to do anything more in this case to help society than simple sheltering in place, some may just be able to donate a few dollars here and there but some people have the ability, because they own the capital, to make outsized impacts. That said, it is classic whataboutism in this context. That some demand more than they will give doesn't absolve someone of their civic duty in an existential crisis.

int_19h 7y ago

10% of Musk's money is much less of a burden on Musk, marginal utility and all.

lightgreen 7y ago
This might be true only for the poorest people who are starving, or for people who only spend money, not make them. When I was younger and did not have savings, I did not care about money at all: I could spend money wherever I wanted, and it did not matter, because I could not spend more than I had. Money were worthless to me. But now I have to save: every extra penny spent is subtracted from my future home. But for Musk money even more valuable: I imagine the risk of loosing business is much more important than having to live in a slightly cheaper home in 20 years.