3 ms·

If you want negative opinion, then I am your man. The net value cost of these donations by these philanthropist billionaires should be considered. That is harde

by Klinky 6y ago

If you want negative opinion, then I am your man. The net value cost of these donations by these philanthropist billionaires should be considered. That is harder to calculate but basically what detrimental impact did generating this wealth cause? Does the donation really offset the damage done? For example, the very pro-business Australian government has been blamed for "shrinking government" by severely cutting back on bush management and firefighters leading to the fires getting out of control. These are the people welcoming the Bezos of the world with open arms. It's money from an ethically questionable source helping solve a problem caused by another group of people making ethically questionable decisions. Also billionaires combined donate a pittance compared to public institutions likes NIH or NSF, National Endowments and other grant giving orgs funded by the public. Really we should just tax them more and funnel the money to public grants, and also properly enforce antitrust, labor laws and environmental regulations to limit societal damage wealth extraction causes, instead of hoping and praying billionaires will sprinkle a little moolah where it matters every blue moon.

SpaceRaccoon 6y ago
As you suggest, the exact calculus is difficult, but you also can't ignore the positive effect that many (not all) billionaires have in the process of generating their wealth. Amazon, for example, saves consumers' time, and makes it easier to compare goods and prices, saving consumers' money. Bezos became a billionaire because he provided billions of dollars in value to regular people. That does not absolve Bezos or other billionaires of their sins. But likewise, you cannot exclude it from your calculus.
- Klinky 6y ago
  Positive and negative would be considered in the calculation. Saving time may not be as big an issue if some didn't need to work two jobs or long hours. Saving money may not be as big of an issue if wealth inequality wasn't at record highs and health insurance was universal. The pandemic has highlighted that humans are a commodity and expendable workers are not valued very much, but at least we get those cost savings on ethically-questionable products from overseas, that supports ethically-questionable regimes and increases the net worth of an ethically-questionable billionaire. It's ethically questionable all the way down.

by Klinky 6y ago

SpaceRaccoon 6y ago

As you suggest, the exact calculus is difficult, but you also can't ignore the positive effect that many (not all) billionaires have in the process of generating their wealth. Amazon, for example, saves consumers' time, and makes it easier to compare goods and prices, saving consumers' money. Bezos became a billionaire because he provided billions of dollars in value to regular people. That does not absolve Bezos or other billionaires of their sins. But likewise, you cannot exclude it from your calculus.

Klinky 6y ago
Positive and negative would be considered in the calculation. Saving time may not be as big an issue if some didn't need to work two jobs or long hours. Saving money may not be as big of an issue if wealth inequality wasn't at record highs and health insurance was universal. The pandemic has highlighted that humans are a commodity and expendable workers are not valued very much, but at least we get those cost savings on ethically-questionable products from overseas, that supports ethically-questionable regimes and increases the net worth of an ethically-questionable billionaire. It's ethically questionable all the way down.