> Becoming rich and then helping millions of people with your means is more impactful than being poor and helping dozens. Is it though? E.g. Bill Gates got ins

> Becoming rich and then helping millions of people with your means is more impactful than being poor and helping dozens. Is it though? E.g. Bill Gates got insanely rich because his company engaged in anti-competitive behavior, thus causing lots of harm. You can easily make a point that often the damage that is caused to others if larger than the gain for the individual, so even if they spent 100% of their wealth, they couldn't make up for the damage they have caused. In that case, maybe it's better to look at medicine and the Hippocratic Oath: first, do no harm. When a hedge fund analyst meddles with food supply in Ethiopia and makes a killing while a few thousand starve, but then builds a school to educate a hundred kids in Ethiopia... how much good has he done?