The base premise of the article seems to be “rich people are evil because they are evil”. The low point to me was the bit about how, if Gates was for real, he w

The base premise of the article seems to be “rich people are evil because they are evil”. The low point to me was the bit about how, if Gates was for real, he wouldn’t be getting richer anymore. Such articles also fail to explore what things look like without the philanthropy. Even if Gates is somewhat evil, is the net result positive? Could his work be replaced by other organisations? I think both are answered in favour of Gates.