3 ms·

The Moral Ambiguity Surrounding Bill Gates and Other Billionaires

4 points by elsewhen 4y ago

coldtea 4y ago
>It seems hypocritical for a man who proclaims to be a philanthropist working against climate change to make arrangements to benefit financially when the most prolific electric car company on Earth decreases in value. This rightfully, calls into question Gates’ personal values and motivations (a) Who said Bill Gates thinks electric cars (and luxury ones at that) are a significant part of climate change fixing? If he doesn't, then he can short any electric car company and still be compatible with his "anti climate change" ethics. (b) Even if Bill Gates believed so [that electric cars would be a big part of fixing climate change], as a capitalist he wouldn't think that failing electric car companies companies would do that. He would believe that climate would be helped by electric car companies performing well. So to short an electric car company that he believed would perform badly would be fine - if anything it would help separate the wheat from the chaff. (c) Billionaires can claim to be all kinds of things. Don't pay so much attention to what they sau they believe in. When it's not for the money (like BS "charity" and "foundations" created for tax purposes), it's for control (political power). The rest is for those who still believe in benevolent billionaires and the tooth fairy.
EddieDante 4y ago
There's no moral ambiguity here. Billionaires should not exist. We got rid of absolute monarchy for a reason, but oligarchs like Gates, Musk, Thiel, Zuckerberg, Koch, Bezos, etc are the closest thing we have today to absolute monarchs. Nobody elected them, they are accountable to nobody, and they wield entirely too much power over the rest of us. Every billionaire is both a policy failure and a market failure. Neither wealth nor political power should be permitted to accrete into the hands of a few individuals.

3 ms·

The Moral Ambiguity Surrounding Bill Gates and Other Billionaires

4 points by elsewhen 4y ago

coldtea 4y ago
>It seems hypocritical for a man who proclaims to be a philanthropist working against climate change to make arrangements to benefit financially when the most prolific electric car company on Earth decreases in value. This rightfully, calls into question Gates’ personal values and motivations (a) Who said Bill Gates thinks electric cars (and luxury ones at that) are a significant part of climate change fixing? If he doesn't, then he can short any electric car company and still be compatible with his "anti climate change" ethics. (b) Even if Bill Gates believed so [that electric cars would be a big part of fixing climate change], as a capitalist he wouldn't think that failing electric car companies companies would do that. He would believe that climate would be helped by electric car companies performing well. So to short an electric car company that he believed would perform badly would be fine - if anything it would help separate the wheat from the chaff. (c) Billionaires can claim to be all kinds of things. Don't pay so much attention to what they sau they believe in. When it's not for the money (like BS "charity" and "foundations" created for tax purposes), it's for control (political power). The rest is for those who still believe in benevolent billionaires and the tooth fairy.
EddieDante 4y ago
There's no moral ambiguity here. Billionaires should not exist. We got rid of absolute monarchy for a reason, but oligarchs like Gates, Musk, Thiel, Zuckerberg, Koch, Bezos, etc are the closest thing we have today to absolute monarchs. Nobody elected them, they are accountable to nobody, and they wield entirely too much power over the rest of us. Every billionaire is both a policy failure and a market failure. Neither wealth nor political power should be permitted to accrete into the hands of a few individuals.