3 ms·

They acquired far more resources than they could ever need, while others around them lacked even the most basic resources necessary to life. This is a systemic

They acquired far more resources than they could ever need, while others around them lacked even the most basic resources necessary to life. This is a systemic failure to be sure, but a failure nonetheless. The end result is these people ending up with massive surpluses of resources and power that others desperately need, simply because they have accumulated a larger amount of "money" from the luck of their circumstances. In the old days, these failures were mediated by debt jubilees, potlatches and such. More recently, we've moved on to wealth taxes, although these are a poor shadow of what we had before to ensure a minimum level of equality in a society.

Joeboy 4y ago
So, why are so many people against them giving away that money in pursuit of a fairer world? Is it just frustrating to see the rich (aka evil) give away money consensually rather than it being taken by force? I totally get it if the donations aren't actually doing anything good, but most EA donations go to global health initiatives that save lives, in quite large numbers (I think SBFs did not, however). Edit: I would also get it if donations were being used as an anti-tax argument, but I don't see that being the case? I've never seen any billionaire say their donations should make them exempt from taxes. I believe eg. Gates and Buffet both favour higher taxes for the rich (publicly, at least). Sure there are anti-tax billionaires, and billionaires who make large charitable donations, but I'd guess the correlation between the two things was actually negative.
- kstenerud 4y ago
  It's not a problem of giving away to charity; It's a problem of people reaching this level of wealth in the first place. In the early days, people who became too wealthy were killed by the rest of the villagers. Potlatches were a natural response to this because equalizing society reduced the resentment and also raised the prestige of the givers. Charity giving is the modern equivalent of this, but in a severely watered down form (they still get to spend their entire lives in unfathomable wealth). With 2 million USD in personal wealth, you can dump it into safe, passive investment vehicles and life comfortably off the proceeds for the rest of your life in a first world country. Tens of millions or more is simply avarice, and needs to be discouraged in order to mitigate the steady slide into extreme inequality that comes as a natural consequence of unequal luck or opportunity over time.
  - Joeboy 4y ago
    So many people seem to leap into this "billionaires are bad" rhetoric when EA is mentioned. I mean, fine, but it's not really an answer to what I said. I think it's maybe an example of the "Gordian Knot" mentioned upthread. I'm not asking whether billionaires are bad or not, I'm asking why so many people would prefer that billionaires keep their money, rather than the money being used to save lives. Can you make the case for me that eg. 250k preventable deaths is a better outcome than accepting a billion dollar donation from a very rich person?
    - kstenerud 4y ago
      IMO, people would prefer that billionaires keep their money because they also buy into the idea of making it big themselves one day, someday. If you get rid of the billionaires, that prize no longer exists for people to wish for. Then there's the "what's mine is mine" argument, that whatever was acquired legally is by rights yours and nobody can say otherwise. In America, this philosophy is very prevalent. > Can you make the case for me that eg. 250k preventable deaths is a better outcome than letting somebody donate a billion dollars? I don't understand... why is this a dichotomy? I must have missed something in the conversation somewhere?
      - Joeboy 4y ago
        > I don't understand... why is this a dichotomy? Those are the options for EA-type organizations, aren't they? You accept the money and use it to further your EA goals, or you refuse to accept the money and accept that you're passing up the opportunity to help a lot of people. It's admittedly blurred because a proportion of EA donation goes towards "growing the movement" or controversial "long-termist" causes (as with most or all of SBF's donations aiui), but most (I think 68% last time I looked) goes towards effective global health initiatives. So sure, I get that by refusing to accept the billionaire money you'd send some sort of anticapitalist message. You could tweet about it and probably get a lot of likes. I see why people would like that part, in isolation. But, is that really worth hundreds of thousands of lives? I find it really odd (and frankly horrifying) that anybody would even have to think about that question for longer than a millisecond. 250k is admittedly on the high side of how many lives you could save for $1bn. It's in the ballpark though.

Joeboy 4y ago

So, why are so many people against them giving away that money in pursuit of a fairer world? Is it just frustrating to see the rich (aka evil) give away money consensually rather than it being taken by force? I totally get it if the donations aren't actually doing anything good, but most EA donations go to global health initiatives that save lives, in quite large numbers (I think SBFs did not, however). Edit: I would also get it if donations were being used as an anti-tax argument, but I don't see that being the case? I've never seen any billionaire say their donations should make them exempt from taxes. I believe eg. Gates and Buffet both favour higher taxes for the rich (publicly, at least). Sure there are anti-tax billionaires, and billionaires who make large charitable donations, but I'd guess the correlation between the two things was actually negative.

kstenerud 4y ago
It's not a problem of giving away to charity; It's a problem of people reaching this level of wealth in the first place. In the early days, people who became too wealthy were killed by the rest of the villagers. Potlatches were a natural response to this because equalizing society reduced the resentment and also raised the prestige of the givers. Charity giving is the modern equivalent of this, but in a severely watered down form (they still get to spend their entire lives in unfathomable wealth). With 2 million USD in personal wealth, you can dump it into safe, passive investment vehicles and life comfortably off the proceeds for the rest of your life in a first world country. Tens of millions or more is simply avarice, and needs to be discouraged in order to mitigate the steady slide into extreme inequality that comes as a natural consequence of unequal luck or opportunity over time.
- Joeboy 4y ago
  So many people seem to leap into this "billionaires are bad" rhetoric when EA is mentioned. I mean, fine, but it's not really an answer to what I said. I think it's maybe an example of the "Gordian Knot" mentioned upthread. I'm not asking whether billionaires are bad or not, I'm asking why so many people would prefer that billionaires keep their money, rather than the money being used to save lives. Can you make the case for me that eg. 250k preventable deaths is a better outcome than accepting a billion dollar donation from a very rich person?
  - kstenerud 4y ago
    IMO, people would prefer that billionaires keep their money because they also buy into the idea of making it big themselves one day, someday. If you get rid of the billionaires, that prize no longer exists for people to wish for. Then there's the "what's mine is mine" argument, that whatever was acquired legally is by rights yours and nobody can say otherwise. In America, this philosophy is very prevalent. > Can you make the case for me that eg. 250k preventable deaths is a better outcome than letting somebody donate a billion dollars? I don't understand... why is this a dichotomy? I must have missed something in the conversation somewhere?
    - Joeboy 4y ago
      > I don't understand... why is this a dichotomy? Those are the options for EA-type organizations, aren't they? You accept the money and use it to further your EA goals, or you refuse to accept the money and accept that you're passing up the opportunity to help a lot of people. It's admittedly blurred because a proportion of EA donation goes towards "growing the movement" or controversial "long-termist" causes (as with most or all of SBF's donations aiui), but most (I think 68% last time I looked) goes towards effective global health initiatives. So sure, I get that by refusing to accept the billionaire money you'd send some sort of anticapitalist message. You could tweet about it and probably get a lot of likes. I see why people would like that part, in isolation. But, is that really worth hundreds of thousands of lives? I find it really odd (and frankly horrifying) that anybody would even have to think about that question for longer than a millisecond. 250k is admittedly on the high side of how many lives you could save for $1bn. It's in the ballpark though.