5 ms·
Well of course I'm not suggesting we forcibly make them do anything with their money. I am just saying, in terms of societal net benefit, we are probably much b
by jgmmo 15y ago
Well of course I'm not suggesting we forcibly make them do anything with their money. I am just saying, in terms of societal net benefit, we are probably much better off if our most successful investors continue investing in more businesses rather than charities. Not a fan of thought experiments?
- yesbabyyes 15y agoI assure you that there are lots of wealthy people who reinvest their money into more businesses, so I'm not sure of the value of your thought experiment. There seem to be fewer wealthy people giving half their fortune to charity. Not a fan of real-world experiments?
- zfran 15y ago>I am just saying, in terms of societal net benefit, we are probably much better off if our most successful investors continue investing in more businesses rather than charities. Not a fan of thought experiments? Exactly, WE. Thing is, there are millions of people that aren't included in that "we" and the benefits they get (i.e. saving lives) FAR outweights the benefits we'd get.
- tfb 15y agoYou can only build so many businesses within a given period of time; and when the business leaders have more money than is required to do so is when they donate to charity. Donations like the one outlined in this article give me faith in humanity. It's nice to see us looking out for one another. As for me, I strive to build business(es) so I can do the same, whether the most effective way to raise the standard of living for everyone is donating, building, or most likely both.