4 ms·
> With £10M? I mean, some good, surely. But not really a lot You could outright transfer it to some of the poorest people in the world (via https://www.givedir
by rhaps0dy 3y ago
> With £10M? I mean, some good, surely. But not really a lot
You could outright transfer it to some of the poorest people in the world (via https://www.givedirectly.org/ https://www.givedirectly.org/, you'd add ~5% to their total cash transfer amount). They could then invest it in whatever they need.
- ajross 3y agoSurely the billionaire in question does a ton of charity and philanthropy already, though, right? They all do. Is your point that they don't do enough, or that they shouldn't be allowed to spend 10M of what they don't give on a ridiculous dog house? Those are numerical arguments, so shouldn't you have to come to them with numbers to present? Again, my point is that this is all subjective. You're simply saying that you don't value the ridiculous dog house and that they should spend that on something else, but they probably do spend on the thing you want already, or something very similar. You don't get to tell people how to spend their money for the same reason they don't get to direct your own wasteful spending (which surely exists, right?). That's just standard western liberalism, you don't seriously disagree?