5 ms·
Agreed in general that you don't need to be a millionaire to do good. But his words "The more he makes, the more good he can do" still makes sense. He is using
by codegeek 13y ago
Agreed in general that you don't need to be a millionaire to do good. But his words "The more he makes, the more good he can do" still makes sense. He is using the word "more" and talking purely in terms of financial ability. In order to do good, money comes second because you have to be *willing" first. But once money comes in the picture, it makes it a hell of a lot easier for someone who makes $100K compared to someone who makes $50K.
- grimtrigger 13y agoThe article could have been titled "Get Rich, Save the World" since it really has nothing to do with Wall Street. Which, when you look at Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, is pretty hard to disagree with. Unfortunately, I think most people in this thread are unwilling to pass up an opportunity to bash Wall Street. Which is a shame, because they are rallying against a viable form of altruism.
- ca98am79 13y agoI disagree. For example, Gandhi and Mother Teresa had no money and did orders of magnitude of more good than many others with money. They did more than many others who had money and good intentions.
- wbl 13y agoTo the extent Gandhi was responsible for the poor economic performance of post-independence India, as well as the Partition, he is responsible for millions of deaths.
- kamakazizuru 13y agothats a very broad statement..based on...nothing?
- glomph 13y agoMother Teresa is an extremely controversial figure to choose for 'magnitude more good'.