▲ 810 ▼ Ruleionaire (i.imgur.com) submitted 2 years ago by UsedChicken@lemm.ee to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone 82 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 32 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (8 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 59 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Lmfao, this one man is hoarding enough money to solve world hunger 10 times over, and enough influence to change the entire way the world is run, but what he wants (and I know this because of his actions) is to never drop out of the top 5 richest people on the planet list. And he has you not only convinced that he gives a shit about anyone but himself, but so much so that you are willing to publicly lick his boot. Good to see the PR is serving its purpose I guess.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 2 years ago (2 children) You're right, but 100 billion is definitely not enough to solve world hunger. It an enormous systematic problem and can't be solved by just throwing pocket change at it. Now, influence maybe, that's hard to quantify. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Actually, you could solve world hunger for free, by destroying the system that creates it, and fairly distributing the food already being produced But even if you look at actually tackling it within capitalism, I was basing my estimation on when the UN told Musk it would take 6 billion. That link confirms that that figure is out of date, but yours is still off Current estimates suggest that as of this year, we need donor governments to invest around $37 billion every year until 2030 to tackle both extreme and chronic hunger That really is pocket change if they split it between them, even just the top 5 or even ten richest, let alone all of them. They choose not to permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] redempt@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Thank you for this. So sick of pretending our problems are unsolvable when we have both the resources and the knowledge to solve them. "It's just too big/complex to tackle!" is capitalist propaganda. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dvdv@feddit.nl 4 points 2 years ago I believe in most estimates that 100 billion would get us 33% to solving world hunger. Definitely not enough, but also not a drop in the bucket permalink fedilink source parent [–] 31337@sh.itjust.works 26 points 2 years ago He made that money by stealing the surplus value of other people's labor, which probably would've done much more good in the hands of the workers instead of being hoarded, as much of it is now. His business practices harmed consumers. His meddling in education has caused much harm. He met with Epstein many times, and probably committed statutory rape. permalink fedilink source parent [–] paholg@lemm.ee 24 points 2 years ago Were he not evil, he never would have become a billionaire in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 years ago* Extend, Embrace, Extinguish he is literally one of the most deplorable people known to man and is the literal definition of a capitalist. Whitewashing, propaganda, proprietisation, he does all and everything detrimental to society permalink fedilink source parent [–] darcy@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 years ago looks like someone fell for the propaganda. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GOOD BILLIONAIRE. which charity does he mainly donate to again? oh yeah, the one which his family controls. he has painted himself as a genuinely good person. idc how much he pledges to donate when he dies, if he still has the money now, he is evil. permalink fedilink source parent [–] zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 2 years ago The dude single handily fucked the American education system by mainstreaming voucher schools. His "gifts to education" was a poison pill and that really does sum up the entirety of billionaire philanthropy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Serdan@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) If being a billionaire is inherently deplorable, why are you defending one? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) Because out of all billionaires in today's world he gives more back to society than almost any of them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Saizaku@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 2 years ago Yeah he gives so much back, like the time he was lobbying against lifting the patent on covid vaccines at the height of the pandemic so developing countries can afford them because he invested in vaccine companies. How does that boot taste tho? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Serdan@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago https://www.google.com/search?q=bill+gates+charity+harm There are endless articles about all the ways in which that is bad. permalink fedilink source parent [–] phthalocyanin@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) imagine a society not dependent on individual charity (with wealth expropriated from the working class) for improving material wellbeing. does a 'nice' king justify monarchy? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Does it justify it? Not at all. Does it make it slightly less bad? Yes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago slightly less bad What is even the point of making that point though? Do we give him a cookie for being a "nice" exploiter? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 59 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Lmfao, this one man is hoarding enough money to solve world hunger 10 times over, and enough influence to change the entire way the world is run, but what he wants (and I know this because of his actions) is to never drop out of the top 5 richest people on the planet list. And he has you not only convinced that he gives a shit about anyone but himself, but so much so that you are willing to publicly lick his boot. Good to see the PR is serving its purpose I guess.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 2 years ago (2 children) You're right, but 100 billion is definitely not enough to solve world hunger. It an enormous systematic problem and can't be solved by just throwing pocket change at it. Now, influence maybe, that's hard to quantify. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Actually, you could solve world hunger for free, by destroying the system that creates it, and fairly distributing the food already being produced But even if you look at actually tackling it within capitalism, I was basing my estimation on when the UN told Musk it would take 6 billion. That link confirms that that figure is out of date, but yours is still off Current estimates suggest that as of this year, we need donor governments to invest around $37 billion every year until 2030 to tackle both extreme and chronic hunger That really is pocket change if they split it between them, even just the top 5 or even ten richest, let alone all of them. They choose not to permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] redempt@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Thank you for this. So sick of pretending our problems are unsolvable when we have both the resources and the knowledge to solve them. "It's just too big/complex to tackle!" is capitalist propaganda. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dvdv@feddit.nl 4 points 2 years ago I believe in most estimates that 100 billion would get us 33% to solving world hunger. Definitely not enough, but also not a drop in the bucket permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 2 years ago (2 children) You're right, but 100 billion is definitely not enough to solve world hunger. It an enormous systematic problem and can't be solved by just throwing pocket change at it. Now, influence maybe, that's hard to quantify. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Actually, you could solve world hunger for free, by destroying the system that creates it, and fairly distributing the food already being produced But even if you look at actually tackling it within capitalism, I was basing my estimation on when the UN told Musk it would take 6 billion. That link confirms that that figure is out of date, but yours is still off Current estimates suggest that as of this year, we need donor governments to invest around $37 billion every year until 2030 to tackle both extreme and chronic hunger That really is pocket change if they split it between them, even just the top 5 or even ten richest, let alone all of them. They choose not to permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] redempt@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Thank you for this. So sick of pretending our problems are unsolvable when we have both the resources and the knowledge to solve them. "It's just too big/complex to tackle!" is capitalist propaganda. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dvdv@feddit.nl 4 points 2 years ago I believe in most estimates that 100 billion would get us 33% to solving world hunger. Definitely not enough, but also not a drop in the bucket permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Actually, you could solve world hunger for free, by destroying the system that creates it, and fairly distributing the food already being produced But even if you look at actually tackling it within capitalism, I was basing my estimation on when the UN told Musk it would take 6 billion. That link confirms that that figure is out of date, but yours is still off Current estimates suggest that as of this year, we need donor governments to invest around $37 billion every year until 2030 to tackle both extreme and chronic hunger That really is pocket change if they split it between them, even just the top 5 or even ten richest, let alone all of them. They choose not to permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] redempt@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Thank you for this. So sick of pretending our problems are unsolvable when we have both the resources and the knowledge to solve them. "It's just too big/complex to tackle!" is capitalist propaganda. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] redempt@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Thank you for this. So sick of pretending our problems are unsolvable when we have both the resources and the knowledge to solve them. "It's just too big/complex to tackle!" is capitalist propaganda. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dvdv@feddit.nl 4 points 2 years ago I believe in most estimates that 100 billion would get us 33% to solving world hunger. Definitely not enough, but also not a drop in the bucket permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 31337@sh.itjust.works 26 points 2 years ago He made that money by stealing the surplus value of other people's labor, which probably would've done much more good in the hands of the workers instead of being hoarded, as much of it is now. His business practices harmed consumers. His meddling in education has caused much harm. He met with Epstein many times, and probably committed statutory rape. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] paholg@lemm.ee 24 points 2 years ago Were he not evil, he never would have become a billionaire in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 years ago* Extend, Embrace, Extinguish he is literally one of the most deplorable people known to man and is the literal definition of a capitalist. Whitewashing, propaganda, proprietisation, he does all and everything detrimental to society permalink fedilink source parent
[–] darcy@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 years ago looks like someone fell for the propaganda. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GOOD BILLIONAIRE. which charity does he mainly donate to again? oh yeah, the one which his family controls. he has painted himself as a genuinely good person. idc how much he pledges to donate when he dies, if he still has the money now, he is evil. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 2 years ago The dude single handily fucked the American education system by mainstreaming voucher schools. His "gifts to education" was a poison pill and that really does sum up the entirety of billionaire philanthropy. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Serdan@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) If being a billionaire is inherently deplorable, why are you defending one? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) Because out of all billionaires in today's world he gives more back to society than almost any of them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Saizaku@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 2 years ago Yeah he gives so much back, like the time he was lobbying against lifting the patent on covid vaccines at the height of the pandemic so developing countries can afford them because he invested in vaccine companies. How does that boot taste tho? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Serdan@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago https://www.google.com/search?q=bill+gates+charity+harm There are endless articles about all the ways in which that is bad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) Because out of all billionaires in today's world he gives more back to society than almost any of them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Saizaku@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 2 years ago Yeah he gives so much back, like the time he was lobbying against lifting the patent on covid vaccines at the height of the pandemic so developing countries can afford them because he invested in vaccine companies. How does that boot taste tho? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Serdan@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago https://www.google.com/search?q=bill+gates+charity+harm There are endless articles about all the ways in which that is bad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Saizaku@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 2 years ago Yeah he gives so much back, like the time he was lobbying against lifting the patent on covid vaccines at the height of the pandemic so developing countries can afford them because he invested in vaccine companies. How does that boot taste tho? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Serdan@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago https://www.google.com/search?q=bill+gates+charity+harm There are endless articles about all the ways in which that is bad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] phthalocyanin@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) imagine a society not dependent on individual charity (with wealth expropriated from the working class) for improving material wellbeing. does a 'nice' king justify monarchy? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Does it justify it? Not at all. Does it make it slightly less bad? Yes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago slightly less bad What is even the point of making that point though? Do we give him a cookie for being a "nice" exploiter? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Does it justify it? Not at all. Does it make it slightly less bad? Yes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago slightly less bad What is even the point of making that point though? Do we give him a cookie for being a "nice" exploiter? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago slightly less bad What is even the point of making that point though? Do we give him a cookie for being a "nice" exploiter? permalink fedilink source parent
