Support NeoGAF

[Papa]

Subjective, arguably incorrect. I guess that's where we differ, I think we need more current day Bill Gates than we do old school "kill your rivals for share prices" Bill. Same goes for Bezos, dude has killed enormous swaths of SMEs through ruthless loss leading, he even sued the USA government because AWS lost a military contract to Azure in presales. This version of Bezos is not the type of world leaders we need, same goes for old school Bill.

I do not want corporate executives crossing the streams with morality. It's not their place in this world, particularly when they have been corrupted by the equalising mind poison that is feminism.

 

[Tesseract]

i'd have to see how those orgs rate on navigator, giving is fine if the money isn't swindled

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

I do not want corporate executives crossing the streams with morality. It's not their place in this world, particularly when they have been corrupted by the equalising mind poison that is feminism.

I'll take a moral corporate executive any day of the week over a pure profit driven one. Morality is exactly what capitalism is in dire need of. Ethics would be another crumbling cornerstone.

 

[Tesseract]

I do not want corporate executives crossing the streams with morality. It's not their place in this world, particularly when they have been corrupted by the equalising mind poison that is feminism.

too late, don't think the square law allows for anything else

the psychos that are good for business usually ain't the psychos good for charity, not that one personality cannot translate to another

 

[Papa]

I'll take a moral corporate executive any day of the week over a pure profit driven one. Morality is exactly what capitalism is in dire need of. Ethics would be another crumbling cornerstone.

You will not get the desired results if you superimpose capitalist principles onto morality. The elites need to enjoy the comfort of their ivory towers and stop imposing their will onto the unwashed masses. A pipe dream on my part, however.

 

[mango drank]

Well to be clear, I don't think this is in any way a great solution. The idea of just giving people money that they haven't earned presents a shit ton of problems.

But I think the ultra rich have a problem that some of them have recognized more than others. Money is essentially meaningless to them now because they literally can't stop making crazy amounts of it every day. They're making money in an hour that could support entire lineages.

So eventually they have to focus on societal stability, and when you have a ton of people who cant afford to live, it kinda makes sense to just give them enough money to live.

Ah, so more of a welfare-type of basic income, not a true universal basic income (UBI) for everyone on Earth.

Forgot to mention earlier (and I'm going off on a tangent here): a big difference between utopian far-future post-scarcity UBI and near-future "tax-the-rich" UBI is that post-scarcity UBI assumes human labor has been largely obviated by AI automation, meaning the vast majority of humans don't need to work, and there's not that much work available anyway. Most "jobs" for humans would be voluntary, for fun or personal development or just having something to do besides jacking off all day. This is basically Star Trek society. Most things anyone would need are readily available through replicators, AI does most of the menial work that keeps the world running, most doctors and surgeons and other white-collars have been replaced by AI, etc.

Meanwhile, in the current-day "tax-the-rich" version of UBI, the world is obviously only partially automated, and humans are still needed for most jobs that keep society running. So what happens when large swaths of the population decide to live on UBI alone, and quit those jobs? Suddenly, getting an oil change costs $400, and has to be booked a month in advance, because there are only 1/5th the previous number of greasemonkeys working out there. Maybe that's a naive view; I haven't thought much about this or read anything on it.

 

[Super Mario]

Funny you'd mention Melinda Gates. Read up on Bill and you'll see how much he credits her in his life, also how accomplished she is as well.

Take your own argument, Bill would not have started the Gates Foundation without Melinda throughout his life. This would equate to "The Pledge" for half giving away your obscene wealth not being a thing and influencing so many other 1%-ers. Think about what you just posted with that very example.

What would the alternate be? These billionaires tell the media that their wives did nothing, and they did everything? Or not let their wives have a single idea? Without their husbands, they are nothing special. With different wives, the billionaires are still the same. How noble of them to give away their husband's money.

 

[AJUMP23]

I actually find it pretty cool that she is giving the fortune away. I think it must have been devastating for her to have been there when they were nothing to when they became something to find her husband cheating with people. I hope she gets a lot of fulfillment from it. Giving to food banks and YMCAs to help communities is admirable.


IT will also be impossible to ever know if people genuinely like you for who you are or are they just with you for what you have. I would love to be extremely wealthy, but the loss of being able to trust people sucks.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

according to this she made ~$23 billion this year while literally everyone else suffers so yeah not really impressive imo.

she could have given anonymously, but decided to make this big PR push for herself as this empathetic person, right at Christmas time. fucking calculated!

She still gave away $4 BILLION dollars to charity. I'm not sure the right response is, "fuck her, she could have given more."

 

[Sub_Level]

IT will also be impossible to ever know if people genuinely like you for who you are or are they just with you for what you have. I would love to be extremely wealthy, but the loss of being able to trust people sucks.

Never been a billionaire myself, but you can prolly remove that uncertainty early on in a relationship by just having direct frank communication about that. Money will never not be a factor for your partnership whether you're a $30k teacher or a $300k executive.

 

[AJUMP23]

Never been a billionaire myself, but you can prolly remove that uncertainty early on in a relationship by just having direct frank communication about that. Money will never not be a factor for your partnership whether you're a $30k teacher or a $300k executive.

I would just assume you have the friends from before the money to the friends after the money. Money changes things, but they all don't have to be bad changes.

 

[MiyazakiHatesKojima]

Money you earn yourself feeds you for a lifetime. Money someone else gives you feeds you for a day and disincentivises earning your own.

OK Ayn Rand

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Has Mackenzie Scott ever been linked to Amazon in any way? If not, she has little to no influence on the business unless she actually did a lot and kept it secret. Jeff Bezos isn't the one to hide secrets either.

By the sounds of it, she probably did hardly anything.

That's like a guy mowing the lawn, and the wife gets credit because they live under the same roof.

 

[Furlong]

Considering she was there prior to Amazon starting I'd say she had plenty to do with the formative years, what about who raised the family of four they have? How about running the household or mental health support and all those intangibles behind the scenes like business chats at home etc.

That's what women have evolved to do though, it's no great accomplishment for them.

 

[eot]

Of course she did. It not she did anything to earn it

What actually counts as earning that much money in your book? How much effort do you need to have put in?
No one who has billions has put in a commensurate amount of work, because it's not possible in a human lifetime.

 

[EverydayBeast]

It's nice but it doesn't do anything for her.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

What would the alternate be? These billionaires tell the media that their wives did nothing, and they did everything? Or not let their wives have a single idea? Without their husbands, they are nothing special. With different wives, the billionaires are still the same. How noble of them to give away their husband's money.

I don't agree. MacKenzie graudated Princeton and Melinda graduated with BA/MBA from Duke. These women are seriously accomplished well before they were married. Your argument is flawed, just because those blokes would likely go on to be successful still does not equate to those ladies not being special themselves. Case in point, where did you graduate? Do you have an MBA or a prize winning novel? You get the point. You don't need to write one off for the other to have success, you're conflating one argument with another.

 

[Yoboman]

Rich people giving money to charity are 99% just tax loopholes

 

[Sub_Level]

Rich people giving money to charity are 99% just tax loopholes

Charitable contribution deductions aren't a "loophole", they're an explicit component of the tax code meant to incentivize more giving. And they are quite slow at actually lowering taxable income, subject to various limitations (cough adjusted gross income cough) which prompts them to be carried over across years and years of returns. The goal of evading tax is to maintain cash flow; donating cash to public charities is counterintuitive to that.

 

[Tesseract]

some of them yes, others are loops to swindle cash

c'mon man

 

[Super Mario]

I don't agree. MacKenzie graudated Princeton and Melinda graduated with BA/MBA from Duke. These women are seriously accomplished well before they were married. Your argument is flawed, just because those blokes would likely go on to be successful still does not equate to those ladies not being special themselves. Case in point, where did you graduate? Do you have an MBA or a prize winning novel? You get the point. You don't need to write one off for the other to have success, you're conflating one argument with another.

I never said they were worthless. I said neither of them have earned the top spots in the world. I am not even sure what you are trying to debate at this point. Lots of people graduate with those exact credentials, and don't marry into the some of the greatest wealths the world has ever known.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

I never said they were worthless. I said neither of them have earned the top spots in the world. I am not even sure what you are trying to debate at this point. Lots of people graduate with those exact credentials, and don't marry into the some of the greatest wealths the world has ever known.

It's this line I took issue with mate.

Without their husbands, they are nothing special.

Anyhow I get neither of us want to beat a dead horse. We each made our points.

 

[IntentionalPun]

some of them yes, others are loops to swindle cash

c'mon man

There are no tax loopholes for "donating to charity."

There is no magic that makes actually giving away $1 billion in wealth somehow save you more than $1 billion in taxes.

There are ways of giving to charities, or setting up charities, that are more tax savvy than others.. but it's impossible to end up with anything but a net loss.

 

[Tesseract]

you poor bastards

 

[Stiflers Mom]

"MacKenzie" ist such a weird name for a woman.

 

[008]

They spent 26 years together and raising 4 kids.

Yeah, what they agreed upon after divorce? Who cares how she spends it. It's her dough.

 

[Ballthyrm]

US Divorce laws are weird.
Also, good for her.

Best thing money can do is circulate in the economy.

I have yet to find any billionaire investing massively in the future though, always goes to a charity of some sort.
Thing like what Bill&Melinda Gates are doing should be the default charity, invest a lot in a ton of things to avoid having to save people in the future.
Too many charities are present focused.

Things like, setting up acces to internet in Africa or things that accelerate progress.
Best thing you can do is help people help themselves.