21–30 of 33 posts
Anand Giridharidas's book, "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World" is an excellent commentary on this state of affairs. He particularly takes on the act of massive charities (Gates, Buffet etc) because the acts by which a few individuals make a lot of money are precisely the ones that have screwed up society so bad. We should not look at philanthropists so kindly.
Anand Giridharidas's book, "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World" is an excellent commentary on this state of affairs. He particularly takes on the act of massive charities (Gates, Buffet etc) because the acts by which a few individuals make a lot of money are precisely the ones that have screwed up society so bad. We should not look at philanthropists so kindly.
Did anyone briefly accidentally misread Sam Altman as SBF?
My mind went to envisioning SBF passing out little envelopes with IOUs in them to his fellow prisoners.
Breaking news! Compulsive liar attempts to repair public persona by making sweeping promise. 21st century carpet bagger.
He could just not take the money in the first place, then he wouldn't be burdened with giving it away. The fact that he wants to get it in the first place belies his real intentions.
"I can spend it better," is how I've heard this said by a major donor.
Unfortuneately, I don't think he's entirely incorrect =|
Anand Giridharidas's book, "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World" is an excellent commentary on this state of affairs. He particularly takes on the act of massive charities (Gates, Buffet etc) because the acts by which a few individuals make a lot of money are precisely the ones that have screwed up society so bad. We should not look at philanthropists so kindly.
Can we stop allowing the richest billionaires in societies decide who is and isn't deserving of philanthropic funds? Fair taxation and properly funded services paid for by directly elected governments, please.
> "While there is no enforcement in place to ensure pledge members follow through on their promise, the Giving Pledge educates them on ways they can make their donation, which is seen as “public, moral commitment." How hard is it for the ultra-rich to simply cut a check every year to a charitable organization they didn't invent as a tax vehicle, at a time of incredible suffering globally through conflict or natural d…
Because alleviating suffering is not the goal. Reputation laundering, giving friends and family cushy sinecures, optimizing tax liability, and placating the masses and governments are the goals.
Anand Giridharidas's book, "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World" is an excellent commentary on this state of affairs. He particularly takes on the act of massive charities (Gates, Buffet etc) because the acts by which a few individuals make a lot of money are precisely the ones that have screwed up society so bad. We should not look at philanthropists so kindly.
That sounds very "leftist" in circular-logic where more money means you are axiomatically automatically the most guilty regardless of level of harm caused. Which means that if you were to become the first trillionare by curing 95% of all forms of cancer then you are clearly history's greatest monster.
Breaking news! Compulsive liar attempts to repair public persona by making sweeping promise. 21st century carpet bagger.
He could just not take the money in the first place, then he wouldn't be burdened with giving it away. The fact that he wants to get it in the first place belies his real intentions.