Asklemmy

43907 readers

1191 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

119

Does money corrupt, or is money attractive to questionable people? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 month ago by JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

59 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I was gonna include a third option about how money is easier to achieve without considering the morality of your actions but that's not really a philosophy as much as it is an objective fact.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] deadcatbounce@reddthat.com 16 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The weird thing is that people still believe in the trickle-down effect.

Musk is due to become the world's first recognised trillionaire. Putin was probably the first.

Very rich people are not philanthropic in any way that is noticeable.

[–] Floon@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I would say "meaningful". Billionaires can have a very noticeable effect with their philanthropy, while making essentially no sacrifice on their part. The Gates Foundation does very noticeable good, but Bill Gates isn't giving of himself very much.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yup.

OPs point stands, though, because we could still do that without Gates, and for every Gates there's a Musk that does evil and a ton of Arnaults and Bezos's that just spend it on whatever.

[–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

Their harm is hidden and any benefits sung from the roof tops.

[–] SurpriZe@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So what exactly would you propose he should do?

[–] Floon@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

You invite my "billionaires shouldn't exist" TED talk.

[–] SurpriZe@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

So what exactly would you propose he would do?

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Some of the royal families in the Gulf are also thought to be trillionaires.

[–] deadcatbounce@reddthat.com 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

My bad. Can imagine that too.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month ago

I mean, given that it's all speculation that's not really a mistake. I just thought it might be good to mention.