this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
71 points (90.8% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35727 readers
976 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
ja2@lemmy.world
_MoveSwiftly@lemmy.world
Rooki@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
automodbeta@lemmy.world
L3s@lemmy.world
71
(sh.itjust.works)
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by razoloto999@sh.itjust.works to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
NSFW 31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
all 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] key@lemmy.keychat.org 36 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

No.

The page you link has the foundation's leadership structure. He's a cochair on the board with 8 total people. The board is a degree removed from day to day operations of the foundation. He'd have to convince the board to then convince the executives.

That transaction would then show up in their financial statements, which are audited and publicly posted on that website. Meaning using the foundation's money for something like a private jet would likely become public knowledge within a couple years and would do irreparable harm to the foundation's reputation. Maybe they could hide it but good luck convincing everyone involved it's worth the risk without a shitload of additional corruption.

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 24 points 6 months ago (2 children)

he does not get labeled as such in the news anymore

That's because the philanthropy is working exactly as intended - to white wash his reputation, and make him out to be "the good billionaire".

Moving down from no. 1 to no. 5, at that scale of wealth literally has no impact on him, but rather it's money well spent to take the heat and attention off of him so he can continue exploiting an hoarding in peace.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 41 points 6 months ago (4 children)

I genuinely don't understand why this perspective is so popular.

He spent a boatload of cash vaccinating kids which has undoubtedly saved 10s of millions of lives.

Fuck him right? What an asshole.

Yes he gets a tax deduction for money contributed to the foundation, but it's still a net loss to him.

Yes the foundation probably pays for jets and flights but its audited regularly so it can't be used as a personal slush fund for private purposes.

Yes I'm sure there were some unintended consequences and failed projects, but solving problems and helping people particularly in impoverished nations is hard.

Are other billionaires doing a better job of saving the world ?

[–] whoreticulture@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Because we shouldn't be, and don't need to be, relying on the goodwill of Billionaires to solve social problems. Instead of giving tax breaks for billionaires to pick and choose which issues to fund, we should tax the billionaires out of existence and democratically decide what to do with our money.

Philanthropy rhetoric is used to justify the existence of billionaires. We don't need them.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Philanthropy rhetoric is used to justify the existence of billionaires.

What a silly thing to say.

No one is saying "oh yes well we need billionaires because they donate all their money to worthy causes".

Billionaires shouldn't exist, but if we're getting out the guillotine I don't really understand why Gates should be first in line.

[–] whoreticulture@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

People absolutely say that, "philanthrocapitalism" is a nerdy word for it it, but that basic argument comes up in a lot of contexts ... pay attention.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Only an idiot would make such a claim. Lots of idiots say lots of stupid things. It's still not a reason for the hatred of gates.

[–] whoreticulture@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

🤷🏻‍♂️ Pay attention, look for it and you will see this argument come up a lot. Trickle-down economics is a similar idea, and that was a national talking point for years.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Dude. Pay attention. We're here discussing why everyone hates BG. Your point is "yeah well idiots think we need billionaires to pay for vaccines"? Is that why we should hate the person who is actually spending their fortune on vaccines?

[–] whoreticulture@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

My point is that we can and should criticize any billionaire no matter their philanthropy, noone becomes a billionaire by accident and it is shameful to be one.

I don't want to help spread pro-billionaire sentiment by just being "oh yay Bill Gates" for donating the money he got from intellectual thievery and violating anti-trust laws.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That's not what this thread is about though. Pay attention.

People hate Bill Gates more than other billionaires not engaged in philanthropy. My question is why? What is it about his philanthropy specifically that attracts more hatred than other billionaires?

If you looked at a list of the 10 wealthiest people, I'm sure there are names higher than Gates that most of us wouldn't recognise.

[–] whoreticulture@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This thread is about rich people using philanthropy to seem more palatable.

Your question doesn't even make sense because it's not at all true that Bill Gates gets extra hate, I think people rightly hate on all the Billionaires. I very rarely even hear about Bill Gates, more often it's Elon Musk or Bezos ... or Taylor Swift lately.

[–] caroline@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 months ago

I'll shit on Elon all day, but pretty sure Bill Gates is just a nice dude who retired and just wants to do shit to help out at this point. I watched some documentary where they followed him around for a few weeks and he was just so focused on people not having water and working toilets in Africa. I mean I guess these days anything can be called propaganda, but that guy keeps to himself and helps people.

[–] dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

My issue is that we allow people to amass these massive fortunes to then choose what problems they fix.

Not to dissuade from anything good BG has done, that doesn’t excuse all the terrible things he did to amass this fortune.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 6 months ago

Sure. Microsoft was a scumbag company in the 90s with some pretty aggressive corporate practices, and gates was the beneficiary of that.

I also agree that billionaires just generally shouldn't exist.

That said, I guarantee that 99% of commenters in this thread have pension funds holding investments in infinitely worse scumbag companies.

Also, Gates more or less just stopped. He still has a 1% holding in Microsoft or something, but he's not grinding away burning baby dolphin oil for personal gain.

There's plenty of hatred for terrible corporate practices to go around, but I don't understand why Gates is targeted more than anyone else.

[–] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I mean not to go against the propaganda but shouldn't we allow kids to have vaccines without a boatload of cash?

Just cause you save a million kids doesn't mean you can harm 10 million more, though that could mean a 10x return on investment

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 6 months ago

Well of course kids should have vaccines for free.

Who gives out the free vaccines though? If governments don't then who? If a wealthy person chooses to use their own money to do so, should we hate that person?

Also, I don't really follow your claim around harming 10 million kids? Or return on investment? What harm and what investment? Can you elaborate?

[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I'd very much doubt he can just use it any way he pleases, or for personal use at all for that matter.

I don't know about charity law in the US, but the point of a foundation, I think, is that you lose control of the money, and in return don't have to pay tax on it anymore.

That's not to say that shenanigans aren't possible, or that he doesn't still have a say, but I don't think he could use it the way you're describing.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If one of his companies got fined by a government entity, could he offer to make a charitable donation in lieu of the fine? And then make the donation using his foundation?

This one may sound far-fetched, but could he have a straw bidder buy a portrait of himself being sold at auction and then pay that straw bidder with money from his foundation? And then the straw bidder would transfer the portrait to him.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Neither of these are at all possible.

The foundation is audited each year by independent auditors to ensure that the money is being spent in accordance with the objectives of the foundation.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 1 points 6 months ago

Hey, I did state it was far-fetched. I guess no one would try to pull this off.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

can he spend that foundation money any way he wants

Yes and No. Yes, he can make the decisions. No, the purpose is somewhat limited.

But since he created this foundation and defined it's purpose, it will always do what he wanted to do anyway.

instead of spending his personal money?

Above some certain level, your personal expenses simply don't matter anymore. You can throw money around all day long, but you cannot become poor again.

[–] Celestial6370@programming.dev 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

https://youtu.be/69AtkAHkKEc?si=zCei4ckJEQd13snJ

A good idea of how billionaires use charitable donations.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de -4 points 6 months ago

I can't be bothered watching an hour long youtube video.

[–] tate@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 6 months ago

Think of it like he already spent that money. It belongs to the foundation now, not to him.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Bill Gates hasn't technically been the richest person in the world for a long time.

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 6 months ago

Even his own net worth is not money he can just spend. He doesn't have 5 billion in his bank account. He owns assets in different levels of liquidity whose value fluctuates.