While his foundation did not explicitly address what Gates feared might distract from the intended focus of the summit, the latest release of Epstein files in late January intensified the controversy surrounding his ties to the disgraced financier.
Gates has said he “regrets” ever knowing Epstein after allegations that he hid a sexually transmitted disease from his then-wife after contact with “Russian girls” surfaced in the latest release of the Epstein files.
No it doesn’t. Nobody who has good in them becomes a billionaire. Only psychopaths and ruthless people who are willing to make the lives of a whole lot of other human beings worse for their own benefit become billionaires.
There are good rich people to be sure. But the richer they are, the less likely they are to be good.
why don’t you tell me what your actual problem is with Paul McCartney, Michael Jordan, Taylor Swift or Bill Gates? they’re all very rich. not billionaires as a concept, what makes these specific people so much more evil than an average person?
even if we say MOST people who became billionaires are bad, it doesn’t mean all of them are. and even if Bill Gates is a psychopath, he hasn’t raped any children that i’m aware of.
you guys seem to have a legitimate point that a system that lets billionaires exist is dangerous. but when you say shit like this - everyone outside the most extreme leftist circles is going to conclude that you’re insane and it makes changing things that much harder
I’m too much of a Utilitarian to be able to overlook his philanthropy. His foundation has practically eliminated guinea worm. That alone has saved millions of lives.
But I’m not a god. Who am I to say whether all his philanthropy outshines his personal depravity? Maybe it doesn’t, but if more billionaires used their money in a similar way, I think everything wouldn’t be quite as shitty as they are.
He has never decreased his net worth. His philanthropy costs him nothing except to limit making his obscene wealth even more obscene.
Additionally allowing billionaires to exist and championing their philanthropic endeavors means that you endorse a world where the modern version of kings are the gatekeepers to funding charitable efforts. What are the most worthwhile places to put resources for need? Better hope a billionaire agrees and doesn’t just donate to vanity projects they are personally invested in (like all of them).
This also doesn’t touch on the narcissism of billionaires. He bankrolled the elimination of guinea worm. Thousands of people worked hard to make this happen. But bill gates gets the credit for writing a check. When Trump puts his name all over the country do you also cheer that? No, because it’s obvious narcissism. This is the same, it’s just shielded from critique because the end result is positive and not some gaudy building