• CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This query is counterproductively reductive. Every human alive, even the worst of them, has done at least one good thing. Many even do their bad things because they were misled to believe they were doing an overall good.

    The point should be that it doesn’t matter what good they’ve done, because the state of being a billionaire necessarily requires one to have done more net bad to the world than good. You could save a million lives by your own hand, but if you’re a billionaire, it is a given that you have destroyed far more lives than that. No billionaire’s heart was ever weighed by Anubis and judged worthy of the Field of Reeds.

    All of them, without exception, end up as greasy streaks on the gleaming teeth of Ammit.

  • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Sure.

    Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation will probably eradicate polio.

    Before people jump on the bandwagon about how Gates is evil and problematic, that there are no virtuous billionaires, and a government or an NGO or an equivalent should have been the one to do it… I know. But the question was “name one billionaire that’s done anything good,” and I think it’s pretty difficult to argue that eradicating polio isn’t good.

    • nonearther@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      On same tone, Warren Buffet.

      He has also donated billions in the same charity and largely lives controversy free.

    • richieadler 🇦🇷@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      However, one can posit that the Gates Foundation is creating a market for vaccines that aren’t of interest in the industrialized nations.

      I’m not sure that subsequent doses are going to be provided as generously as the first ones.

      • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The point of eradication is that once a disease is gone, you don’t need to vaccinate against it any more. You’ve probably never been vaccinated against smallpox, for example.

      • Vlyn@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not how vaccines work. The illness is already there, it’s not like people get sick after you introduce a vaccine into the system. So the “market” has always been there and every dose administered is great.

        • richieadler 🇦🇷@lemmy.myserv.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You don’t understand my point.

          • Sick people receive vaccines for free or very cheap
          • Sick people gets hope of survival to disease, hope which wasn’t previously available.
          • Sick people ask their governments to continue receiving vaccines.
          • People providing vacciones now are charging a lot more to said governments.
          • Profit (which was the whole point, and not any “humanitarian” notions.)

          And the market wasn’t there, because unless there’s some way to create high demand and guaranteed payment in poor countries, there’s no profit in said vaccines (or any medication, for that matter; do you see any multinational farmaceutical companies giving much thought to the creation of medicine to cure Chagas disease? And it’s endemic in many areas of South America. But those are poor areas, so the is no profit there).

          • Fleppensteyn@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I thought the foundation’s shady capitalist goals were pretty well known, not sure why you’re downvoted. They are against releasing patent on the covid vaccine, for example, because their goal is for people to profit from it

          • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The problem with your argument is that the Gates foundation is a non-profit. They aren’t trying to make a profit, they’ve burned through tens of billions of dollars in the past 20 years.

            Are you arguing that countries should just let people die from polio rather than accept humanitarian aid or am I missing something?

    • TherouxSonfeir@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bill gates, also the guy who spent loads of time on epsteins island banging children. I guess it evens out /s

  • ricecake@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Brian Acton is the only billionaire I can think of that hasn’t been a net negative.

    Co-founded WhatsApp, which became popular with few employees. Sold the service at a reasonable rate.
    Sold the business for a stupid large sum of money, and generously compensated employees as part of the buyout.
    Left the buying company, Facebook, rather than do actions he considered unethical, at great personal expense ($800M).

    Proceeded to cofound signal, which is an open, and privacy focused messaging system which he has basically bankrolled while it finds financial stability.

    He also has been steadily giving away most of his money to charitable causes.

    Billionaires are bad because they get that way by exploiting some combination of workers, customers or society.
    In the extremely unlikely circumstance where a handful of people make something fairly priced that nearly everybody wants, and then uses the wealth for good, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with being that person.
    Selling messaging to a few billion people for $1 a lifetime is a way to do that.

    • Elderos@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Makes sense that suddenly becoming billionaire with every intention to not remain one by turning into a force of good is arguably one way to be a decent human. In other words, the only good billionaires are those not trying to be, or remain billionaires.

      There is also a point where you have to be smart and patient with how you distribute your money, or else you simply risk some other greedy asshole to pocket it.

      • ricecake@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hell, I’ll take someone who wants to be a billionaire, as long as they do it without exploitation. It’s just that that’s nearly impossible to do, since very few people actually individually create a billion dollars worth of value.

  • Flumsy@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Bill Gates. (Has donated money to charity and founded one himself).

  • HornyOnMain [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Elon Musk:

    Destroyed Twitter

    Currently engaged in a protracted war to kill all Tesla owners

    Destroyed the myth of meritocracy

    Grifting the Pentagon for all the money he can and then just not doing what he’s paid to

  • Synthead@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    A single good thing that a single billionaire has done? The Gates foundation fighting malaria. I think that’s good.

      • TheDarkKnight@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Is the topic of the thread called “Should we tax billionaires” or was it “I dare you to name one good thing a billionaire has done”?

    • Mangoholic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure but, considering they use only 5% of the money they have for all there “good” projects and invest the ither 95% in fossil fuels. The gates Foundation is really only a little good because the law forces them to use min of 5%, to stay tax exempt. So if they didn’t have to, would they still do it? I doubt that.

  • hoodlem@hoodlem.me
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    There’s a lot. In the late 1800s it started becoming something of a tradition for billionaires to move on to philanthropy after their retirement. J.D. Rockefeller was worth several hundred billion dollars in today’s money. He gave away close to 200 billion of it.

    A more modern example that people have brought up is Bill Gates.

      • autismdragon [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        OK I’m sorry maybe I’m letting the autism overflow my brain but seeing you just say “wrong” to technically correct statements that answer the question presented here is just so fucking annoying. Ooooo you got so many upbears from fellow Hexbears who dont want to think but just dunk. Getting very frusterated with this community right now.

  • arefx@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Gabe Newell is the least shitty billionaire I can think of, I’m not sure what he does for philanthropy though but at least it doesn’t seem like he tries to influence the country for his benefit.

  • Stuka@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    ITT: people who can’t understand the difference between doing something good and being good.

    Of course there are plenty of billionaires who have done good things, and pointing out all the ways they are still a shit person doesn’t change that. Shitty people occasionally do good things, even if for shitty reasons.