While all that is indeed good, we shouldn’t have to rely on the benevolence of the wealthy to be able to have a better world. No offense, but that kind of stuff should be paid for by taxation. He is doing some good here, but it’s also his pet project, his choice where the money goes, no one else, no input from society at large. It’s still overall not a real great thing, because it means that we have to just hope that billionaires have pet projects that help society and the earth at large. The majority of them don’t. Hell, Peter Thiel and Elon Musk think the future is for digital-post-humans and the things they are trying to do “for the future” are revolving around a plan where humans as we know them effectively become an extinct species, which is inherently elitist and definitely not beneficial to overall society since it means they effectively don’t care if any of us die to achieve it. Just because Newell has better values than the rest doesn’t mean the situation doesn’t still suck ass.
Then why praise one for having a pet project just because it might help the environment? If it’s not a good thing that they exist, why does there need to be a caveat of “but he’s doing good things with his money.”
It is possible to acknowledge that a billionaire is doing a good thing with his ungodly wealth, while also saying that he should not have that level of wealth to begin with.
The situation sucks, but I guess we have to count our “wins” these days.
If this money he is using to advance marine science was taxed, I guarantee it would be given straight to the US Military for creating more weapons of mass destruction.
He owns a lot of boats, both the RV6000 (currently being constructed, rumored price $300 mil) and the Pressure Drop are research vessels that belong to him - pressure drop does some very good science, and has for quite a long time.
He also owns a fleet of pleasure yachts. The two groups of ships are conflated for… reasons I actually cannot understand.
I’d be all for removing all the tax cuts from the rich and funneling it into the sciences. They’ve proven that trickle-down is an excuse to hoard and that noblesse oblige is all but dead, so why not cut out the proverbial middleman.
I’m also not a politician being paid by said rich to keep those cuts in place or add more, so my stance means little.
Whether the concept of billionaires is bad is irrelevant when deciding whether one specific billionaire is bad.
Threre is no such thing as an ethical billionaire. An ethical billionaire doesn’t remain a billionaire. If a suddenly recieved a billion dollars I’d be looking into the best way to donate most of it.
I’m sure I could survive for the rest of my life just fine on $500 million dollars, and whatever causes I’m donating my money to know what they need and how to spend it better than I would by offering them a couple of rooms on my third yacht.
A close example is Warren Buffett. He’s about as ethical as they come IMO. He still lives in the same house he bought over 60 years ago, and he has given away a ton of money:
As of June 2025, Buffett had donated over $60 billion to charitable causes.
Hearing him talk about it, it’s apparently really hard to give away that amount of money. He wants to give away something like 99% of his money, but he seems to really like his job and that takes priority for him. He has claimed his children are tasked w/ giving the rest away within 10 years of his passing, outside of the little he has marked for inheritance.
So I’m nowhere near a billionaire and it’s perhaps worthless to compare - but once many orgs know you are a “source of charitable donations” they spend a LOT of spam your way - and chances are good that at least half of the charities are scams that barely help anyone. So there’s likely also an unwelcome degree of effort and anxiety in ensuring charity money is used well. Hence why Bill Gates started his own.
Yup, there are a lot of bad charities, and the good ones often can’t handle billions in donations. And doing that takes time away from things you enjoy. There’s a reason he didn’t step away from his position until his 90s, he likes what he does.
I was going to say that sounds great and we won’t eat him. Then I opened the link and saw that he’s giving his money to the Bill & Malinda Gates Foundation and is conditional on Bill and Milenda Gates still being alive and involved. Why do his charitable donations have to go to a different Billionaire?
It’s a fantastic charity, and it funds a lot of other great charities. I’m very much not a fan of Bill Gates’ career (I’m a diehard Linux user), but his charitable endeavors and recommended book lists are fantastic.
I don’t care if the person running a charity is a billionaire, I care that they do a good job. He has made philanthropy his life’s mission, and that’s exactly the kind of person I want backing a charity.
How? All you’re really doing here is stereotyping rich people.
For example, Americans are generally fat (higher obesity rate than much of the world), but that doesn’t mean all Americans are fat. To determine whether a random American is fat, we need to actually look at them, not just know their nationality.
What do you mean how? The concept of a billionaire existing being bad has a massive relevance as to whether one individual a billionaire is bad. If the mere fact of being a billionaire is bad, which it obviously is, then it doesn’t matter who this individual billionaire is he’s already tainted by being a billionaire. That’s just one plus one equals two. It’s inescapable logic. Of course it’s relevant.
If the mere fact of being a billionaire is bad, which it obviously is,
I don’t think that’s obvious at all. Becoming a billionaire just means you have a billion dollars worth of assets, and it doesn’t say anything about how you got that money.
There’s a high correlation between billionaire’s and being a bad person, but it’s not 1:1.
I’m not going to get sidetracked into that conversation. Especially when there is absolutely zero chance of us agreeing on it. The topic was whether or not that determination is relevant. Which again obviously it has to be.
GabeN is hardly rich enough to end poverty or even just hunger, and that’s not the only important cause people could work on. I’d be happy if every billionaire picked some cause and donated to it, no need for society’s input.
Which is what I am doing: evaluating him on what he does and does not do. Not what “he may or may not be planning to do at some undisclosed time in the future.”
Why? It’s still bad. He still isn’t taking societal input on whether the projects he invests his money into are actually the most wise and sound investments to help the future of all living humans. It’s a distinction without a difference.
Why does he need society’s input? Last I checked, charities didn’t ask society at large, they just get funding from the people who care. Am I wrong to go to the park to pick up litter without asking society at large if that’s the best use of my time?
We don’t need to have everything go through a committee. If he wants to do a good thing, that’s awesome.
It can be both, you’re rejecting it because you fail to understand it. Dude, in a rationally organized world we wouldn’t need fucking charities, because things would just be funded by reasonable tax structures and governments that care more about taking care of their own people instead of bombing foreign nations. Why would we need charities if things were funded well enough as it is? You’re deliberately missing the point.
I don’t misunderstand your point, I reject it. When have we ever seen a government care more about taking care of its people than gaining power for its rulers? The more money and responsibility you give to a government, the more corrupt it becomes.
That said, I do think something like UBI makes sense. Make it a simple cash pass-through where everyone is brought above the poverty line. I personally would prefer to structure it as a negative income tax, so you qualify if your income is below some amount, and everyone is brought between the poverty line and a “living wage” (say, 2X poverty line). It’s equivalent to UBI, just with less sticker shock and a clearer paper trail (need to file a tax return). Look at the government shutdown, social security is still going out, I want NIT to be the same (and ideally replace SS).
I say we replace all welfare programs with a UBI-type system. Charities would then exist to help people manage that money, get out of addictions, etc… If people are mistreated at work, they’ll have the option of leaving. If a child is mistreated, child protection services (could be a charity) can move the child and those tax dollars to a better home. UBI would solve a ton of problems just by ensuring everyone has enough.
If we touch billionaires’ money, it should be with inheritance laws. I think we should tax all assets as if they were liquidated if they aren’t donated to a qualifying charity. That’s the biggest loophole I know about, and it should be closed.
While all that is indeed good, we shouldn’t have to rely on the benevolence of the wealthy to be able to have a better world. No offense, but that kind of stuff should be paid for by taxation. He is doing some good here, but it’s also his pet project, his choice where the money goes, no one else, no input from society at large. It’s still overall not a real great thing, because it means that we have to just hope that billionaires have pet projects that help society and the earth at large. The majority of them don’t. Hell, Peter Thiel and Elon Musk think the future is for digital-post-humans and the things they are trying to do “for the future” are revolving around a plan where humans as we know them effectively become an extinct species, which is inherently elitist and definitely not beneficial to overall society since it means they effectively don’t care if any of us die to achieve it. Just because Newell has better values than the rest doesn’t mean the situation doesn’t still suck ass.
I don’t think anyone is saying that billionaires existing is a good thing.
Then why praise one for having a pet project just because it might help the environment? If it’s not a good thing that they exist, why does there need to be a caveat of “but he’s doing good things with his money.”
It is possible to acknowledge that a billionaire is doing a good thing with his ungodly wealth, while also saying that he should not have that level of wealth to begin with.
It’s not “but”, it’s “at least”.
The situation sucks, but I guess we have to count our “wins” these days.
If this money he is using to advance marine science was taxed, I guarantee it would be given straight to the US Military for creating more weapons of mass destruction.
A lot of things need to change in this world.
He’s not advancing anything but big boats polluting the planet.
No it’s just bullshit.
He owns a lot of boats, both the RV6000 (currently being constructed, rumored price $300 mil) and the Pressure Drop are research vessels that belong to him - pressure drop does some very good science, and has for quite a long time.
He also owns a fleet of pleasure yachts. The two groups of ships are conflated for… reasons I actually cannot understand.
I’d be all for removing all the tax cuts from the rich and funneling it into the sciences. They’ve proven that trickle-down is an excuse to hoard and that noblesse oblige is all but dead, so why not cut out the proverbial middleman.
I’m also not a politician being paid by said rich to keep those cuts in place or add more, so my stance means little.
Whether the concept of billionaires is bad is irrelevant when deciding whether one specific billionaire is bad.
Threre is no such thing as an ethical billionaire. An ethical billionaire doesn’t remain a billionaire. If a suddenly recieved a billion dollars I’d be looking into the best way to donate most of it.
I’m sure I could survive for the rest of my life just fine on $500 million dollars, and whatever causes I’m donating my money to know what they need and how to spend it better than I would by offering them a couple of rooms on my third yacht.
A close example is Warren Buffett. He’s about as ethical as they come IMO. He still lives in the same house he bought over 60 years ago, and he has given away a ton of money:
Hearing him talk about it, it’s apparently really hard to give away that amount of money. He wants to give away something like 99% of his money, but he seems to really like his job and that takes priority for him. He has claimed his children are tasked w/ giving the rest away within 10 years of his passing, outside of the little he has marked for inheritance.
So I’m nowhere near a billionaire and it’s perhaps worthless to compare - but once many orgs know you are a “source of charitable donations” they spend a LOT of spam your way - and chances are good that at least half of the charities are scams that barely help anyone. So there’s likely also an unwelcome degree of effort and anxiety in ensuring charity money is used well. Hence why Bill Gates started his own.
Yup, there are a lot of bad charities, and the good ones often can’t handle billions in donations. And doing that takes time away from things you enjoy. There’s a reason he didn’t step away from his position until his 90s, he likes what he does.
I was going to say that sounds great and we won’t eat him. Then I opened the link and saw that he’s giving his money to the Bill & Malinda Gates Foundation and is conditional on Bill and Milenda Gates still being alive and involved. Why do his charitable donations have to go to a different Billionaire?
It’s a fantastic charity, and it funds a lot of other great charities. I’m very much not a fan of Bill Gates’ career (I’m a diehard Linux user), but his charitable endeavors and recommended book lists are fantastic.
I don’t care if the person running a charity is a billionaire, I care that they do a good job. He has made philanthropy his life’s mission, and that’s exactly the kind of person I want backing a charity.
It seems really really relevant though…
How? All you’re really doing here is stereotyping rich people.
For example, Americans are generally fat (higher obesity rate than much of the world), but that doesn’t mean all Americans are fat. To determine whether a random American is fat, we need to actually look at them, not just know their nationality.
What do you mean how? The concept of a billionaire existing being bad has a massive relevance as to whether one individual a billionaire is bad. If the mere fact of being a billionaire is bad, which it obviously is, then it doesn’t matter who this individual billionaire is he’s already tainted by being a billionaire. That’s just one plus one equals two. It’s inescapable logic. Of course it’s relevant.
I don’t think that’s obvious at all. Becoming a billionaire just means you have a billion dollars worth of assets, and it doesn’t say anything about how you got that money.
There’s a high correlation between billionaire’s and being a bad person, but it’s not 1:1.
I’m not going to get sidetracked into that conversation. Especially when there is absolutely zero chance of us agreeing on it. The topic was whether or not that determination is relevant. Which again obviously it has to be.
And I argue it’s not a given that someone is a bad person just because they have billions of dollars.
Cool beans dude, not what we were talking about. We were talking about whether or not that determination is relevant.
The fact of having a dragon’s hoard of money while people starve is what I am looking at.
Oh, look at that, Gabe has a dragon’s hoard of money and people are starving.
GabeN is hardly rich enough to end poverty or even just hunger, and that’s not the only important cause people could work on. I’d be happy if every billionaire picked some cause and donated to it, no need for society’s input.
Never claimed he could end poverty. But he could donate half his money, still be obscenely wealthy, and end hunger for a lot of people.
Maybe he’s planning to, or maybe he has, idk. We can only really evaluate him on what he does.
Which is what I am doing: evaluating him on what he does and does not do. Not what “he may or may not be planning to do at some undisclosed time in the future.”
Why? It’s still bad. He still isn’t taking societal input on whether the projects he invests his money into are actually the most wise and sound investments to help the future of all living humans. It’s a distinction without a difference.
Why does he need society’s input? Last I checked, charities didn’t ask society at large, they just get funding from the people who care. Am I wrong to go to the park to pick up litter without asking society at large if that’s the best use of my time?
We don’t need to have everything go through a committee. If he wants to do a good thing, that’s awesome.
That wooshing sound you hear is the point going over your head.
No, I’m explicitly rejecting your point.
It can be both, you’re rejecting it because you fail to understand it. Dude, in a rationally organized world we wouldn’t need fucking charities, because things would just be funded by reasonable tax structures and governments that care more about taking care of their own people instead of bombing foreign nations. Why would we need charities if things were funded well enough as it is? You’re deliberately missing the point.
I don’t misunderstand your point, I reject it. When have we ever seen a government care more about taking care of its people than gaining power for its rulers? The more money and responsibility you give to a government, the more corrupt it becomes.
That said, I do think something like UBI makes sense. Make it a simple cash pass-through where everyone is brought above the poverty line. I personally would prefer to structure it as a negative income tax, so you qualify if your income is below some amount, and everyone is brought between the poverty line and a “living wage” (say, 2X poverty line). It’s equivalent to UBI, just with less sticker shock and a clearer paper trail (need to file a tax return). Look at the government shutdown, social security is still going out, I want NIT to be the same (and ideally replace SS).
I say we replace all welfare programs with a UBI-type system. Charities would then exist to help people manage that money, get out of addictions, etc… If people are mistreated at work, they’ll have the option of leaving. If a child is mistreated, child protection services (could be a charity) can move the child and those tax dollars to a better home. UBI would solve a ton of problems just by ensuring everyone has enough.
If we touch billionaires’ money, it should be with inheritance laws. I think we should tax all assets as if they were liquidated if they aren’t donated to a qualifying charity. That’s the biggest loophole I know about, and it should be closed.
Careful about worshipping at the altar rationality, it is as prone as any god to leading people astray.
deleted by creator