Fix the structural problems without being an asshole to the guy trying to ameliorate the symptoms. Is someone honestly arguing against giving to charity or trying to cure diseases? Also, it's amazing how many tech solutions have been thrown at education as if the problem was knowledge retention and not the fact that schools never increased wages to cope with schools becoming super daycare centers.
People want an enriching, stable, nurturing but firm school environment tailor made for their kids but want that shit on a minimum wage salary. Zuckerburg buying kids tablets or smartboards isn't gonna help anyone but the company making those products. That's inherent to wealth, you can't construct a system which has wealth and doesn't advantage the wealthy.
If you wanted to be rid of it you'd have to abolish all private and personal ownership. This is an issue everywhere in almost everything beyond just wealth. Just keep treating diseases instead of curing. Or just keep working around system issues instead of actually fixing the code. No one ever looks at long term benefits anymore. Even if the system fix costs more now, it will save way more over time. Millionaires and Billionaires run the health care industry, so it's not surprising they've decided to use the same tactics.
This, so much this. How many people worked their asses off to make them rich and made under k a year and got zero equity in the projects etc It's horseshit. Plus often the 'donations' are actually more effective and cheaper advertising dressed up as noble endeavor. What the author is really arguing is that billionaires get a pass for all sorts of awful things because their philanthropy gives them a positive image among the people who would have the power to stop them.
The philanthropy itself is not evil, but it is essentially self-serving. He argues that if that wealth had been taxed and used by a democratic body to fix these problems, they would be fixed. I think the point is that maybe we need to rethink the current system. It's somewhat silly pointing to the generosity of some a billionaire for donating to a food bank if the reason they make so much money is that they pay their employees so little that the employees have to rely on said food bank to eat.
Donating to charity is a super good thing, but the decision making and therefore the power on where all that money goes is purely in the billionaires' hands. The only way a regular person gets to decide where most of their wealth goes, is by voting for politicians or by moving to an area so their taxes can directly help that community. Meanwhile the richest people in the country get to pick and choose which segments of the population are deserving of their wealth which means all the power of running the country is still in their hands.
Those choosing where the money goes are often highly unrepresentative of the broader population, and thus more likely to be out of touch with their needs. Money raised by progressive taxation, on the other hand, is spent by democratically accountable governments that have to justify their priorities, which are far more likely to relate to social need.
Its nice that they give, but since the hold a PR event around it makes it not entirely altruistic. There's a good number of them that not only don't do it publicly but deliberately try to keep it quiet. Bill Gates is giving away the vast bulk of his fortune and while his charitable activities are known he doesn't seem to really run around touting how great he is. Ultra wealthy people from the time of nobility to today have provided patronages. You yourself have not recognized the argument here and show yourself to have not read the article. The argument against this form of civil society creation by the ultra wealthy is that it's unjust.
To be singularly influencing the structure of society is not a recipe for a healthy and robust civil society. People are arguing that charity and disease eradication should be data-based and in the public interest, not based on the whims of a handful of billionaires. I love when people argue against that because that's not the way the world is.
Yea because of their shitty attitudes! Sure, we have a vote, but these billionaires have the power to shape our votes. Philantropy is basically proof that the rich think they should pay more taxes but they think they are entitled to decide where that money goes. This is exactly how I felt when I first read the news on this guy. I kind of get it. Not to take away the amazing work Gates does but how he made his money will always be questionable. Handcuffing govts and school systems with ridiculous ms licences. Anand Giridharadas says: They make gigantic piles of money, and have tricked politicians and the media into giving them an exceptionally loud voice in policy discussions.
'I don’t want to overdose and die:' one woman's death, one country's shame
Just give away a little bit of that money through philanthropic organizations that they control. Yeah, now back to reality. He also rakes in piles of cash from other billionaires and has encouraged a lot of philanthropy among his peers with the Giving Pledge. And then there's Zuk. It's too early on to draw a verdict on his efforts, but lets at least give the guy a shot at doing something good with his money. We have an entire public health infrastructure. We have the Centers for Disease Control. We have the NIH. But no, Mark is going to get rid of all the diseases, even though his own company is a plague, by any stretch of the imagination.
So he's wrong because he's not spending his money where you'd like? Vox used to do some good investigative journalism, but they've turned into a clickbaiting POS lately. Nobody is claiming that those charities aren't good.
It's just that there is an alternative: tax them more and let a democratically elected government decide what to do with those insane amounts of money. These charities exist to counteract the massive mismanagement of govt spending. I think people have this view if we taxed more we could solve the world's problems, but the govt would just build a better military and throw a pittance at solving those issues, like they do now.
So far our democratically elected government has decided to spend it on bombs to drop on the Middle East. Does our "democratically elected government" really think it's necessary to spend so much on killing people in other countries? Yeah, they need more money from "the rich" to do more of that. These are all results of very rich people influencing government policies. Democracy can not work effectively when you allow a very small minority control policies with the power of money.
Vox went to crap not long after it was launched and decided to chase after the facebook outrage algorithm by writing stories about people on twitter, rather than real reporting. Also, this conveniently ignores the fact that individual politicians are selling your health and security for these bribes. They are getting paid to sacrifice you, in this scenario you are a slave and nothing more. Usually they just start foundations and use that tax free money to change culture to their vision.
All rights reserved.
Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds. Submit a new link. Submit a new text post. Get an ad-free experience with special benefits, and directly support Reddit. Please do not submit the following: i Submissions violating the guidelines. Behaviour Remember the human You are advised to abide by reddiquette ; it will be enforced when user behaviour is no longer deemed to be suitable for a technology forum.
Remember; personal attacks, abusive language, trolling or bigotry in any form are therefore not allowed and will be removed. Repeated abuse can result in a permanent ban. Titles Submissions must use either the articles title and optionally a subtitle. Or, only if neither are accurate, a suitable quote, which must: adequately describe the content adequately describe the content's relation to technology be free of user editorialization or alteration of meaning. Flair Please flair your submission appropriately. An extended guide to flairing can be found here, in the wiki. Reddit-wide rules.
All reddit-wide rules apply here.
- UNTITLED (Friends Lovers or Nothing Book 1).
- Deep Water, Sharp Teeth.
- Accessibility Links.
- Digital Presence of Print Newspapers - a Blueprint.
- Better Things: Hebrews Bible Study Series.
- The Editors Wife.
- Microsoft Project 2010 Quick Guide for Beginners;
Do not post personal information; no facebook or social media links. Do not spam. Miscellanea If you see a rule-breaking submission, please report it and message the moderators with your reason. Welcome to Reddit, the front page of the internet. Become a Redditor and join one of thousands of communities. Want to add to the discussion? Post a comment! Create an account. Edit: spelling, grammar.
I guess I worded it poorly haha. I mean parachute. The rest in cash and privileges. And you might think that is a tonne of money - but in the scheme of things? It's nothing. It discusses this topic much more in-depth. Dude, you're rich! So jealous. I'd kill for a button! Check out this fatcat. Think of how many lentils and potatoes that would be. Easy there moneybags.
Insys founder John Kapoor convicted in opioid bribery scheme
I can't even afford time. Surprised someone recognized it. Ur lenticular. Too many would take the bribe. Sips coffee that costs more then your entire weeks salary. We could make the billionaires pay for it! Just looking, but no touching. And, claims this as an expense to the company for the tax relief. Win, win. We are doing the fishing for them. Housing is very cheap in rural ga. Why stay and work for slave wages? Move This is happening all over the US. Bezos certainly seems to be getting rich at the expense of his employees working conditions Nor did Zuckerberg Yes, he did.
That isn't even true in the Bay Area. Director level could totally buy a condo in west LA with one income. I'm a teacher and I bought a house. Source Robert F. The report they put out on it said the following: Overall, the initiative did not achieve its stated goals for students, particularly LIM [low-income minority] students. The influence is far above what any individual should have. Heartbreaking as it is. Then close the tax loopholes. Then enforce the tax law.
That would be nice. What a bunch of selfish rich people.
This Chinese billionaire’s ‘gift’ got his daughter into Stanford. She says it was ‘hard work’
Donates money. Very smart men. Brand Publishing. Times News Platforms. Real Estate. Facebook Twitter Show more sharing options Share Close extra sharing options. May 7, Matthew Ormseth. Follow Us. Matthew Ormseth is a reporter for the Los Angeles Times. Before joining The Times in , he covered city news and state politics at the Hartford Courant. Accordingly, if you are not sure whether material infringes your copyright, we suggest that you first contact an attorney.
This notice and any attachments we receive will be forwarded to the alleged infringer, who will then have the opportunity to file a counter notification pursuant to Sections g 2 and 3 of the DMCA. Should a properly filed counter notification be filed, you will be notified and have 10 business days within which to file for a restraining order in Federal Court to prevent the reinstatement of the material.
All required fields must be filled out for us to be able to process your form. We help people distribute information and art spanning a wide range of subject matter while providing a safe, friendly, respectful, and serious site for all content creators. Since our community serves a broad range of ages, we do not encourage content that could make a majority of our users uncomfortable. If you are sure that this product is in violation of acceptable content as defined in the agreement or that it does not meet our guidelines for General Access, please fill out the form below.
It will then be reviewed by Lulu Staff to determine the next course of action.
- A much bigger bribery scandal is played out every day in America with nary a peep from the media!
- Get one month’s free unlimited access.
- Superfoods: 100 Best Nutritious Foods You Must Know to Feel Younger and Live Longer.?
- Get one month’s free unlimited access.
Identify each web page that allegedly contains infringing material. This requires you to provide the URL for each allegedly infringing result, document or item. I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Your digital signature is as legally binding as a physical signature. If you use a digital signature, your signature must exactly match the First and Last names that you specified earlier in this form. This form does not constitute legal advice and nothing that you read or are provided on this web site should be used as a substitute for the advice of competent legal counsel. If someone believes in good faith that a Lulu Account Holder has infringed their copyright, they can request that we take down the infringing material by filing a DMCA Notice.
When a clear and valid Notice is received pursuant to the guidelines, we will respond by either taking down the allegedly infringing content or blocking access to it, and we may also contact you for more information. If you are not the copyright holder or its agent and if the content is clearly infringing the copyright of a well-known work, please select "Infringes a well-known work" from the dropdown menu.
Lulu Staff has been notified of a possible violation of the terms of our Membership Agreement. Our agents will determine if the content reported is inappropriate or not based on the guidelines provided and will then take action where needed.