So what would YOU do with Bill Gate's money?

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Aside from the obvious “buy some cars and a mansion” type stuff or buying a football team. Gates took a lot of criticism for being so vastly wealthy yet giving virtually nothing to charity. After catching flak for years he started the Gates Foundation. But it’s pretty small compared to what he has (although percentage wise, much more than any of us do).

What more should he do? What could he do? Consider this: you have $50 billion (isn’t that about what he’s worth or am I out of date?). You could take $40 billion of your loot and distribute it among the 2 million poorest people in the US, giving them each $20,000. But then what? A smart person could use that as a down on a house or towards an education, but you couldn’t live long on it nor pay for a degree. And many of the poorest have no fiscal knowledge or money skills. Most would burn thru that money and be just as poor, and you’d be out $40 billion.

Or you could donate $40 billion to your favorite charity. What would they do with the money? Probably a lot of good, I don’t know specifically.

Give the money to the Govt to apply to the deficit, maybe? Yeah, that’ll help- you can always trust Uncle Sam not to waste it.:wink:

You could build a lot of low/no income housing, setting up guidelines for who gets it. Or a bunch of shelters for battered women. Or children’s hospitals. Or place orphaned puppies in good homes, for that matter. How much impact could you make with that much money?

Or you could use the money to startup a bunch of businesses. You know, teach a man to fish and all that. Would it be more effective to give a person the means to support himself than to try to support him with your own money? That’s the POV I subscribe to, anyway. But how would you go about it?

Yeah, I most definately would take a billion or so to buy a load of cars, build a really nice mansion and buy $15 million or so worth of audio gear. What the hell, I’ll admit it. But that would still leave $49 billion. I couldn’t sleep nights knowing I had so much while so many had so little. As Temple of the Dog sang: I don’t mind stealing bread from the mouths of decadents, but I can’t feed on the powerless when my cup’s already overfilled.

What would you do with $50 billion dollars?

2

i would, honestly, not live in a mansion. not to mention getting lost in it every day, i wouldn’t want everyone to know i was rich as hell. i’d probably live in a nice two story house and like put my money in a secret swiss bank thing, assuming those actually exist (do they?). outside of that, i’d probably use a billion or so to put someone in the president’s office that would make me an adivsor just so i could advise the gov’t not to buy $700 hammers and like $2000 toilets. but truth be told, if bill gates generously put every single penny he owned into the national debt he wouldn’t make a dent.

3

I’d take enough to travel in some comfort and invest the rest in progress. I think funding a research institute to solve the world’s hunger problem would be my first step. My next step would be to establish other centers of progressive research. The ends of these research institutes would be sustainable technologies that empower people to live without wage labor.

4

Very true. $50 billion’s a lot of coin, but nothing compared to the debt or the amount of $ in the world. You couldn’t transform the world with that money, but you could do a helluva lot in your own community.

I don’t know if I’d want an ostentatious display of wealth, and security would be an issue. But I’d love to build a giant complex where I’d have everything you could want close at hand. I like cars and I’m addicted to good stereo and video gear, so I’d indulge that to the hilt. And I’d like to travel.

My personal charity ideas would revolve around medical care and education for the poor and lower middle class. I’m also concerned that the poorest parts of the planet lag so far behind the richest, although that problem dwarfes what I could do with $50 billion. I’d have a special ache for children in poverty, and a lot of my coin would go towards improving the lives of children. I could build a lot of nice housing for low income people with that money, and have strict rules about drugs, etc, as well as providing work training. Lastly, I’d probably create & fund more shelters for battered and abused women. I’ve been known to chuckle at some chuvenistic jokes, but deep down I despise abuse in relationships. It’s not always man-on-woman, but usually. Misogynistic trolls that build themselves up by beating down their women & children should be publicly caned, imo.

Oh, yeah- I’ve probably pitch a few billion to guys like Burt Rutan. He’s the genius behind SpaceShip One. I firmly believe our destiny is in space, and NASA can’t do enough. Private industry must carry the baton, too.

I’m selfish enough to use a bunch of money on myself and my friends & family, but I have enough empathy for the plight of others that given that wretched excess of wealth I’d have to help as much as I could. You couldn’t change the world with the money, but you could make it better for a lot of people.

5

[contented edited by ILP]

6

Okay, that’s one POV! :laughing: Tell you the truth, the bomb might be the best $100,000 or so you could spend. :stuck_out_tongue: But just my luck I’d be filthy rich but get thrown in the klink where I couldn’t enjoy it. If they’d bulldoze the UN building into the sea, I’d buy the footage on DVD.

I also don’t advocate giving money to people simply as a reward for doing nothing with their lives. But some people get put in bad situations thru no fault of their own. It especially bothers me to see kids paying for the stupidity of their parents. Maybe I’m just an old softie. :unamused:

7

[contented edited by ILP]

8

I’m sure you could! :astonished: Bet it wouldn’t cost anything near that. But what the hell would you do with one? Wait…don’t tell me in case the FBI knocks on my door. :stuck_out_tongue:

I would try to use much of my money for the betterment of mankind, but I suppose I’d use a goodly amount to get chicks. And I wouldn’t care if they only wanted me for my money, so long as I had so much it would never run out. :wink: Hell, it would cut thru the BS and pretenses. I’d keep a pad of prenupts sitting on my coffee table.

And although I’ve heard it’s a painful procedure, I’d get myself “fixed.” Nothing like a rugrat to siphone off the big bucks if one of your “peices de jour” gets pregnant. :confused: :laughing:

9

I have heard of an argument against philanthropy–like what you said, it is very focused on the individual. So, what happens is, it mask the real condition of the world, and instead of implementation of policies and laws that would ensure real help, real protection for the oppressed and disadvantaged, philanthropy gives the appearance of improvement.

10

That may be true, arendt, but wouldn’t those same ills be there with or without charity? Does the originator of that argument think things would be just fine if not for charity?

Even if it’s so, I’d do it anyway. As Dostoyevsky says, part of the human condition is that we may do the things that run counter to our best interests simply to be contrary. Well the empathy in me would drive me to at least try to improve the lots of those whom I could help (and subjectively were determined by me to ‘deserve’ my help).

But of course, don’t forget the billion dollars I’d spend on chicks, guns and firetrucks. :wink: I’d still be partly shallow and self absorbed, honest.

11

Ever heard of Dubois? I think he would be one of them. I’m not sure, though. I believe it is a political argument–philanthropy being one of those they pinpoint as the “cause” of how policies do not get implemented, or how it undermines the reality of inequity.

I remember when Bush made a speech about “volunteerism” and there were some political scientists who argued against it because it gives the administration an excuse of not making permanent commitments as far as fundings, or even making real policies that political parties have been fighting for.
Similar rationale.

LOL. But you “own” the chicks, guns, and firetrucks.

12

The Swiss Banking Network pride themselves on the annonymity they provide to their banking clientele. You would be identified as a series of letters and numbers, and that would be all anyone could find out about you.

13

Does having 100,000X the money you could ever hope to spend create a positive moral obligation to share the surplus in an attempt to help your fellow man?

14

depends on where you get your moral ideas. if the bible, then probably. if your goal is to create as much human happiness as possible, then the law of diminishing marginal utility states that at some point your money will produce more happiness when spent on other people who have less of it. if your goal is to spread your genes as much as possible, then definetely hoard. if your morality is to do whatever a solipsist knows for sure and nothing more, get off my planet.

so yeah your obligated, if you care about humanity. why should you care about humanity? because… shutup!

15

I doubt I’d spread my genes much more with $50 billion that if I’d gave away $49 Billion and just kept a cool billion for myself. :wink: That’s still a lotta chicks, guns and firetrucks. :sunglasses:

16

you could artificially inseminate hundreds of desperate women with a combination of your and your wifes dna and pay for their lives in your mansions. you could build a school just for your family and have them secretly genetically modified to be real super men and train them to do your bidding. maybe thats what ill do with my life. ill heal the world by evolving the species. :evilfun: