[consumer451]

> Paul is an out of touch reactionary billionaire

My theory is that humans are just not evolved for billionaire levels of wealth disparity. It's not a criticism, it just appears to be a fact.

Honest question: are there any "in touch" billionaires? Maybe Mark Cuban in some ways for example?

[jacquesm]

Mark Cuban is not the example that I would reach for. He's been an asshole since before Yahoo! threw too much money at him.

I know a few, but they're modest people and that's why I will not name them here, I will name one that is deceased, René Sommer, if you want to know more about him, I wrote about him here:

https://jacquesmattheij.com/in-memoriam-rene-sommer/

[dendrite9]

I've taken to skimming through the Elon/twitter threads curious to see if there's anything actually new. I'm glad I saw your post and clicked the link, that was a very pleasant story to read.

[jacquesm]

I still miss the man, in spite of our infrequent contact.

[adharmad]

Gates or Warren Buffet. Both of them seem pretty grounded for the amount of wealth they possess.

[jacquesm]

You - urgently - need to read up on Gates then.

[adharmad]

Any suggested readings/links? I am merely going by his current public persona and whatever the Gates Foundation is doing.

[jacquesm]

Ah ok. Well, after he quit MS as day to day leader there was that bit around his divorce, the Epstein link and more sordidness.

Gates didn't really change, he just used his fortune to whitewash his reputation. He's still smart and I would be happy read what he has to say but a nice person he isn't and never was.

[BiteCode_dev]

You have to start reading about Gates before he spent millions to wash his reputation and adopted a disguise of philanthropist to buy a stairway to heaven. Anything before he left Microsoft, with the corruption scandals, the insults, the patent trolling, and so on.

It's getting harder and harder to find though. I should have saved offline compiled files.

[SilverBirch]

I think there’s a legitimate line to draw between “bastard does capitalism” and “philanthropist post capitalism”. Bill Gates could have laundered his reputation just fine without committing to give away the majority of his wealth.

[BiteCode_dev]

The foundation is not meant to give away Gates money while he is alive.

It's a way to be able to keep investing his money without paying taxes.

It only spends the legal minimal amount for charity, 5% (way less than taxes that would go to build roads, hospitals and schools). The rest is invested in a portfolio that, by the magic of being in a non profit, can make billions without paying any tax.

Since he directs the charity, he can therefore move the capital where he needs it to, including founding Monsanto and weapon makers, which he had to withdraw from after people noticed that it was quite the opposite of the claimed foundation mission.

That's why most billionaires have some kind of charity: they keep all the power of their money, get good PR (which given that the wealth gap makes people grumpy, is a great shield) and they optimize their finance while people defend them.

The PR operations worked well: most people on the internet now believe that Gates is a good person. A statement that would have made anybody smile in the 90'.

[ahansen]

It's not a short summary, but if you are into podcasts then Behind the Bastards have a two parter on him.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/part-one-the-ballad-of...

[ssnistfajen]

They are just out of touch in different ways. Gates' banana comment became the quintessential example of how out of touch rich people are even though it was ultimately inconsequential.

[DiNovi]

no one who hoards wealth that could save the lives of thousands is in a healthy mental space

[mjmsmith]

MacKenzie Scott.

[abdabab]

I think she never intended to be a billionaire. She doesn’t fall under the usual bucket of billionaires.

[kawera]

Laurene Powell Jobs

[mjmsmith]

Joan Kroc