[MrRolleyes]

> And personal integrity isn't tied to one's bank account balance; it's about character and the robustness of political and legal accountability systems.

Absolutely disagree with this—you can't acquire a billion dollars without sacrificing major ethics.

[xNeil]

I'm not so sure of that. What ethics has, say, JK Rowling sacrificed? Warren Buffett?

[jrflowers]

This is a good question, it’s not like Warren Buffett ever offered predatory loans for mobile homes

[autoexec]

Rowling isn't a billionaire. She probably could of been, but she's made a ton of charitable donations thanks to her having ethics.

Last I heard she had about £800 million which I'm sure keeps her and hers very very comfortable.

[meowkit]

Which ethics and how does one determine if they are major or not?

I’ve seen statements in this vein a lot. It’s quite vague and often confusing one’s relative morals for what society has collectively deemed acceptable.

[MrRolleyes]

Well, what do you consider ethics? I was coming from a place of you should give away all the money you don't need because the world would be better for it.

[fnordpiglet]

Notional wealth is just a number. A fair number of billionaires started something, retained equity, but exited their business that then went on to be wildly successful. Further many billionaires are born into their wealth. I think this pervasive attitude erodes both the standard the extremely wealthy should be held to and is overly simplistic. There are many billionaires who are at their core unethical. There are many who are very ethical but their outsized influence puts them in situations to make decisions with no easy answers. And there are many that are simply people that happened into the wealth randomly.