Let’s say that you have an opportunity to gain billions to fix the society from the top. Do you think that you would keep your integrity and use your money for the greater good, or that you would be corrupted by your power?
If so, would you still accept the offer knowing that you would just make the situation worse?
And if you believe in yourself, how would you try to convince an hypotetical entity to give you this wealth?
To avoid regrets let’s say that if you decline the offer your memory about the deal gets erased.
Do you think that you would keep your integrity and use your money for the greater good, or that you would be corrupted by your power?
I suppose it’s a matter of perspective. Very few people in the world ever see themselves as actually evil. Every villain is the hero in their own story.
But if we recognize basic truths about people’s preferences, I think a greater good can be achieved. Everyone wants a place to call home and good food on the table. Everyone wants good health and to have a sense of purpose or meaning to their lives.
This is universal, regardless of race, sex, gender, nationality, language (I can’t include religion as some religions demand the oppression & extermination of others).
If its just a money printer then you are basically just a federal reserve/ central bank. I would make myself rich and then buy up a bunch of property to convert into coops and a bunch if wild land to then to reserves, also some big donations to hospitals. Anything more and I wouldn’t trust my ability to predict the economic effects.
You can’t fix society from the top.
Every person has to do their part to fix society.
The idea that societies can (perhaps only) be fixed from the top is a convenient excuse to abdicate one’s own responsibility for taking care of things around them.
Literal infinite may be problematic. Let’s say that I became rich enough by lottery for example. I for sure would live comfortably. But I trust myself to foster positive changes, but have in mind that collective problems can only be solved by collective solutions. Having money gives you power to mobilize people to work, but for the society structure to change, you need more than just that, you will political change with population support, and that’s demand time and a lot of work.
you will political change with population support, and that’s demand time and a lot of work.
To be fair, this is exactly what Rupert Murdoch is doing for the right wing around the world.
If this is a magical entity, then I would just tell it to give me $100 for every $1,000,000 I use for charitable work that doesn’t directly benefit me.
If I give away $1,000,000 100,000 times, that’s 100 billion dollars of charitable work. And my net worth would “only” be 10 million dollars, certainly wealthy, but not idiotically wealthy. Plenty for me to invest and have doctor money levels of passive income, but only by giving away the vast vast majority of the money I get.
Or I guess I could just ask the entity to cap my net worth at 10 million dollars, and only give me that money when I have given away some arbitrary amount of money it gives me, like 500 billion dollars or something, Idk.
2 chicks at the same time and no one would starve or be withought shelter.
…“I’ll tell you what I’d do, man”…
I think I would be fine. I already have limited wealth and I’m directing a significant portion of it to the betterment of the world around me. If my wealth/income increased tenfold (as an example) I don’t think I’d be able to find a use for more than, idk, 15-20% of the additional money? So I’d just heavily ramp up the funds going to charities and local causes.
Extending this out to the infinite wealth scenario, I’d be able to help more causes so I’d need to find out which charities are actually putting money to use for what they say they are, extend my mindset beyond local causes and to the whole globe. Almost certainly drop some fat stacks into buying out basically every fossil fuel corp and start the process of getting that shit phased out. Sure I make some terrible people rich(er) in the short term with the buyouts but fuck it, the environment needs to be prioritized.
How I’d convince this hypothetical entity? Idk, probably just explain all of the above and I guess show some hard data on my track record for this. If the entity is determined to put the money in the hands of someone who is going to do good, either I’ll be good enough or I won’t.
If its not infinite and “just” billions then I’m probably going to funnel about half of it into local (national) causes and the other half into affecting what positive change I can worldwide. Process for convincing the entity remains the same.
I’d be good at first but then slowly get corrupted as I continue on feeling disconnected. The change will be so gradual thatI wouldn’t realize until it’s too late
Lol if I had truly infinite money, this is a story of what I would do.
I would first have a “magical investment bank” that would promise 200% per annum with interest paid monthly, but only if paid in cash and at least 50 million to start. Have this scheme open for a few months with actual results and interest paid out. This is to get billionaires and megacorps to liquidate their assets into soon to be worthless monetary instruments. Then, everyone in the world but the top 0.1% would get 1 trillion. Everyone’s debt is virtually erased, and the old top 0.1% can go ahead, get their money back and feel bad about themselves. With all currency effectively rebased to a billion times than previously, now we can work on solving the world’s problems as shoulder-to-shoulder equals. Give the world food, give the world shelter, give the world healthcare, give the people of the world a purpose, give the people socioeconomic freedom, give them trains, give the world a chance at reversing disastrous effects of climate change.
If it didn’t work, then my money would be just as worthless any way (unless my infinite money powers could manifest in bottle caps or whatever the newest thing people found value in was).
Billionaires should not exist.
But I’m a infinitaire
I’d basically become Bill Gates without the monopoly.
People criticise the big philanthropists for skewing all the work their way, but that’s more a product of not enough funding elsewhere than of the foundations being bad themselves.
If you see Bill Gates’ philanthropy in a positive light, then his public relations machine has done a number on you.
- The Nation: Why Bill Gates’s Philanthropy Is a Problem
- Jacobin: Bill Gates’s Philanthropic Giving Is a Racket
- Adam Ruins Everything: Why Billionaire Philanthropy is Not So Selfless
- Citations Needed podcast:
- Episode 45: The Not-So-Benevolent Billionaire: Bill Gates and Western Media
- Episode 46: The Not-So-Benevolent Billionaire, Part II - Bill Gates in Africa
- News Brief: Big Pharma, Bill Gates Spin Against Generic Vaccines for Global South as Biden a No Show
- News Brief: #VaxLive is a PR Scam So Those Causing Vaccine Inequity Can Pose as Saviors of Global Poor
- Episode 146: Bill Gates, Bono and the Limits of World Bank and IMF-Approved Celebrity ‘Activism’
Wealth psychologically changes the way you think and feel, so no.
I think that depends on personality type. If you are an impulse person, then yeah its going to be spending spree and stupid shit. The narcissit type that amasses wealth and uses it to suit their agenda would already have accumulated the wealth. And then there are people like me that lead a simple life and money means nothing. A prime example is a friend, he owned a large company employing 100s of people, he was in the right market at the perfect time and made excellent decisions along the way for the company. When I met him he was probably multimillionaire but was driving a 90s Honda. His attire was general casual vibe. You would never realize he could literally do anything he wanted or live anywhere in the world by his appearance or personality.
Psychological science says otherwise. Sure, anecdotally, there may be aberrations. But, study after study shows wealth isolates a person and distances their ability to relate to other people.
While the idea of the class traitor is one typically applied to the proletariat, it can also be used to describe members of the upper-class who believe in and espouse socialist ideals. For example, Peter Kropotkin, an anarcho-communist who wrote The Conquest of Bread, was born into a noble family. Additionally, Friedrich Engels, partner and lifelong friend of Karl Marx, the revolutionary socialist, was himself a son of a wealthy factory owner. Such people sacrifice their ability to be part of the capitalist upper-class for the sake of who they see as the oppressed, even if it hurts their status in the process.
I would trust myself, but I know that I would be the villain in some people’s lives.
Maybe the worst of us should live in fear.
Yes, if you’re offering I’ll take it