I won't call you greedy, but you may not be cautious or wise. The 50 hungry guys might do more than simply look longingly at your delicious English muffins.
I doubt Bill Gates has much to fear from the muffin-hungry masses. After all, he chose to start this fund. No one forced him to, and if they tried I doubt they would have a very easy time.You could be right, and Bill could be a genuinely nice guy. I do not know him personally, and figuring out why or what he has donated would require a team of accountants & business law experts.
Quote
Quote
That's why i said that your problem is scaling -- assuming that having $1 Trillion is just like having a dollar, only better 
It's not, and that's why i offered the muffin example.
The law of diminishing returns applies to money, too. When you have $100k to play with, and you gave away half of it, you can no longer buy the car you want, for instance. When you have billions of dollars, that's no longer the case -- you can no more spend all your money than eat all the muffins before they spoil. Sure, you may not be able to afford as many islands or corporations, but that's like arguing that you may want to gorge yourself on the muffins & throw up at the vomitorium. Things don't scale well
If a woman making minimum wage gives 50% to charity, she and her child starve to death. If Bill gives half of his wealth to charity, only his accountant will know the difference. See?
While it's true that Gates could just decide to live a "normal" life, that's some high expectations for anyone. I'm sure that there was a drastic change when he got rid of half of his money, even if to us it seems like he would be incredibly happy either way. If I had billions of dollars I wouldn't want to give it away, at least while I was alive. It's not, and that's why i offered the muffin example.The law of diminishing returns applies to money, too. When you have $100k to play with, and you gave away half of it, you can no longer buy the car you want, for instance. When you have billions of dollars, that's no longer the case -- you can no more spend all your money than eat all the muffins before they spoil. Sure, you may not be able to afford as many islands or corporations, but that's like arguing that you may want to gorge yourself on the muffins & throw up at the vomitorium. Things don't scale well
If a woman making minimum wage gives 50% to charity, she and her child starve to death. If Bill gives half of his wealth to charity, only his accountant will know the difference. See?
Other than showing that it's possible that Bill is a nicer guy than you, what else are you trying to show? Certainly not that giving away half of one's money is the same hardship to minimum-wage mom (Death) & Bill (having to look at less pleasant financials)?
Quote
And also, I make almost minimum wage and I would still be able to live even if I cut my money in half.
Are you going to try? You understand that's not the (realistic & plausible) scenario i've presented, right?
Quote
Even those who live paycheck to paycheck would still be fine, as even if they have one dollar saved up all they have to give is 50 cents. It's all about using your money wisely, and investing in the right things (bitcoins for example).
I'm not suggesting that surviving at 50% of US minimal wage is a metaphysical impossibility -- though forget about 1 dollar saved up: Those losers are neck-deep in debt. If only they could give half of it away, i'm sure they would
Quote
Quote
As i said, i'm not an ideal to aspire to, though please understand that ... see the mother example above.
You can say that but it isn't much of an excuse. You can't criticize people for doing something that you yourself aren't willing to do. Although maybe you didn't criticize them, because we've gone back and forth for a while and I forgot the original post that was quoted.
I'm not criticizing anyone -- i'm simply not lionizing them, either. They're people, just like the poor. Given money, luck & intellect, the poor would be just like them. The worst i've said about the rich is Christian-style saints are not among them -- if that sort of a saint ever became rich through luck or chance, he would give away *all* of his wealth. That's all. If it logically follows that saints could be found only amongst the poor, that's just dumb logic, not i.