Isn't his wealth mostly Tesla stock? Not exactly capital (in the sense of an asset that improves productivity). If he sold it for capital then someone else would be down capital and up Tesla stock.
This is why I call the stock market imaginary wealth. It's not imaginary for the person who owns it but for the actual entire economy what matters is how many factories there are, how educated the workforce is, what technologies have been invented, productivity etc. not what the stock market claims all companies are worth.
The wealth is very real. Like any billionaire, he can secure massive loans against the value of his stocks, and use that money to live as extravagantly as he wants. And of course, buy elections.
But let's say he liquidates his entire $400B fortune. His pile of cash would not be $400B high; it would only probably be a fraction of that. But the fact remains - he's obscenely wealthy. And in a world where money buys power and influence, it quickly becomes a problem for the rest of society.
My view of billionaires would be a lot rosier if they, in a very serious way, put their money toward making the world a better place. And while you can point to things like the development of EVs, Starlink, and battery technology as examples of Elon doing good for the world, the fact remains that he could be doing more, but he chooses not to.
Sure, Tesla has developed some nice things. I'll give him credit for that (even though it was actually Tesla employees who developed them, but we'll overlook that for now).
But how much of his extraordinary wealth has he invested in green tech companies other than Tesla? None, as far as I can tell.
EVs run on electricity, but much of the electricity used to run them still comes largely from the burning of fossil fuels. And that's where my frustration comes from. We need to be much further along in the transition than where we're currently at. Climate change is becoming a larger problem with each passing year, and the longer we wait to stop burning fossil fuels, the more our ability to determine our future will slip away from us.
Look, the Earth is a ball of almost limitless energy. The fact that we, as a species, aren't WAY further along in finding ways to tap into it is... not only a huge shame, it's a full blown outrage. I mean for pete's sake, the Kola Superdeep was dug by the Russians in the 70s and 80s. Don't sit there and tell me that humanity needed to wait for 2020s technology to get on with figuring this stuff out. We should have been doing WAY more research and technological development since the 60s, but we didn't make it a priority, thanks to O&G lies and propaganda.
So every time I see Elon and his companies spending a kajillion dollars on rockets, tunnels, and turning Twitter into a rightwing free-speech-for-me-but-not-for-thee echo chamber, I think to myself wouldn't the money be better spent investing in startups that are trying to advance solar, wind, geothermal, and other clean forms of energy?
Elon talks about the world needing to transition away from fossil fuels. So his decision to back Mr. Fossil Fuel in the presidential election was a... rather strange choice. But hey, who knows, if by "drill baby drill" Trump actually meant drill for geothermal, his presidency might not be so bad after all...
lol. What are the odds on that though? 1 in 400 billion?
Anyways, kidding aside...
Having spoken with the top geothermal experts in Canada, what has become very clear to me is that the only impediment toward the rapid advancement of geothermal energy availability and technology is a striking lack of funding and investment. The government of Canada recently doled out a $90 million investment in Eavor for the continued development of their closed loop technologies, and the Alberta govt has pledged some money as well. But several other projects have been waiting for years with their hands out and have received very little or in some cases nothing. It's FRUSTRATING AS HECK to see what billionaire priorities seem to be. Why are NONE of them stepping up and helping to advance stuff like this? I guess no one is willing to invest in anything that doesn't offer a likely profitable return. What ever happened to doing something for the benefit of the world instead of just your own finances? Sigh...
The world's billionaires hold an estimated $14 trillion in wealth. Crazy to think that none of them are willing to take a small personal hit to help a good cause.
The world's billionaires hold an estimated $14 trillion in wealth. Crazy to think that none of them are willing to take a small personal hit to help a good cause.
I wouldn't say none. There is MacKenzie Scott, at least.
__________________
"9 out of 10 concerns are completely unfounded."
"The first thing that goes when you lose your hands, are your fine motor skills."
Warren Buffett
Warren Buffett has a lifetime giving of $56.7 billion. The Berkshire Hathaway CEO giving focuses on health and poverty alleviation. The 93-year-old has a net worth of $131 billion.
Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates
Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates have a lifetime giving of $42.5 billion, with a giving focus on health and poverty alleviation. They continue to co-chair the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation despite their 2021 divorce, Forbes noted. Bill has a net worth of 125 billion, and Melinda’s net worth is $10.6 billion.
George Soros
Hedge fund founder George Soros, 93, has a lifetime giving amount of $21 billion with his donations focusing on democracy and human rights. Soros has a net worth of $6.7 billion.
Michael Bloomberg
The 82-year-old founder of financial data and media company Bloomberg LP doled out $3 billion in 2023. Bloomberg has a lifetime giving amount of $17.4 billion to causes focusing on climate change, health and education. He has a net worth of $96.3 billion.
MacKenzie Scott
MacKenzie Scott donated $2.15 billion in 2023 to a total of 360 groups in 35 U.S. states plus in Brazil, India, according to Forbes. Scott has a lifetime giving amount of $16.58 billion with a giving focus on economic, racial and gender equality. The philanthropist has a net worth of $35.3 billion.
Jim and Marilyn Simons
In 2023, Jim and Marilyn Simons pledged $500 million over seven years to the endowment of the State University of New York at Stony Brook in Long Island, Forbes noted. The couple has a lifetime giving of $6.03 billion, with their donations going to basic science and math. They have a net worth of $30.7 billion.
Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan
Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan have a lifetime giving amount of $4.5 billion, with their giving focusing on science and education. The couple’s net worth is $165 billion.
Steve and Connie Ballmer
Last year, Steve and Connie Ballmer announced a $175 million gift over seven years to Strive Together, an Ohio-based group that works in 29 states to support children in poverty with coaching and resources, according to Forbes.
The former Microsoft CEO and his wife have a lifetime giving of $3.75 billion focusing on economic mobility. The couple's net worth is $123 billion.
Phil and Penny Knight
Phil and Penny Knight, in 2023, announced a $400 million pledge over five to ten years to a fund that will support Black residents of Portland, Oregon; funds will go to education services, the arts and other programs for residents of a Portland neighborhood.
The Nike founder and his wife have a lifetime giving of $3.6 billion focusing on education. Phil and Penny have a net worth of $42.5 billion.
Jeff Bezos
Jeff Bezos and his fiance, Lauren Sánchez, announced the creation of a $100 million Maui Fund in 2023 after the fire destroyed parts of the Hawaiian island.
The Amazon founder has a lifetime giving of $3.33 billion with a giving focus on the environment and education. Bezos has a net worth of $196 billion.
Four new billionaires were also added to the 2024 list, including Barbara Picower, who is 12th with a lifetime giving of $3.15 billion, Bernie and Billi Marcus, rank 23rd with a lifetime giving of $1.75 billion, Amos and Barbara Hostetter, rank 24th with a lifetime giving of $1.61 billion and Eric Wendy Schmidt rank 25th with a lifetime giving of $1.44 billion.
The Following User Says Thank You to MelBridgeman For This Useful Post:
According to Fahrenthold and Mac, since 2020, Musk has donated around $7 billion of stock to the Musk Foundation, in the process saving himself some $2 billion in tax payments. Two billion dollars is a lot of money not going to the common good through taxation.
Quote:
Musk’s “philanthropy” in large part has gone to enterprises that technically qualify as charitable, but that also support his own business interests and even his family’s welfare. For example, a major recipient of grants from the Musk Foundation has been Ad Astra, a nonprofit school founded by, yes, Elon Musk. In fact, it is a school his own children attend – along with the children of his top executives at SpaceX. As the Times story explains, “In its first year of operation out of [Musk’s] home in the Bel-Air neighborhood of Los Angeles, five of Ad Astra’s 14 students were his own children.”
Quote:
The federal government requires private foundations like the Musk Foundation to direct 5% of their assets each year to charitable purposes. The rules are loose around what counts as the 5%: Foundations can include many administrative costs, including salaries of staff, even those who are related to the founder/donor. All of which is to say that it’s not hard to meet this minimum distribution of 5%.
But in recent years the Musk Foundation has failed to hit that target. In 2021 the Musk Foundation fell $41 million short. It was even worse in 2022: The foundation missed the mark by $193 million, giving away only 2.25% of its $7 billion in assets.
He's doing exactly what most rich people do. Use 'charities' to save on taxes while claiming they care about the poor.
What else is new?
Mel tried to demonstrate they are generous. I showed they are also greedy, and not generous at all. Stealing form American taxpayers to make a private school for his kids. You don't think that's kinda ####ing awful?
Mel tried to demonstrate they are generous. I showed they are also greedy, and not generous at all. Stealing form American taxpayers to make a private school for his kids. You don't think that's kinda ####ing awful?
Rich people have done far more harm to the world by using their massive wealth to buy off politicians, buy elections, and lie to the world about everything from cancer risks to climate change... than good they've done by donating money. And as pointed out, when they've donated it's usually been done as a sneaky scheme to avoid paying taxes.
Now are there some billionaires who have been a net benefit to the world? Yes, there are. But they are few and far between.
and if
Billionaires as group ->
Employing hundreds of thousands of people
Generating wealth for millions via Pension Funds, RRSP, TFS
Generating trillions in tax revenue
etc etc
is "done far more harm to the world "
The employees create the wealth, not the CEO at the top.
A few companies putting everyone else out of business is not a good thing for the world.
Mega corporations employ so many people because they've gobbled up all the market share and destroyed competition. They used their massive wealth and influence to get favors from government, from a tax structure that benefits them to subsidies... that benefit them.
All this stuff you say billionaires "generate" would still be generated in their absence.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mathgod For This Useful Post:
The employees create the wealth, not the CEO at the top.
Ok it's not black and white, CEO is the bigger generator of wealth based on the decisions they make, the empoyees for the most part execute on those decisions and usually generate wealth for themselves, and their impact on overall wealth is minimal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathgod
A few companies putting everyone else out of business is not a good thing for the world.
Agreed. The number 1 impediment to competition? The Goverment. Yes competition creates winners and losers, anything else creates just losers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathgod
Mega corporations employ so many people because they've gobbled up all the market share and destroyed competition. They used their massive wealth and influence to get favors from government, from a tax structure that benefits them to subsidies... that benefit them.
Now you're on the trolley, see my point about the Goverment being in the way of competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathgod
All this stuff you say billionaires "generate" would still be generated in their absence.
Dont know that and evidence points to that isn't true.
1. We are or where in a revolution - Tech
2. Tech works at scale i.e. How many computers around the world use Windows. You can see how that will generate massive wealth.
3. This amount of wealth wasn't being generated prior, look at the historical trend of the stock market as a simple example, it's only gone up over time. If there wasn't a tech revolution or something similar that may not of happened.
Ok it's not black and white, CEO is the bigger generator of wealth based on the decisions they make, the empoyees for the most part execute on those decisions and usually generate wealth for themselves, and their impact on overall wealth is minimal.
If everyone who isn't a billionaire suddenly vanished from existence, and only billionaires were left, they'd quickly learn just how much wealth creation they're actually capable of. Answer: pretty close to zlich. Turns out it's pretty hard to take credit for "creating trillions in wealth" when there aren't hard working people for you to make money off the backs of.
Conversely, if all billionaires suddenly vanished and everyone else was still here, society would more or less continue on without much disruption.
(...well, maybe except for Taylor Swift. Society still needs her.)
Quote:
Agreed. The number 1 impediment to competition? The Goverment. Yes competition creates winners and losers, anything else creates just losers.
Now you're on the trolley, see my point about the Goverment being in the way of competition.
You completely missed what I meant by competition. I meant companies on more or less equal footing competing for customers, not companies competing to put each other out of business.
Quote:
Dont know that and evidence points to that isn't true.
1. We are or where in a revolution - Tech
2. Tech works at scale i.e. How many computers around the world use Windows. You can see how that will generate massive wealth.
If Windows didn't exist, computers would run on something else. Something akin to Windows would have emerged at some point even if Gates never created Windows.
Quote:
3. This amount of wealth wasn't being generated prior, look at the historical trend of the stock market as a simple example, it's only gone up over time. If there wasn't a tech revolution or something similar that may not of happened.
Again the tech revolution is largely due to hard working people in Silicon Valley and other places (and of course ultra-low-cost physical labor in Asia). Musk and Besos wouldn't have got anything off the ground without the people working for their companies. And when you look at everything that their companies have to offer, how can you know that some other companies would not have provided these or similar products & services if these 2 men had never burst onto the scene?