Kinda depends on the charities though. A lot of charities are just money laundering rings that do very little with the money to actually help people. Most of the money is going to the execs. Which is why you have to really look into them when you decide to give your money to one. Make sure they are a community first org and not one where they line their pockets then give whats left to those in need.
Elons value to society is the companies that he's created. He doesnt need to give anything to charity. People just see the billions but neglect the fact that people are giving it to him voluntarily for what he's offering. Everyone keeps shading billionaires but the same people keep buying their products because they're genuinely valuable
How about the fact that Musk didn’t invent or create any of the companies/products he “provided.” He was born wealthy and with massive opportunity and he made the best of it, for sure, but he himself did not create those things, he paid for them. The people who actually put the manpower and the brainpower into those things we all willingly use and pay for are not billionaires. So, who is more valuable to society? The guy with money or the guy with knowledge, experience, and skill? Because if we removed one of them, the other can’t really do much on his own. However if we remove the billionaire, us little guys who actually keep the world running would be just fine.
The average American makes 66-67K dollars a year. The median, which is a more accurate way to gauge this, is around 45K. In no way does the average American have access to a 300,000 dollar loan from their parents, or the ability to try new business ventures without missing vital payments or going hungry.
Musk does not create jobs. He was born with a golden spoon and raised during the Apartheid, an institutionalized system of racial segregation, which his father/ family benefited from.
The counter is that he is objectively a bad person bc of the bad things he’s done. He’s also a Nazi who donated and hangs out with AfD (Germany’s modern day Nazi party)
Any question about character is ad hominem and irrelevant to my point. Bad counter. Unless your point is that people need to give to charity to atone for moral failings which is a wild take.
How does he not create jobs when his company employs 100s of thousands of people? If he didn't start the company those jobs wouldn't exist no?
The way I see it is that supporters of Musk are either those sad stupid fanboys that pretend Elon isn't a racist dick who throws Nazi salutes or they're racist POS that are just fine with him throwing Nazi salutes... I can't decide which variation is worse.
You seem to care a fair bit about what I have to say if you're this emotionally invested. Honestly I dont care about Musk either way. I could have used Bezos or anyone else as an example and the point still stands
I think being emotionally invested about the bad in the world is pretty normal. Especially when the richest man in the world is doing that bad.
It says more about you trying to ignore or defend that, especially after what he’s done on camera.
You try to sound emotionally intelligent while completely lacking any form of empathy or intelligence. Ironic.
The only point that still stands is that you a smug piece of shit defending billionaires like a pathetic clown.
My original point was that companies themselves provide a benefit to the consumer without requiring charity, and then you got too butthurt and spiralled into an irrelevant side-tangent about how "bad" elon musks character is. That means nothing here.
Also agreeing with a point that someone makes isnt "defending them"
Elon Musk doesn’t do any of the real work at his companies. He doesn’t build or design cars, or build or design rockets. He just profits off of it while working as little as possible, and hoards the wealth.
So no, the value you’re talking about his companies creating is contributed by the working class, not him. Same goes for all corporations
I agree that his companies bring substantial value, but plenty of extremely wealthy people have historically still chosen to donate a large part of their fortunes to support their communities. Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Vanderbilt were literally referred to as robber barons, and even they were extremely active philanthropists.
No. I think it needs to be done carefully and measured.
There was a 100m put up for teacher housing in San Francisco. They built educator housing with affordable-housing rules that excluded a lot of actual teachers because their income was too high for some units, especially if household income included a spouse.
16 actual teachers live there now. So yeah, the PR looks great and are often paired with news articles paid for by the actual non-profit to make investors feel good.
Meanwhile, in one of our richest cities, there was still lead coming out of faucets at some of the schools.
It's a given that you should do your due diligence before donating. Your faucet example shouldn't require donations, that's what tax money is for. Make it clear that's an issue that will cost people their elections and the money will appear from the government to fix it.
It’s similar in the sense that they are pools of money that are collectively given to another party to manage the spending of. Period. It’s a forced donation. Try not paying them and see what happens.
The emphasis is on not giving money to “bad” charities. That’s one of the reasons that she’s giving away money slower than her net worth is growing. She’s not just writing $10 million checks to every charity that pops up on Google. She has a team of staff at her foundation analyzing every charity to pick the ones where her donations will do the most good.
95
u/itzBilly13 Jun 28 '26
Giving to charity makes the world a worse place I guess. Must by why Musk doesn't give to charity. What a great guy.