Remember when people thought “trickle down” economics actually worked? Perhaps if we give a lot more money to the rich it will start working one day, somehow? That seems to be the current plan, but I have another idea: what if we reversed it and used “trickle up” to give money to those most in need? All the data I can find, including our rgmii.org data and studies in progress, all seem to show that this direction works. ⬆️
Discussion
Loading...
@codinghorror - This is the goal. But the way we get there isn't by asking politely, of that you can be sure.
Until people band together against conservatism, we are hopelessly divided.
#EndConservatism that is the pillar they build all their evil upon.
@codinghorror interesting to rank by net worth and % giving.
Never would have guessed Zuck would be near the top of the list for percentage giving. Elon at the bottom fits though.
@dxzdb yeah but he "gave" it to self serving bullshit. Look more closely.
@codinghorror Elon has donated $0.5B to charities over his entire life but $0.25B just to elect Trump. Tax these mfers and repeal Citizens United
@BoredomFestival yes, now tell me step by step how we do that. I know one way, which is increasingly the only viable way I can see due to how badly the couples counseling is going, but nobody wants to hear it.
@codinghorror Isn't this ironic that Buffett is the most generous of the bunch, while looking like he has the most classical mindset amongst all of the list?
I mean, he's no saint, but the numbers at least he gave ~47% of this net worth?
@codinghorror how much of that is their donation to their own organization?
@dozymoe that's what I was getting at in an earlier reply. Look closely at what is given, and to where.
@codinghorror If you have a million and give a million people $1 each, 100% of it is spent. If you give a thousand people $1000 each, probably most if not all of it is spent. If you give one person all of the money, they’ll most likely spent some of it and either save or invest the rest in shares or some other unproductive hoarding. Even more so if the person already has more money than they could ever spend.
So, even for purely economic reasons, giving to those in need is the way to go.
@klongeiger it is kinda "y-combinator for the rest of us", exactly, make wildly diverse small investments in our greatest natural resource: each other.
@codinghorror Trickle down hasn’t worked since Ancient Rome and beyond. I’m not sure why people still believe it ever worked today.
@codinghorror
Which way is up? The people on your list are some of the lowest of the low.
@mossyrua don't really agree; you can make a billion dollars. But ask yourself: what is the purpose of money? What is it for? Why are we here? And most importantly of all, when is enough?
@codinghorror "Trickle down" is sharecropping grown up. If the Big Man gets richer, maybe he'll put indoor plumbing in the shacks.
@codinghorror They talk about "trickle-down", by me "bubble-up" is more realistic.
Turns out people who know struggle are far, far more generous than the rich. Plus MacKenzie Scott out there showing everyone else how it should be done. If I had billions, believe me, our family would have deployed half of it already, as we already did: https://blog.codinghorror.com/launching-the-rural-guaranteed-minimum-income-initiative/
@codinghorror Reminds me of an answer I once saw to the question “What would you don’t you suddenly had a billion dollars?” Somebody very smart said “I’d give most of it to Dolly Parton. She’d know what to do with it way better than anything I could think up on my own.”
@codinghorror I used to watch Telethons like Children in Need and Red Nose Day and feel really good about about the £40 million or so raised. Now I realise how insignificant that is when there are people who could really make a difference, without even noticing, but don't. The 7 year old saving their pocket money has more humanity.