Tech billionaires who donate biggest % of wealth to charity

>Most tech billionaires use their wealth to build better technology which in turn makes your life better.
do they though?

>attempt to minimize their contributions to civilization
>mostly so you feel better about trying to steal from them
>but there's also a bit of "so my pointless life doesn't feel totally like a useless waste of organic compounds"

yes, plenty of billionaires donate to other tech companies, start ups and so on.

some do, most of the money possessed by the very rich doesn't go anywhere

> contribute back to the society
You mean, to niggers in Africa, like Bill does? That's not the society that made then rich.

>Most tech billionaires use their wealth to build better technology which in turn makes your life better.
this is a load of bullshit. I'm sure the CEOs of companies like apple are pushing products on people with the intention of making their lives "better". fuck, no, capitalism is driven solely by profit; for instance, there is no need for an iPhone X but there is a market for one as long as retarded consumer basedboys like you exist.

stay cucked goy

donating money to some jew charity that will just waste it isn't the only way to give back to society.

>and don't contribute back to the society that made them rich?
They're rich because millions and millions of individuals agreed to private transactions on fair terms, underwritten by laws passed by a democratic government. Talking about 'society' is just a way to get around every single one of those individuals ignoring the ethical implications of their own transactions.

>there is no need for an iPhone X
Businesses, tech especially, have to keep pushing out new products or they'll lose tons of money in a short time period since everyone wants the latest shit.

If they don't release a new phone series then everyone will just flock to another company that releases the next big update.

>Why are tech nerds such hoarders, and don't contribute back to the society that made them rich?
Cause hoarding is good for the environment.

Foldable smartphones make everyone's life better. Billions of people will be saved from the daily toils and misery of life with this advanced technology that cost us more money than the GDP of the planet a few thousand years ago.

>"charity"

Attached: 1518562082824.gif (600x293, 2.14M)

You could make the same argument for touch screens 20 years ago. Back then they were shitty gimmick, today they are legit transforming the lives of billions of people.

Maybe in 20 years companies will find useful applications of foldable screens that will also transform the lives of billions.

You shouldn't be so quick to mock emerging technology. Case in point: Steve Ballmer mocking the iphone in 2007.

So you agree that there's no need for an iPhone X other than keep consumers consuming

I remember that around 2005 touch screens were used to allow low IQ retards to work as cashiers, and later to automate fruit/vegetable measuring so clients can do it themselves.
The technology was useful for businesses from the get go, it took a while to convince people they personally need it, but it was always useful.

Probably because society treated them like shit when they were younger.
>1 Bill Gates 46%
Based Gates

>Literally posts a list of 9 people who have donated tens of billions of dollars to charity combined.
>Tech billionaires don't donate to charity.

Before you take a shit on the tech industry, why don't you compare them with billionaires from other industries? I have a feeling non-tech billionaires donate way less than this.

The funny thing is how many of these billonaries like to call themselves philanthropists for some reason, I could only believe that crap from bill gates for this exact reason

>why don't you compare them with billionaires from other industries
Why don't you? You might be surprised.

idk, don't really care that much desu. However I would say realestate billionaires such as Trump, or bankers such as the Rothschilds are much bigger hoarders than Zucc or Page.

I can give away 100 dollars and 200% of my money to charity at the same time.

Attached: 6fbf1ea.jpg (1080x1118, 87K)

>take other people's money.
Literally nothing wrong with this. There shouldn't be any private companies anyway.

>thinks that they don't contribute to the society
>thinks that the society gave to them

>today they are legit transforming the lives of billions of people.
How?

whilst I believe that Bill Gates is a truly wholesome guy and does the charity thing because he thinks it is the right thing to do I think the other ones just donate because of good promo and a feeling of duty to do so.
Bill all the way. Fuck Zucc and Bezos.

imagine being bald

now you know why

I do, and now?

Probably because many of them are actively working on projects that make humanity better. Someone who just got lucky in the stock market has to donate more to prove they aren't a selfish fuck.

>Why are tech nerds such hoarders, and don't contribute back to the society that made them rich?
WTF? Society made nothing. Society is a disease.

They shouldn't have to donate

fuck everyone else. They gamed the system and got a lot of money. Stop being so bitchmade

Just how much drugs is Zuck taking to cope? Look at that glazed robotic face.

Bill Gates is still the richest man in the world, despite giving 46% of his wealth he is still worth the same because he earns a lot from his stock ownership of MS. If the other guys gave away 46% of their net worth would be 46% less than it used to be.

Nope, Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world.

Touchscreens are the core technology of smartphones.

And if you are implying that smarphones aren't changing the lives of people, you are ignorant. Just compare the world now to the world circa 2006 (before the smartphones as we know them today). We have instant messaging, access to near infinite information on the web, extremely high quality cameras, gaming devices, etc. all in our pockets.

I believe without the wide spread use of touchscreens, smartphones today wouldn't be half as popular and ubiquitous. Can you imagine normies carring about the bulky Nokia dumbphones of the early 2000s as much as they care about their phones today? And if you don't have high demand, then you won't have fast r&d and progress as well.

TL;DR: No touchscreens = Much slower smarphone developement.

>Linus Torvalds -98.3%

KEK LINKEKS ON SUICIDE WATCH

jeff bezos don't owe me fuckin shit, only a nigger complains about rich people not spending their money

They know as well as we do that charitable donations don't go back to "the society." Their best buds are all trustees of countless charities. That's precisely why they know that their money would just constitute a wealth transfer from one rich person to another slightly less rich person.

Not to disparage Bill, but I'm sincerely curious how much of his money has done nothing but line the pockets of opportunists in Africa. He's only making a difference because the sheer magnitude of his donations mean that enough is getting through to the ground level.

You do realize that philanthropy is OBJECTIVELY just another form of financial investment right? They may help people but not out of kindness, they literally have so much money thay they don't know how to spend it.

And thats because the majority of all economic growth is just directly funneled into their undeserving pockets.

Attached: bills.jpg (521x631, 58K)

Money laundering

Even more, for businessmen in Russia — making a donate = paying part of taxes. Can you fucking imagine it?

The whole reason these people donate so much to charity is so they can pay less taxes.
Look up how all that shit is directly detracted from it.
Also, Facebook and Amazon are not tech companies.

A more pertinent question is why do you accumulate power which is what money is and not use it right away on a big, ambitious project before that money is worth nothing and your power rendered null.
There is no point in being so rich that your position starts being compromised by sheer imbalance if you don't use that temporary advantage to build New Jerusalem on Mars or something ridiculous like that.

based gates

>donating billions to keep the most useless people on this earth procreating at prodigious rates is somehow considered charitable

What he's really contibuting to is social collapse... I guess that could be charitable if you look at it with a Ted perspective...

I mean, the whole polio thing.
that shit can happen to anyone

>this little knowledge of history
Europe had the same population explosion when hygiene, medicine, fertilizer, refrigeration and vaccines kicked in. And then the fertility quickly dropped once all of your children were likely to survive, because fuck having 8 kids to raise. Imagine being the seventh son, no way in hell you are having more than 2 kids yourself.
Its happening in Africa too, once they get the amenities to live decently, they will start craving TV, video games, fast food, and wear condoms on the 0.8 times per week they have sex. Animal man is becoming civilized man, and his fertility drops. Gates is fueling this transformation.

Yeah, that disease that was solved before Mr. Gates birth. He is the champion of eliminating it.

Oh so no one in the world has ever gotten polio since he was born?
okay matey

>head in the clouds egalitarianism

Not going that far... but giving him credit for the Polio vaccine is patently absurd.

Of course he didnt, hes just trying to make good use of it

The more niggers that dont get it the better so they can pick cotton faster

His post makes perfect sense, though. I'd think he's right.

Everyone of them has like five houses.

If I could give out 99.9999% of my wealth and still not have to worry about housing/health/food about myself and people around me, then I'd do it too.

Heck, giving out 99.99% of all of these billionaire's money is functionally the same as me spitting on the gravel. Neither of those effect me.

>donate to charity
>charity sends money to african countries
>African dictators use the money to buy whatever shit and remain in power longer
>somehow this helps the starving people in africa

Yeah, once you've gone down the path of making unequal things equal there is no limit to the insanity that can be produced.

If i was this rich, i wouldn't donate a cent.
Instead, i would make contracts with very strict stipulations on how the money have to be spent and sue the fuck out of who breaks it.

This "give us money to do what we want that may or may not help people" is just a retarded way to spend money into improving the world.

why don't you just spend the money directly on how you believe the world should be improved

There was a suggestion years ago to change humanitarian aid to African states with a gamey system where payment is tied to achievement.
>to unlock the first tier of payment, implement voting for X office
>to unlock the next tier of payment, have some percent ethnic minorities in office
And so on.

That's a good option indeed.

Most of Bill Gates' donations go to trying to get my guns taken away or exacerbate the nigger population boom in Africa.

>donate to charity
>charity sends money to starving africans
>africans stop starving
>africans have more babies
>now those africans are starving
>suddenly africa's population increases 10x
>mass extinctions of native wildlife on the continent
>africans flood into europe

There's no scenario where sending money to Africa is a good thing. We just need to let the continent rot and turn it into a nature preserve.

Attached: 8d6.jpg (645x729, 48K)

>this video game logic
African fertility will drop rapidly when they adjust to high survival rate for kids. A few generations ago they weren't growing that much, because they kept dying. A few generations from now they won't grow that much, because they won't breed that much. But you are born just in time to make a shitty observation and post a dumb comment about it.

They can do their African Miracle without my tax dollars. Not my fucking problem they keep killing each other instead of farming at a technological level at least equivalent to the year 1900.

Not an argument, m8. Artificially inflating the carrying capacity of Africa isn't in anyone's long term interest. We've tried it for 50 years and its been an unmitigated failure. Let it fail.

Birth rates don't respond to lower infant mortality rates, they respond to increased living standards, something Africa will never experience.

>"More than half of global population growth between now and 2050 is expected to occur in Africa," says the United Nations report. "Of the additional 2.4 billion people projected to be added to the global population between 2015 and 2050, 1.3 billion will be added in Africa."
businessinsider.com/africas-population-explosion-will-change-humanity-2015-8

I don't understand why its so hard for you to see the writing on the wall. Why are you so interested in flooding the world with Africans?

Nerds and dorks who get power through their companies only view customers, employees and investors employees as rocket fuel. An expendable resource to be burned to fuel their ascent to the top as fast as possible. Zuckfuck is a perfect example, he ripped off his initial investor, defrauded two guys that wanted him to build a similar site then fucking went on to make a company that shits all over their employees with ridiculous hours and bogus stock rewards. Users get manipulated into get upset over bullshit as they get stuck running circles around their social media for hours.

What Zuckzuck and Bezos contributed to the civilization? We had social networks before fb, we had eshops before amazon, they are just lucked out to came on top.

Cheap devices getting to third world countries -> banking apps -> loans -> starting businesses -> generating wealth -> people raising themselves out of poverty.
Plus, a source of infinite information and low cost communication.
Smartphone manufacturers have literally done more to help the poor all over the world than all the welfare payments that have ever been paid out.
It literally is happening right now.

Attached: 1464059328560.png (1079x806, 727K)

>"The planet will be under water by 2050", says the United Nations Report. "It has been raining for 3 days in a row, and if we project that for the next 30 years, we can expect the sea level to rise above any ground level".

Literally what the report is, by the way.

Your entire argument is debunked on page 3 of the report. Why do you think you are more informed than the statisticians and population experts the UN employed to write this report?

>A rapid population increase in Africa is anticipated even if there is a substantial reduction of fertility levels in the near future. The medium variant projection assumes that fertility will fall from 4.7 children per women in 2010-2015 to 3.1 in 2045-2050, reaching 2.2 by 2095-2100. After 2050, Africa is expected
to be the only major area still experiencing substantial population growth. As a result, Africa’s share of
global population is projected to grow to 25 per cent in 2050 and 39 per cent by 2100, while the share
residing in Asia will fall to 54 per cent in 2050 and 44 per cent in 2100. Regardless of the uncertainty
surrounding future trends in fertility in Africa, the large number of young people currently on the
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs/Population Division
World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables
3continent who will reach adulthood in the coming years and have children of their own, ensures that the region will play a central role in shaping the size and distribution of the world’s population over the coming decades.

And they'll still be the useless niggers they are now.

These are arbitrary numbers, dude. They are "sounds about right" numbers. You can't test that shit.

And they will still be the useless niggers they are now. 100 million or 80 billion

The most jarring thing about all this aid the West is pumping into Africa is that its slowing the development of Africa. The subsidized food in particular is undercutting the development of local agriculture. These people already have an uphill battle as it is, and these self-righteous do-gooders are just making it harder in an effort to appear virtuous.

No shit, anyone that's not a braindead lefty should have worked this out 4 decades ago around the LIVE AID shit. Smartphones and the internet allowing micro loans and capital generation for impoverished but motivated individuals to build something out of nothing has done infinitely more for promoting a higher quality of life versus dumping a trillion tonnes of free rice and peanutbutter into random fields for warlords to kill each other over.

Why can't you just admit you are wrong, m8? You're on an anonymous emu breeding forum. Nobody knows who you are. Just drop the ego bullshit and admit you learned something new today.

Wrong about what? I remember these "... by 2000" projections from the 1990s. They are shit. Projections are always shit. New things come out of nowhere and change everything.

Nigger you think they wire the money to Mugabe's GIRO account? It's spent in vaccines and shit you retard.

What makes you think either the UN or anyone else can predict the future?
All "by [current year + 30], we'll be happy/sad/dead/rich/poor" predictions are nothing but hand waving and the hope that people will forget by the time it's clear you were wrong.

New York Subway will be underwater by the year 2000 m8

Populations are much easier to predict than climate or other natural phenomena. I certainly hope these predictions are wrong, but I don't have any reason to doubt their accuracy.

>"donates" half his wealth to... The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Real charitable

>donations go to increasing populations of Africa and India
>Microsoft imports African and Indian H1B workers
Hmmm. It's almost as if he's inflating the supply to decrease the price.

We didn't know Europe would be running out of people 30 years ago.
We didn't know China would be running out of young people to take care of the old 30 years ago.
We didn't know that a significant portion of MENA would start migrating to Europe en masse 30 years ago.

>We didn't know Europe would be running out of people 30 years ago.
Yes, we did the UN even developed a plan to combat this 20 years ago. Guess what the place was. Flooding the West with millions of nonwhite, or "population replacement" as they called it. They were even arrogant enough to publish a report on it. These influxes of migrants isn't just an accident.

archive.is/bDI5t

That's less than 20 years ago, and predicting to 2050. We don't know what will happen by 2050.
What if war breaks out before then?
China still applies.
MENA kinda still applies. If you're doing it on purpose, it's not a prediction, it's a plan.