My partner and I were discussing this over dinner, our ideas went from buying up land to finance organic farming and distributing it at the lowest price to crashing the financial system to “reset” everybody’s bank account with no possible recovery. Any other ideas?
First off, invest and diversify it in companies and startups also focused on positive change, like those creating technology for lowering the cost of food and necessities and improving lives of people with disabilities. Stuff that improves our everyday lives and creates real value in the world. Solving all the world’s problems is not really something that one person can reasonably do on their own effectively, so it needs to be allocated to other groups of people where it can make a proper difference. Build housing and invest in education globally with the proceeds, helping those in need to get back on their feet. Investing it intelligently means you’ll never run out of cash, and even have more year-over-year to improve the lives of more and more people. If there are a lot fewer people struggling in the world, those people can then dedicate time to solving world problems and improving lives and continue the cycle.
As you acquire more money you can provide more services to more people, make more positive investments and help and improve the lives of more people.
Shit, I think I just described capitalism. Whoops, nevermind. Sorry I know that sort of thing is frowned upon here. I think the best thing to do would be to give every person on earth $12 one-time. Well, minus the costs and logistics involved in doing that, so every person on earth can get $8 after expenses. That should do it.
Shit, I think I just described capitalism
I wish what you just described had happened under capitalism so far.
“Capitalism” is a very broad definition and the devil’s in the details.
No disagreement there. In an ideal world that’s what capitalism would/should look like.
buy politians to make them make laws to fuck over bilionaries, what is ironic lol
This. It’s called “legislative capture” and corporates do it all the time.
I would set up a massive lucrative company and lobby the hell out of governments.
I feel like this is the only answer that would make a difference long-term.
The other suggestions like giving people food and housing would only be putting a bandaid on a broken system; it needs to actually change to prevent the same situations from reoccurring.
You might be underestimating how little 100 billion is, compared to the wealth of other billionaires.
100 billion puts you in the top 15 richest on the planet. You’d actually rank #11 ahead of Sergey Brin and Bloomberg.
That’s the publicly known list. There are many billionaires out there whose asset values are intentionally obfuscated so that they can remain below the radar (particularly offshore holdings), and there are known cases of people suing to stay off the billionaires list.
With the pennies they actually pay lawmakers, though? 100 billion could go a loooooooooong fucking way to outspend the billionaires.
The reason they’re billionaires is because they’re fuckin misers and penny-pinchers. They hate spending money and that is evidenced by how cheaply our politicians are bought for.
Simply outspend them quickly, and you’ll have the politicians licking your boots.
This one crossed our mind as well, the problem is you usually don’t compete against billionaires but rather against corporations or conglomerate which has much more economic power that single individuals. You also have to account for the benefits that these private entities can promise (knowing a law will favor a certain industry is a good way to make cash by buying stocks before said law passes), that’s quite hard to compete with that when you’re a philanthropist
don’t compete against billionaires but rather against corporations or conglomerate which has much more economic power that single individuals. You also have to account for the benefits that these private entities can promise (knowing a law will favor a certain industry is a good way to make cash by buying stocks before said law passes)
I don’t disagree. However, 100 billion is still a massive amount.
$1 million is literally only 0.1% of $1 billion. That means $100 million is similarly 0.1% of $100 billion.
Nancy Pelosi is one of the wealthiest people in congress and with all her assets, she’s only worth around $114 million.
Rick Scott, the richest, is only worth around $259 million.
If $100 million is only 0.1% of the total amount I am working with, I can literally EXPLODE the valuations of these people really simply.
Sure, they can “make a lot of money” by knowing insider information before others do, and people like Pelosi and Scott are doing well because of it, but I have a hard time believing they would shake their head and say “No, not enough” to increasing their personal wealth by 10 times.
I could give Rick Scott a cool $2 billion and Pelosi $1.5 billion and still be left with $97.5 billion dollars to spend. Their personal wealth has just been multiplied by a factor of 10.
I think people vastly underestimate just how much 1 billion is, let alone 100 billion, and genuinely don’t understand how much more wealth that is than those people will ever see by just investing. On top of that, wouldn’t they prefer to have 10 times the amount of money to invest?
If you had 100billion, then why pay the existing shitbags, instead of getting every single one voted out?
I personally feel like changing the laws to limit corruption has to come first before politicians stop taking bribes.
If they can be bought by me, they can be bought by someone else just as easily.
What hopes do I have that the new people will be different? Just look at fucking Kyrsten Sinema. She ran as a moderately progressive candidate and hasn’t just become a Republican and Billionaire enabler, she straight switched to Independent after running as a Democrat.
If we get the laws changed first then there are fewer ways for them to be corrupted/bought. Just changing the person in the position leaves open the option of the new person being corrupted by the same system. Personal opinion, of course.
You are so naive it’s almost adorable. Politicians today are 100% manufactured and raised by PACs trying to push an agenda. “Kyrsten Sinema” who ran as a “moderate democratic” your words, exists so that idiots like you would think that she was the only option in “red state” arizona. However in this fantasy the “new” people are funded by YOU! So if they didn’t believe in a glorious socialist utopia, they wouldn’t have your support any longer, and they wouldn’t be part of your coalition and they could be trivially replaced. It would also mean that you were exceptional bad a building social relationships. So if you funded someone and they turned into a Joe Manchin or a Kyrsten Sinema, it’s literally only yourself to blame. In this fantasy you are the one with 100billion dollars, so who the fuck are you blaming here when shit goes wrong?
As an aside, who do you think “changes laws” so that corruption can be limited?
With 100 billion dollars, I would spend all of it on housing to end homelessness. Let’s just provide homes for as many people as possible. All of it would get spent on this if I had my way.
200,000,000,000 / 200,000 = 1 million homes.
There are about 140 million homes in the USA.
You have ~2.5 people per home in the USA.
You would essentially be able to buy everyone living in Chicago or Houston their own home per population.
Chicago, IL (Population: 2,670,406)
Houston, TX (Population: 2,378,146)I think I would rather work with a builder for higher density housing simply because the money could be stretched further. We need to rethink the concept of housing and homes.
Bet you could buy a lot of teepees with that money and increase the curb appeal of tent cities.
I think you’ve touched on a great point as to how some of the money should be spent - finding the brightest people with the best ideas and adequately funding them. Yet another folly of most billionaires is that they think they have all the answers; if you’re able to eschew that idea then you can really get some serious bang for your buck by not going full-blown Elon with the Captain’s Calls.
deleted by creator
Create a fund and use the dividends to fund free healthcare. Rather than spend it all in one go, I want it to continue generating a stable fund to keep things going.
Ewwwwww! You want us to get Pensions you filthy commie!?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway
Hire people who would actually know where to begin with that.
In the book Capital in 21st Century, the author comes to a conclusion that one way to reduce inequality is by increasing the skills among the people. I would make higher education more accessible to poor people via scholarships, establishing colleges, etc…
Ooo a meritocracy, very impressive, and surely if the poor were just better trained and smarter, we’d live in a utopia.
I’d lean on the charities that have done the research on how best to deploy money and how much money those methods can support.
I’d also set myself and my friends/family up for life with a handful of millions each. But the rest gets donated.
Spend it on the poorest countries around the world.
So… Invest like China? Lol.
Organic farming?
Pesticideless farming that’s respectful of the environment, easy way to make people healthier without damaging the plant further and while thinking about the future sustainably. Sounds like a decent deal to me!
Organic farming isn’t pesticide free, they use a range of pesticides, and usually at a higher volume than normal farming methods, because they don’t work nearly as well.
Additionally, organic farming tends to produce lower yields (19-25% lower on average) than traditional farming, meaning you need to actually use more space and resources (water, fertilizer, plus application of both) for the same benefit.
Organic farming can be good for some things, like fixing already-damaged environments, but it’s not a silver bullet by any means.
Unpopular opinion; A big mass suicide. Just give money to the family of anyone that offers to die. World wide.
Popular opinion; make an american “charity” 😂
Probably just throw it at people until I run out. It’d at least help people up front.
The simple answer is to give it all away in some way. The notion that you can personally do good with that money is the delusion of every billionaire.
Chat suddenly gets handed Noblesse oblige cellphones
I’d buy Facebook and rebrand it as V.
Pretty sure that would kill it.
I’d do this and then turn it into a socialist hell hole where I censor everything that looks like it came from Storm Front. And when conservatives birch and moan for rhetoric that is Storm Front lite, I’ll remind them that the platform is private and duck their feelings
immediately going hard authoritarianism against individuals. Hitler would be proud. Read some sociological theory please. If you want to nationalize all corporations, you are on the right path. But if you want to immediately go “big brother” it shows you are just a petty tyrant who would probably be even worse then our existing society.
Gonna need a couple hundred billion more for that :(
