I don’t like Elon either, but it’s not like it falls on him to end world hunger. If the banks that funded his acquisition can cobble together $43 billion then they could have done the same to end world hunger, provide clean water infrastructure, and any number of other projects to benefit humanity. Unfortunately the ones that hoard the wealth are short sighted and don’t see that as a good investment.
Removed by mod
Well, as much as I would like him to use his money for philanthropic reasons, it is his money, he can do whatever he wants with it. I don’t really understand all this hate against him for not ending world hunger. Can someone explain what I am missing?
His “money” is actually mostly just stock ownership of the overvalued Tesla company and the money to buy Twitter is actually mostly borrowed from banks (secured against the overvalued Tesla stock).
He could have probably gobbled together the 6 billion the UN was asking for ending world hunger, but this 50 billion “purchase” of Twitter is mostly just virtual money that could vaporize over night.
deleted by creator
It’s a 50/50 split between his fund and banks.
I remember something like this: Musk shit posted on Twitter that the reason there is world hunger is because governments are incompetent of feading people. He also challenge some UN organisation to make a plan what it would take to end global hunger, and if he has enough money to fund it he would do it.
The UN then gave him a plan and said some lower two digit billion number to pay for it.
Then Musk forgot his shit talking and ignored it.
I will try to find some sources, but this is what I remember when seeing such memes.
Edit: is was only 6bil $. Here is an article. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/18/tech/elon-musk-world-hunger-wfp-donation/index.html
Ah, got it.
Read a bit more about it. From another article: Beasley acknowledged that “$6 billion will not solve world hunger,” adding that that “it WILL prevent geopolitical instability [and] mass migration.”
Also, there are many cases of WFP’s donation causing more problems, like bankrupting local farmers (when giving food), or increase political corruption (when giving money).
So, it seems it isn’t as simple as just donating $6 Billion would have ended world hunger, but it would have mitigated a specific, current issue.
Thanks for the explanation!
deleted by creator
it is his money
Nope, it’s money he stole from his employees by using them like cattle.
Stole, did he tie them with chains and make em work? They were all willing to work. This line of reasoning is absurd.
be you
live in capitalist hellhole US
have basic bodily needs like food
maybe a health problem or two that you need to pay for
need to work for an asshole billionaire for what little peanuts he gives you
don’t this billionaire? well your options are him or another boss that treats you just as shittily
no work, no money, you die.
Not that far from having literal chains if you ask me
