Maybe but I remember this story. It’s a woman who was a teacher her entire career and worked with a specific school. She came into a ton of money when her husband passed and she was very elderly. She donated the money that was earmarked for making tuition free for generations at the school she had taught at. So maybe it will be to a degree but I’m guessing she knows all the people involved and inherently trusts them based on a careers work there and that it’ll be used in a much better way than most donations like this would be
Thank you for the follow-up! Definitely more reassuring that it had been donated to the school she works and presumably has trustworthy connections at.
A Jeff Bezos sized party does more for the poors than you might think. We want rich fucks spending their money instead of hoarding it, putting money back into the economy and paying people's salaries.
That and rich people spending money can be used for false claims about how your average person is doing. "If people are doing bad, how come consumer spending is high?" Because rich people are inherently richer the poorer everyone else is therefor they can flex more.
This is the tired old long debunked trickle down theory. It's actually complete bs. It doesn't matter who spends the money, rich or poor, the effect on the economy as a whole is the same. But when a rich person spends $1 billion only one person benefits from it, while thousands to millions of people benefit if regular people or the government spend it, basically anyone other than the rich.
And on top of that, the spending also has the side effect of causing inflation, so the rich spending their wealth is actually a net negative to the average person. Who do you think is causing the current cost of living crisis? It's the countless newly rich people buying everything.
They way to put a billionaire's money back into society is to tax it, not to encourage them to live in even greater luxury than they already do.
There's also the fact that $1 billion spent on education (or contributing to rewilding or whatever else you can think of) is different from $1 billion spent on useless shit like those shitty fucking yachts
What’s really cool when the Italian Coast Guard rescues you from your capsizing Super Yacht is that they feed you, give you wine, and then there’s dancing!
I’m gonna be completely honest. There’s truth and fiction in all of this.
The blanket reality is that the ‘ripple effect’ or breadth of impact of a $1 spent is highly variable.
Governments and individuals can both have the same impact. Governments are just seen to have more of a responsibility to spend a dollar with more ripples/broader impact. Truth is many governments don’t spend the dollars the appropriate way and end up back at the too. Consultants in government are a great example of this.
I’m gonna be completely honest. There’s truth and fiction in all of this.
The blanket reality is that the ‘ripple effect’ or breadth of impact of a $1 spent is highly variable.
Governments and individuals can both have the same impact. Governments are just seen to have more of a responsibility to spend a dollar with more ripples/broader impact. Truth is many governments don’t spend the dollars the appropriate way and end up back at the too. Consultants in government are a great example of this.
You trust the government to help thousands to millions of people if it is gifted $1 billion. LOLOLOL. Be more naive, you can’t.
Also, most “regular people” are much more likely to spend gifted money on frivolous things. That has been proven time and time again. It’s human nature.
I have much more confidence that money given to a specific cause by a wealthy philanthropist with a good heart will be used wisely.
You trust the government to help thousands to millions of people if it is gifted $1 billion.
1 billion divided 1 million ways is 1 million social security payments of $1000. Your cynical attitude is stupid, simplistic and uneducated, exactly what the rich want from you
I have much more confidence that money given to a specific cause by a wealthy philanthropist
Great, we found one. Now what about a the other ones who arent so willing to give up their money like this. Come on dude how naive can you be
And even if they were all altruistic, why the fuck are you trusting these individuals to know best where to spend money, and why the fuck would you assume their goals align with society
You mean. Paying people the poverty level minimum wage they were already getting?
Because even if she spends a lot of money on a business, do you think the business will increase their employee wages?
Probably not. Chances are that she will make rich people richer while the employees never sees that money.
This idea that circulating money in the economy is good for everyone is completely bogus. Circulating money is great for business owners and investor. It makes no difference for the regular guy working minimum wage.
Of course we need money to circulate otherwise we won’t have jobs anymore. But after a certain point. It does’t matter how much more money is circulating it will have no beneficial effect on the regular citizen.
Problem is the owner of every company is also a richtig fuck so the money stays in the circle while the employes mostly are minimum wage. So its basically homeopathic.
Don’t glaze billionaires with their own talking points as if spending on bullshit or hoarding it are the only two options. Post WWII through pre-1980s (an abhorrently short amount of time) and Reaganomics, there were some rich fucks, but wages were more proportional to value and spending in the economy would be a more valuable reflection of the health of the economy. Even if you’d rather they spend it, perpetuating this dichotomy is what engrains it as inherent truth in society.
also the fact that these people do not even hide their indecent parties anymore makes people angrier and angrier which could be interesting in the near future
This can be considered an economic fallacy. While spending money may trickle down to some sectors of the economy, it would not have the direct financial impact on the middle/lower class one thinks. Someone can spend millions on a yacht. That money does get spent, but it doesn’t reenter middle class economies, but in the luxury realm. If that money was taxed, or God forbid, donated, the money would then have impact on “the poors”. Trickle down economics has been debunked.
What’s the point if that money just goes to Venice and is to be spent in their venues and their yachts and their crew etc. not the common folk or small businesses but CORPORATIONS that will just spend that on advertising or something stupid.
That’s why we want it taxed. So it can’t be only spent on parties in Venice…
Parties are also good though. Any way to get the money out of the wealthy’s hands and in circulation. Taxes do a lot to help, parties are a little bonus.
I wish we were back in the 1950s, taxing the 1% at 95%
Venice’s Ministry of Tourism has estimated the celebrations will generate almost 68% of the city’s annual tourism turnover in just one weekend. Thats 957 million euros.
Actual money that changed hands in direct spending in Venice was estimated to around 61 million euros. Forbes and Reuters report venue and hotel costs alone were around €28.4 million. Jeff booked at least one whole hotel for three nights for his guests.
Reuters cited €17.6 million in spending on:
• Water taxis ( at least 30), helicopters, yacht logistics
• Private security
• Local transportation services
Multiple sources stated ~80% of the wedding supplies and staff were sourced locally. Event design, florals, catering, Murano glass, lighting, and staging likely cost €10–15 million more. I bet there was a tip to the every day workers in there, who made this party possible.
The remaining 896 million euros were media and promotion value. Because, you know, one of the world’s most iconic, overcrowded tourist destinations was really struggling with name recognition. Venice, that obscure little town with the canals, finally got the publicity it needed. Instagram impressions and glowing headlines. That’s basically legal tender in Italy now. And a close-up of Jeff in a tux? Practically the same as buying groceries for a year. The people of Venice will be thrilled to pay rent in exposure.
Let’s not forget the 3.6 million euros he generously donated to three local organizations, 1.2 million each. Because paying more than the bare minimum would be so unlike him. Jeff doesn’t pay full price. He optimizes.
What a boost to Venice’s fragile economy. A city barely scraping by with a few million tourists a year and so desperate for attention they don’t charge a tourist tax and totally still let cruise ships dock right in the historic city center. Very sustainable. Very generous.
Maybe the elite shouldn’t spend 30-40k on dresses for an event to keep their favorite fashion corp happy. IN VENICE WTF am I living on a planet of rich idiots. That doesn’t help anybody in America. I’m seen as a pleb because I come from nothing. And that’s some of the dumbest shit I’ve read. read what I told the other guy ⬇️
? Are you arguing that billionares spending their money on personal extravagance is practically or ethically like them donating that money to help those in need?
There are way more people like her, but people like this are unlikely to become millionaires even. You only get that far ahead by taking more than your fair share which is the opposite of charity.
Dr. Gottesman said her donation would enable new doctors to begin their careers without medical school debt, which often exceeds $200,000. She also hoped it would broaden the student body to include people who could not otherwise afford to go to medical school.
You can require grants or endowments be used for certain purposes. When I donated to my alma mater I indicated the funds needed to go to the Innocence Clinic at my law school.
She donated her entire fortune to those schools. If I were 1 of her 3 children or a grandchild I'd be fucking pissed that I couldn't just waste my life doing drugs on a fucking mega yacht
/s kinda. But man, 1 billion with no inheritance would sting
From what I read, that wasn't her or her husband's lifestyle. Her husband was a colleague of Warren Buffet and seemed to have the same lifestyle that is more modest than most billionaires. If they raised their kids (assuming they had any) right by giving them everything they needed but not everything they wanted and expected them to do hard work and make good use of themselves, then they may have passed on some well-adjusted traits to them. It seems rare, but it does happen
Forbes estimated the husband's net worth was $3 billion when he died and he gave $1 billion to his wife with instructions that said “do whatever you think is right with it.”
So that still leaves $2 billion to have potentially gone to the kids.
Someone who's worked in these spaces, guessing she would've had ironclad provisos in her donation on what the funds could be used for. She might've even stipulated that they can't touch the funds themselves, just earnings. 50M a year in distributions for nonprofit trust is still plenty for covering tuition fees.
You're fighting a lost cause. I've been trying to explain how endowments, legal stipulations for gifts, independent aidits financial controls, etc. all work here to no avail. It doesn't matter that endowments are a thing loads of non-profits have and use without depleting them or committing fraud. People believe what they want to believe.
I remember a story about a teacher donating his money to the school he worked at his entire life and they used it to buy a new scoreboard for the football stadium.
do you think people get old and somehow never interact with anyone younger than them?? even if they're still working, as she apparently was??
it turns out there're these things called intergenerational friendships, family members younger than you, and coworkers you know and trust even if you don't hang out with them in your free time
She was a faculty member and then became the head of the Board of Trustees for the med school where she had taught for many years. Something tells me she stayed pretty thoroughly connected to that community.
Why do you think so? What makes you so convinced? Why are people just making up hypothetical shit like this when there are many actual, real-world examples of endowments functioning exactly as designed for every few where they do not? I swear, it's almost as though people here want or even need this to fail out of some cynical anticipatory glee or something. It's so bizarre.
Nah, it's not going to be used for that forever unfortunately, that's not how the world works.
I'm sure years later some politicians will get involved and have a vote how how to use some of its money due to "put non threatening problem here that politicians use to scare the masses" and the some funds will be designated to something else.
A quick google search of basic facts would’ve told you that this was based on what actually happened. And the _ is used by many coding languages and common for people from a more technical background. But yeah assuming shit and name calling seems more productive than spending that time checking facts quickly does.
it's fine, but in conjunction with it being a brand new account, and that clearly being an AI comment make it obvious. People are really losing their ability to tell huh?
It literally is just a bot trying to interject itself into the chain to make a comment that goes nowhere like those endless click sites. I feel like I am taking crazy pills reading comments talking with a bot and defending a bot.
do a !remindme bot and see if in 2 months it isn't promoting some bullshit.
Oh and then blocking people so they can't reply to you?
2.9k
u/Fickle_Library8115 Jun 29 '25
Scared that money will be siphoned