I am surprised nobody said 'education'. Every dollar spent there generates two dollars of worth. Educated people have fewer children and pollute less. Educated people don't vote as many morons into power. I sincerely believe many problems of the world could have been prevented with educating everyone involved.
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
6 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
42525 readers
1055 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Education, specifically primary and secondary education for girls, is highly effective at reducing poverty. It deserves be highly prioritized for investment.
True. Also sex ed and 'life education' like spending advice or household tips for people who struggle to live alone. I'd probably have a board of various teachers advising me on where to spend how much and track the results with studies to be able to correct course.
buy politians to make them make laws to fuck over bilionaries, what is ironic lol
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.
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
donβt 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?
It seems like you had a point to contribute somewhere in there, but maybe try and communicate it in a way that isn't so pointed at the other user. We'd like to discourage that sort of toxicity here. Maybe if they were being a total shithead or reactionary, feel free to go off, but it seems unwarranted.
That's fair. I was a bit harsh mostly from the fact that we are talking about replacing congressmen, and them claiming that we should change the laws first. It's like a complete misunderstanding of cause and effect. But ultimately this is just a magical thinking exercise, so no need to be hostile about it.
Right, you can assume that people around here aren't racist/homophobic/transphobic etc... Cause even if they are, they're gonna catch a ban as soon as they expose themselves. They generally don't deserve your full wrath if we're fundamentally "on the same side" just cause they are kinda naive and not big fat theory nerds like some people around here.
In the future you can go against the position, but you repeatedly used "you" in this post making it personal and right up against our civility guidelines.
Hire hitmen to remove the other 100 richest people in the π.
This is a great answer. But you have to realize, "hitmen" cannot operate autonomously. You would need to fund them, create a private investigative network, etc etc so that you could hunt down other billionaires. basically, you have to get your hands dirty if you want this to work.
So... Not to techbro this, but can we crowdfund this and accidentally reinvent the revolution?
Unfortunately unless you introduced some kind of sci-fi "keep what you kill" culture like in Chronicals of Riddick, no. Revolution is expensive, and those that have money are absolutely not interested in that nonsense. Ultimately if you want a revolution, it had to happen without an individual profit motive.
First I'd find out how to make the money grow ethically
Then I'd invest in fusion power and green power, invest in lab-grown meat, invest in atmosphere cleaning, perhaps start some well-funded schools in areas of low education, sponsor some hospitals, etc.
I think I would also try to get asteroid mining to take off.
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.
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.
Build a fusion power plant and put money into fuel production for it.
Buy as much land a possible and build houses for homeless people to rent at an extremely low cost. They would need to either have a job or be actively looking for one (with proof since trying to get one shows they might actually be trying to better their life, in my eyes at least), pay for their own food, and maybe a $10 monthly rent.
The lease would be on a yearly basis and if they find a better place they can afford before the lease is up, they would be allowed to leave without any sort of early lease termination fees. There would probably be a month long period where the person(s) could move back in just in case the new place doesn't work out and they have to move out. During the grace period, nobody can move in.
I would, with the hypothetical money, pay for their utility bills and try to keep up on repairs/maintenance so long as they don't abuse it by doing something like constantly keeping the water on 24/7, using as much electricity as they can physically can, or purposefully breaking and wrecking the place.
Also, I would let them know that they would be responsible if they get their internet access cut off because they were too busy pirating. Even though I personally support piracy, I wouldn't want to be in trouble for piracy that I wasn't directly involved in.
Wow you would reinvent "means testing" except make sure that it is to your whims speciifcally instead of a government service. So tell me, how would building houses 500 miles from the nearest metropolitian area while requiring "a job" be sustainable? Are you providing them jobs? What if the jobs they found didn't meet your definition of "bettering their life?" Would you then bus them off to Chicago or New York city? Why not just create company town where you provide them with the job you find useful to your bottom line and then post on lemmy.ml about how benevolent you are?
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.
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.