• RedFrank24@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    16 小时前

    Venture capitalist Bradley Tusk told LBC: “If Elon Musk says he needs a trillion dollars because he’s going to solve global hunger or something like that, great, have at it. But I don’t know what you could possibly buy with a trillion dollars that you couldn’t buy with a hundred billion, or probably even $10 billion.”

    Well at least he’s aware of how much money a trillion dollars is and how easy it would be to solve world hunger.

    • ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 小时前

      He once said that if there was a concrete plan to solve world hunger he would do it. Then a representative of an actual plan to solve world hunger showed up on his Twitter feed and provided him with information and he was like ‘nah’.

      And the plan would only cost a small amount of his fortune. He bought Twitter for much, much more.

      • Zink@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 小时前

        I think it was only like 6 billion, right?

        A huge number on its own, but in this context it’s nothing.

        • ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 小时前

          He paid 44 billion for Twitter and it took him a few days to raise that much money. He could have been the man to write the cheque to end world hunger and be honored by millions for generations to come (despite all his other bullshit), but he chose not to.

          The world starves not because we cannot feed the hungry, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 小时前

          Yup. The actual sources of world hunger aren’t material but systemic. So it’s not as easy as just “giving everyone food”, but the more complicated “give everyone access to a robust agriculture supply chain”.
          Fortunately, giving 1-2% of people fertilizer and some work animals might be a bit more complicated, it’s significantly cheaper.