[Tech Thoughts] There are no good billionaires

Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!

Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.

Visit Suniway.ph to learn

I think part of the latent cynicism I still hold towards Bill Gates' philanthropic movements is that I recognize money is power, and money applied toward a particular venture is itself political power

I’ve been turning over the idea of philanthropy as it relates to tech magnates in my head for the past few weeks, and I’m still not sure how to explain my thoughts properly.

Bill Gates was recently back in the public spotlight as he pledged on May 8 to divest his fortune and eventually close his foundation within the next 20 years after exhausting his wealth to help people. To wit, Gates has about $108 billion and is ranked 13th among the world’s billionaires, according to Forbes.

According to Gates’ writings on the matter, the world’s poorest would receive some $200 billion or so via his foundation over the 20-year span. “There are too many urgent problems to solve for me to hold onto resources that could be used to help people. That is why I have decided to give my money back to society much faster than I had originally planned,” he wrote.

That’s all well and good, I suppose, but it still leaves me feeling weirded out, and I can’t quite put a finger on why, exactly.

Money and power

I think part of the latent cynicism I still hold for Gates’ philanthropic endeavor is that I recognize money is power, and money applied toward a particular venture, for good or ill, is itself political power.

As such, Gates and many other billionaires have too much of it.

Gates himself gets to choose (for the most part) where his money goes. Speaking with the BBC, Gates was quoted as saying, “We can spend a lot more if we’re not trying to be perpetual, and I know that the spending will be in line with my values.”

The values he mentioned and wrote about on his blog were the following tenets of his pledge to give away his fortune:

1. No mom, child, or baby dies of a preventable cause.
2. The next generation grows up in a world without deadly infectious diseases.
3. Hundreds of millions of people break free from poverty, putting more countries on a path to prosperity.

What’s not directly spoken of here is that Bill Gates has the wealth and makes the big choices, and we have to convince one man (any many other billionaires) to consider spending a fortune towards a particular goal.

Of course, one alternative could be petty infighting by committee to divert resources to various countries, but there’s really no alternative to divesting a man’s wealth to help others that wouldn’t seem disheartening or, at the very least, deserving of skepticism at a glance.

The hidden aspects of ‘benevolent giving’

One other nagging issue I have is that Gates, alongside many other billionaires in technology and other industries, had to be cutthroat to make their fortunes in order to even begin to be philanthropic. I do not think they’d end such practices just by starting to give.

Gates has his own medical research institute, called the Gates Medical Research Institute. This is a non-profit organization and doesn’t work with the same rules as a business, but Gates could easily run it like a business, and potentially save or make money from being charitable.

It’s hard to see their benevolent giving as a form of compensating for the past, and it rubs me the wrong way when it’s packaged as philanthropic or benevolent — as if they were like gods bestowing blessings.

Yesterday’s philanthropy, today’s techbroism

This isn’t to say I don’t appreciate the obvious gesture of trying to give up your riches. All things considered, there’s a distinct difference between the tech philanthropists of yesterday and the techbros of today.

By this, I mean that philanthropy is concerned with the idea of “giving away money to further mankind because it’s the right thing to do.”

Meanwhile, the current techbro philosophy seems to be, “I’m making money and deserve my fortune because I’ve given back to the world through the things I’ve made or owned.”

Well, let’s take the common techbro punching bag, richest-guy-on-earth-till-he-moves-to-Mars Elon Musk. Musk has used his considerable monetary-slash-political power to fillet and gut the US government’s workforce in the name of efficiency, all with the backing of not-as-rich-guy US President Donald Trump. Together, they’ve made deals to help keep their interests — and themselves — afloat as rich people.

Keep the rich accountable

I do not really have any answers in today’s column. I do not hold vast amounts of wealth relative to the richest people on earth. I do not have political power to rival theirs.

However, I still feel this is applicable: There are no good billionaires. There are either accountable billionaires, or there are rich assholes.

I’d rather distrust them all, push back against their spin, and keep them relatively honest, then leave them to their riches. I reckon, keeping an open mind about tech billionaires (and sharp eyes and wits besides) is the best play in the long run.

Further reading

For those curious about Bill Gates and his philanthropic activities, I recommend having a look at either side of the conundrum through two books. There’s The Bill Gates Problem: Reckoning with the Myth of the Good Billionaire by Tim Schwab, and of course, Bill Gates has his own memoir out, called Source Code.

Meanwhile, people seeking shorter reads can always check out this 2019 Forbes piece on doubting billionaires like Bill Gates or this 2025 Business Insider write-up on the differences between Bill Gates and Elon Musk. – Rappler.com