Hmmm.

> For them, the difference between $100M and $1B is basically no difference in the quality of life to that family.

I think money at that level is not about family quality of life. It's usually about buying companies, launching product lines, etc.

> They could give away $900M, and eliminate hunger forever in a large city or a small state. $100B is 100x that again, they could give away $99.9B, still have $100M, and solve poverty in most _countries_.

Ehhh...

Most people who have $X billion don't really have that. They just have controlling shares in a company that's worth a lot, and media companies like Forbes enjoy making headlines by pretending that's cash. Actually turning that into cash would be impossible.

Of course, they can still turn meaningful percentages of it into cash and give it away, that's true. And I think more billionaires should.

But also, many problems aren't money problems. For example, simply flooding a state or a small city with money isn't going to "solve hunger forever." Hunger and poverty are more often an issue around distribution and logistics, infrastructure, politics, culture and conflict, and things like that. Huge cash giveaways famously tend to disappear and accomplish very little.

The single biggest force that reduces suffering and poverty in an enduring way, imo, is the creation and proliferation of technology. Vaccines that are cheaper to produce. Water filtration systems that are easier to maintain. Seeds and crops that are heartier and more durable. Healthcare that's more affordable and available. Etc. Advances like this have reduced more suffering and ended more poverty and counteracted more famine and saved more lives than any amount of charity ever has or could.

What I would like to see more of is billionaires and even super-talented non-billionaires starting more organizations that are a force for good. Or using money from profitable enterprises to fund unprofitable-yet-charitable enterprises.