One stops and carefully donates his money to have the most impact. He ends up "officially broke."
The other doubles down on for profit enterprises, but focuses on those with the most impact, like electrifying a fossil fueled sector of the economy or making us a multi-planetary species. The profits are reinvested to accomplish these goals. He ends up richer than ever.
It isn't clear that the second billionaire is less admirable than the first.
Depends on your definition of impact. Tesla certainly is not improving education outcomes worldwide, nor funding healthcare research; nor is spaceX saving rainforests from being cut down every day, or helping sustain democracy.
I guess EVs have less environmental impact after four years of use, but do Teslas last that long? The intent there (and the impact) is still very much to monetize
Buffett & Munger agree with you. (paraphrasing here) Munger cited Costco as an incredibly important, effective, and efficient institution that couldn't be replaced by a non-profit or government. It has lowered the costs of essential goods while treating its workers well.
Musk has signed the giving pledge, so he might end up doing both. He wants to die on Mars, and it seems likely that if it would require the bulk of his fortune to make us a multi-planetary species, he would commit it.
One stops and carefully donates his money to have the most impact. He ends up "officially broke."
The other doubles down on for profit enterprises, but focuses on those with the most impact, like electrifying a fossil fueled sector of the economy or making us a multi-planetary species. The profits are reinvested to accomplish these goals. He ends up richer than ever.
It isn't clear that the second billionaire is less admirable than the first.