• tyler@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    4 days ago

    Mackenzie Scott built Amazon alongside of Bezos. She didn’t inherit it nearly as much as she just got her split. She is just as complicit in what Amazon has become.

    • Lumisal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      In fairness, I think she’s been trying to give away nearly all her money to many charities. It’s just that billions is such a huge amount it can literally take awhile to give it away.

      If you’ve ever watched Brewster’s Millions you’ll see even that amount is hard to get rid of on purpose.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        Her wealth actually grew. She gave away 17B and still came out 2B above the starting number. I don’t think it’s possible for a billionaire to give it all away. Not without just throwing the bulk of the stock shares at someone.

        • Lumisal@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          Yup. That’s why such wealth can only really be controlled by the government. When you’re that rich, even actively trying to give it away is difficult because the way the system is set up, you can literally make a ton of money by just having it sit in a bank.

          Even giving the shares away isn’t really giving away the money - it’s just making someone else extremely wealthy instead.

  • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    It’s missing the Heineken heir. Charlene de Carvalho-Heineken, she’s worth $14B

    So assume this list is incomplete and is missing more heirs.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 days ago

      Technically. So much technically. She’s also the only one on there who is personally famous for her philanthropy. She’s given something like 17 billion dollars away.

      In a note about billionaires, her fortune still grew.

  • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    4 days ago

    More evidence that this kind of wealth disparity does not occur without generational wealth. Show me a super rich person, and I’ll show you a nepo-baby.

    Hard cycle to break.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Not Oprah. Probably all 1999 other known billionaires to a greater or lesser degree, though. Social mobility is rung-by-rung; you can do multiples in theory but you have to get really lucky that many times in a row.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        This list is far from complete. The entirety of western royalty is missing for one thing.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          That’s a good point. Charlie III is so hereditary it’s his whole brand. It looks like he might not actually have a billion, though, just most of one.

          I’m not sure if any other European Royal families might have managed to retain more.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        It’s rung-by-rung, but the people in front of you are pulling it up behind them.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      Could be because they consider usury a sin, and that’s basically how most of these people got wealthy?

      Maybe I’m misunderstanding what usury is.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Usury is for-profit moneylending, basically. The Fidelity lady would count, the others are harder to say, either because it’s a different sector or something I’ve never heard of it.

        There’s Muslim definitely-hereditary gotta-be-billionares, like all the petrostate royal families, but they hide their assets enough to stay off of the official lists.

        (Halal lending exists, and it’s basically our-interest-isn’t-interest because we found a random Imam who we convinced to say so. Funny how there’s always a loophole, when the rules get really inconvenient for enough believers)

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Billionaires are constantly making money using their money, and it often includes lending (or some convoluted scheme that includes lending as an intermediary step).

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            They borrow themselves as a way of dodging US taxes, which might be what you’re thinking of.

            Holding bonds is the obvious way all of these people would probably be doing the sin of riba. It’s not necessarily public information, though. (And you can invest in bonds too; there’s no secret money glitch, just a societal lottery that someone will inevitably win)

      • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        It’s interest on a loan, or unfair (high) interest on a loan, depending on where you are.

  • Ziglin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 days ago

    To be fair we aren’t shown any information on those that didn’t inherit large amounts, which likely do exist.