this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2023
796 points (96.7% liked)
Funny: Home of the Haha
5760 readers
585 users here now
Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.
Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Other Communities:
-
/c/[email protected] - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/[email protected] - General memes
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Whenever someone is a successful businessman, I assume either:
a) Arms Dealer, so these are all Yuri Orlov.
b) or something worse, such that if we learned about it, we'd wish it was just some guy selling used AKs in Africa, for instance the Sacklers and Purdue Pharma. Or an arms dealer who represents the United States.
My rule of thumb when I meet a rich person is that they probably killed someone/something. Arms dealer, environmental engineer who signed off on a mine that killed off an endangered toad, high-end lawyer who got some criminal asshole off the hook, shit like that. Never do I think that someone improved society.
Prove me wrong kids. Prove me wrong.
Tom Hanks.
Let's see his investment portfolio.
Here's what I don't get. You can get "ethical" investments, that avoid all the really horrible companies, land mine manufacturers, Nestle, etc, and those investment packages have less returns.
But why can't you get a package with only the awful companies in it, that gives more returns?
You can. It's called Goldman Sachs Mutual Fund.
I'm pretty sure I've bought a product owned by Nestle in the past year. Does that make me a monster?