The verdict is that the average billionaire will have no real impact, many will make things more unstable, and only a few who think beyond their own lifetimes will change human life for the better. Plato, Aristotle, Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great lived more than 2,000 years ago and are still discussed as near-mythical figures. The question the video asks is whether we are living among people who will be remembered the same way, or whether their work will be seen as boring, pointless or harmful.
It sorts modern billionaires into three groups: those who leave no impact, those who leave a bad one and those who leave a good, lasting one. These are the video’s opinions, and the article presents them as such.
Watch the full video here, or skip to the breakdown below.
The three kinds of impact at a glance
- How to measure impact on humankind
- Billionaires with no impact (5:19)
- Billionaires with a bad impact (10:06)
- Billionaires with a good, lasting impact (13:02)
1. How to measure impact on humankind
Impact is measured with five questions. How profoundly does it transform thought, behavior or survival, as Hippocrates did by arguing that illness came from natural forces rather than the gods? Does it change the course or structure of human life, as Julius Caesar did when he ended the Roman Republic? Does it fulfill a deep human need? Does it move people, spark curiosity or inspire action? And will it be remembered, taught or built upon long after its creator is gone?
Each era had a different currency of influence. In the ancient world it was ideas, war and religion. The Renaissance prized creativity and invention, which gave us Da Vinci and Shakespeare. The Enlightenment prized reason, rights and cultural refinement, with Kant, Rousseau, Mozart and Beethoven. Today the currency is capital, data and technological infrastructure, and billionaires sit at the top of that chain.
That is less romantic than conquest or painting the Mona Lisa. Peter Thiel is quoted as saying, “We wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters.” The video’s complaint is that some of the smartest minds and biggest budgets now go to data harvesting to sell ads, optimizing online shopping and dopamine loops, rather than the space race, eradicating smallpox or sequencing the human genome.
2. Billionaires with no impact
The first group is the extractors, who made fortunes through hedge funds, private equity and vulture capital, which means buying the debt of bankrupt companies or even countries cheaply and then suing for repayment. The examples given are Paul Singer’s Elliott Management, which bought Argentina’s debt for pennies on the dollar and sued after the country tried to negotiate a partial repayment, and John Paulson, who made $4 billion betting against the housing market. The point is that they exploited a moment rather than creating something people could use, love or learn from.
By the script’s count, 9.4% of the richest 500 people fall into this category, and as far as it knows none are pledging to give away most of their fortune, so their impact ends with them. Ray Dalio and Ken Griffin are named as people who may be forgotten.
The second group is the copycats, who built clones of existing platforms, scaled fast and cashed out early. Uber’s Travis Kalanick is named as an example, with the argument that the model is easy to replace and makes life better by about 0.2 points on the scale of convenience. Deliveroo, Shein and Bitcoin are put in the same bucket. The third group is the ghost billionaires, who inherited fortunes in fashion, luxury or oil, where wealth was a continuation rather than a contribution. Crypto one-hit wonders and niche tycoons in logistics or chemical plants fill the rest.
It also says it is not dismissing the ambition or job creation of these people, only judging their impact, which it calls so incremental that future historians will see nothing significant.
3. Billionaires with a bad impact
According to the script, the richest 1% of humanity is responsible for more carbon emissions than the poorest 66%. The industries it says do the worst damage, through climate harm, human rights issues, divisiveness and anger, are fossil fuels, fast fashion, mining, meat, agriculture, social media and big tech. If the Earth crumbles from climate change, those are what these companies will be remembered for.
A bad legacy still reaches more people than none at all, and the resistance that rises against it creates ripples that carry on. Social media is called the sneaky ninja of the group, because it had the power to mobilize people to fix the other problems and went a different direction. Mark Zuckerberg is quoted saying Facebook was built to accomplish a social mission of making the world more open and connected. It argues that optimizing for engagement opened the door for lies, arguments, false information and election interference, and that the company’s impact would have been stronger, even if its value were lower, without that.
Twitter is described as having had the same potential, for live reporting by journalists, direct contact between politicians and constituents and real-time information on disasters. Rupert Murdoch’s media businesses are also placed here, with the claim that a strong, far-reaching voice did not teach people in a way that pushed for lasting positive change. It says this applies to much of traditional media.
Some of these industries did good at first. Fossil fuels powered the industrial revolution, transport, electricity and the internet before becoming the main driver of climate change and getting tangled up with wars and corruption. Big tech gave access to knowledge, communication and medical AI until power moved to a handful of companies.
A negative legacy still counts as a legacy, but not one anybody wants.
4. Billionaires with a good, lasting impact
The billionaires who may leave a good impact, in the video’s view, used their wealth to solve problems that threaten survival, created tools that improve survival, access or understanding, built systems that outlast them and empower others, and made choices that served more than their own wealth or ego.
Bill Gates is named as meeting all four through the Gates Foundation, which funds efforts to eradicate disease, improve education and prevent pandemics. It acknowledges criticism about testing vaccines or health programs in poorer countries, and says the foundation runs trials around the world in partnership with local governments, NGOs and the World Health Organization. Elon Musk is called the most divisive person on the list. Some would put him only in the bad category, but the video says Tesla, SpaceX and Neuralink have far-reaching impact.
Philanthropists such as MacKenzie Scott, George Soros, Jamsetji Tata and Warren Buffett, who fund education, healthcare, scientific research and global health, are expected to be remembered the way the Medici family is. The Medici were a Florentine banking dynasty that rose around the 15th century, produced four popes and two queens of France, ruled Florence for nearly 300 years and bankrolled Michelangelo, da Vinci, Botticelli and Galileo. Yvon Chouinard of Patagonia is another example, giving away 100% of profits, about $100 million a year, to fight climate change and protect the environment.
Good impact is more powerful than bad impact in the video’s telling because it builds momentum. Clean energy infrastructure reduces the risk of displacement and resource wars, and giving rural communities education changes a whole population’s future. The balance sheet, in its telling, is that right now the impact looks mostly negative, since billionaires hold so much unevenly distributed wealth, fuel harmful industries and influence laws and politics. It hopes that as the effect of good billionaires is felt, the tide will turn towards companies people admire.
Wealth as a tool instead of a trophy
The conclusion is that billionaires who think beyond their own lifetimes, build solutions to global problems and inspire others are the ones who will be remembered, like the patrons and philosophers of the past. The rest will vanish from memory. Seeing wealth as a tool instead of a trophy is where, it says, the real flex lies.
The question it leaves you with is a personal one: if you built a fortune, would you keep it for you and your family, or accept some responsibility to help the world?
FAQ
Are billionaires good or evil?
Neither as a rule, says the video. The average billionaire leaves no real impact, many make things more unstable, and a few who think beyond their lifetimes and fund solutions to big problems may change human life for the better.
What kinds of billionaires leave no impact?
It names extractors (hedge funds, private equity, vulture capital), copycats who clone existing platforms, inheritors it calls ghost billionaires, crypto one-hit wonders and niche tycoons.
Which industries leave the worst impact?
It lists fossil fuels, fast fashion, mining, meat, agriculture, social media and big tech, citing climate harm, human rights issues, divisiveness and anger.
Who counts as a billionaire with a good lasting impact?
It points to Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation, philanthropists like MacKenzie Scott, George Soros, Jamsetji Tata and Warren Buffett, and Patagonia’s Yvon Chouinard, plus Elon Musk with the caveat that he is divisive.
How does the video measure a person’s impact on humankind?
With five questions: how deeply it changes thought, behavior or survival, whether it changes the structure of life, whether it meets a deep human need, whether it inspires action, and whether it will be remembered after its creator is gone.
Keep reading
- How Billionaires Foolproof Their Wealth
- Purpose of Wealth (5): Legacy
- The Billionaire Hamdi Ulukaya Donates Half of his Wealth to Help the Refugees
