 Anyway, Bezos has recently said he is donating $2 billion, $2 billion, it's a lot of money. To child of organizations that do two things, well, to child of organizations that provide food and shelter for the homeless, so he's trying to tackle the homeless issue by giving a lot of money to organizations that help the homeless, and this is kind of interesting from my perspective, but I'm not going to get into it here, but and to a new network of Montessori preschools in low income areas, which I think is brilliant, so he is going to invest heavily in Montessori preschools in low income areas, which I think if you want to help the poor, this is the best way you can help the poor, so I'm a huge supporter of that. And yet, these are two issues that the left loves, right? He's helping the homeless, this is good, right? And he's helping preschool, right? I mean, the left has been about preschool education forever, right? So these are two massive leftist progressive causes that you would think would generate applause and the left would say, yes, finally, a billionaire who gets it, who's supporting the things we believe in, who's going to make the world a better place by helping the homeless and by investing significantly in preschool education for poor kids. You would think that that would be the response, and yet it's been at best, the response from the left has been at best muted, but more often it's been negative. So it's been described as morally fraught, morally problematic in other words. And slate, slate, a, you know, solidly leftist, but not salon slate, which is marginally more, or significantly more, I'd say respectable than salon. Slate critic Jordan Weisman, he writes this about what Bezos has done, and this is going to fall under the first critique, there are going to be many, but this is the first critique that the left has against the philanthropy of billionaires. Quote, while Bezos is trying to use his fortune to help the poorest of the poor, his company has become an almost perfect diorama, I don't know what diorama means, but a perfect diorama of American inequality from his own outrageous wealth, outrageous wealth to the highly paid executives and tech employees, to the underpaid warehouse workers who often need to use food stamps to get by, especially since so much of his wealth is tied up in the stock value of his company, every dollar Bezos gives away is in part a reminder that many of his workers could use a raise. In other words, Bezos made his fortune by exploiting workers, therefore his charitable donations are tainted, dirty, dirty. Now this is a new, this attitude, this was the attitude that was expressed against Carnegie and against Rockefeller and against many of the philanthropists in the late 19th century early 20th century. To quote Bob Reich, the guy who wrote this new book, and he supports this attitude and he says 100 years ago, there was an enormous skepticism that creating a philanthropic entity was either a way to cleanse your hands of the dirty way you'd made money, you'd made your money or more interestingly that it was welcome from the standpoint of democracy. We'll get to the democracy aspect later. But notice, you want to, notice what he's saying, right? That you make the money in a dirty way, you make the money in a dirty way and this is a way to cleanse your hands of it and we're not going to let you do it because we're not going to forget that you made the money in a dirty way. In Stones, Ed Bermuda wrote again about Bezos' $2 billion contribution to causes the left should support. He wrote, imagine people like Bezos and company like Amazon paid in practice anywhere close to the tax rate that applied to people of such great wealth in theory. So in theory the tax rate should be much higher and imagine if they paid that, right? He goes on, imagine if a company of such staggering wealth, $43 billion in revenues in a single court of 2017, by the way, notice the equivocation between wealth and revenue, not the same thing at all. You can have $43 billion in revenue and lose money and not have any wealth, you have negative wealth but put that aside, doesn't matter. Imagine if a company of such staggering wealth paid its employees enough to send their own kids to college, if that happened. Such applicants might not need to pray for the good will of benevolent billionaires to afford an education. This was in criticizing Bezos' pledge. We pledged $33 million earlier in the year to provide college scholarships for dreamers, for so-called dreamers, you know, the kids of illegal immigrants who are born in this country. No, we're not born in this country, we're brought into this country very, very young, right? A leftist cause. No, no, no, no, no, no. We don't want philanthropists to help because the philanthropists, their money is dirty. Their money is dirty. So the first reason why the left hates philanthropy is that they believe, is that they hate the wealth. They hate the wealth. They believe that the wealth is dirty. It's tainted. It's, it's ill-gotten. It doesn't belong to them in the first place. Remember, remember President Obama's famous speech, it was the most important speech, maybe of his presidency intellectually. You didn't build that. It's not yours. We should be taking a lot of this wealth away from, anyway. We should be taxing them. This should be much, much higher. Much, much higher. And if taxes were much, much higher, they wouldn't have all these billions to give away. And the theory goes, if taxes were much, much higher, government would solve all the problems and we'll get to that, that these billionaires are supposed to be solving and they would have already been solved. They would have been already been solved.