Beyond 'Eat the Rich': Rethinking Wealth, Power, and Purpose
“How do we stop or reverse the negative effects of business and even affect change in capitalism in order to save our whole planet?” Patagonia
With the wealth disparity growing daily amid a rise in the billionaire class, there's a rebounding of the "Eat the Rich" sentiment. "No one needs a billion dollars," is a popular outcry, and it's true: no one needs a billion dollars. There's a growing assumption that the billionaires are creating this wealth disparity, as if there's a limited amount of wealth available to everyone and they are taking the bulk of it, leaving little for the remaining of the population. There's a corresponding observation that those who have wealth are completely out of touch with those who don't. Some think we've entered a new "Let them eat cake" era in the United States.
Look, the world has HUGE problems. And they cost a ton of money to fix. As Marc Benioff used to profess (more on that later in this article), “"The business of business is improving the state of the world."
The money in and of itself isn't the issue. It's the people who hold monstrous wealth and their unrestrained, voracious addiction to power that determines what they use that money for.
The billionaire tech leaders aren't just wealthy; many show textbook patterns of power addiction. I saw that culture shift happen during my time at Salesforce. We were drawn to the beautiful sentiment of a values-driven mission, sold on the “best places to work for” marketing. But over time we witnessed many of the company leaders prioritizing directives to resolve pressures from shareholders over meeting its stated values. Our leadership said they were progressive and believed we could create a better world, but more recent actions seem to show that belief amounted to corporate propaganda. We all started in teams that were happy and fulfilled, but many burned out from unsustainable work.
Having worked in tech for decades and lived in recovery from addiction for over 40 years, I recognize the diagnostic criteria:
Tolerance (constantly needing more users, more data, more control)
Using despite harm (environmental destruction, mental health crises, democracy erosion)
Risky use (launching AI without guardrails or human-centered principles)
Loss of control (continuing despite devastating consequences to employees, democratic institutions, and human rights).
Their addiction is fueled by fear: of losing market dominance, of regulation, of anything that might limit their voracious growth. So they bend the knee to corrupt leadership in exchange for unchecked power. We've watched as many tech billionaires sell tech to domestic and global leaders who then use that technology in ways that cause grave harm and cruelty, and perpetuate war crimes. It's no wonder we're infuriated by this new billionaire class and what seems to be a bottomless desire for power and control. They prioritize dominance over the common good. And like any addiction, it's driven by a compulsive quest for MORE under the delusion that satisfaction lies just beyond the next billion, the next acquisition, the next bow to authoritarian power. It never does. How many billions is enough? For an addict, there is never enough. The question has no answer because addiction is a disease of more masquerading as ambition.
What is enough?
I don’t want anyone capping how much I can earn. Who decides that? Who decides when I’ve earned “enough”? I LOVE that being a billionaire is possible. It speaks to me of the unending possibilities in this universe. The unending abundance that’s possible.
Here's where it gets complicated. The possibility of wealth is beautiful and hopeful. But what people do with their wealth is where the divergence happens.
Elon Musk has billions and just look at how he acts and what he does. Jeff Bezos has billions and look at how he acts and what he does. Mark Zuckerberg too has billions and look at how he acts and what he does.
What’s wrong with our thinking?
I think all of this reading and research has me also thinking about the faults in binary thinking, black and white. Good and bad. On a personal level, we know that humans are wildly complex. But the rise of the algorithm has perpetuated binary thinking based on sound bites and that affects our expectations and judgements. So it's easy for us to see the horrible deficits in our world, how we leave people hurting, the environment damaged, and think immediately that one of the causes of the damage is the rise of billionaires. We assume that if they don't give in huge amounts in a way that we publicly see, they are at fault and are somehow "bad" people. Conversely we assume that if they do give, and it's seen publicly, that they are "good" people.
The truth is somewhere in the middle. The data bears out that the majority of American billionaires in fact give very little, and so we can deduce their values based on that lack of generosity. Because few of us have insights into the whole of anyone's character or the details of their personal or professional journeys, we also deduce from those persons who give generously that they are values-based and therefore well-intentioned, overlooking or sometimes rationalizing their less than stellar pasts, in some cases. It's complicated.
Right now, it's a mixed bag. There are some billionaires who do give away an enormous amount of money to charitable causes, causes whose missions are to make the world a better place, to improve the lives of others. Forbes cites those who've given away 20% or more of their fortunes. They are:
Edythe Broad
Warren Buffett
Yvon Chouinard
Melinda French Gates
Bill Gates
Reed Hastings
Amos Hostetter Jr.
Dustin Moskovitz
Lynn Schusterman
MacKenzie Scott
Marilyn Simons
George Soros
This group, in particular, have given substantially across a diverse range of philanthropic causes, including healthcare, education, climate, technology access, poverty alleviation, and systemic social change. They've provided funding for targeted grants, evidence-based approaches, and large-scale commitments that have influenced and, to a large degree, have reshaped global philanthropy, addressing long-standing societal challenges.
But the vast majority of American billionaires give less than 1% of their wealth to anyone, and a lot of those admit to giving away nothing. The lowest scores remain most common, indicating that the majority of Forbes 400 members have donated less than 5% of their fortunes to charitable causes.
Same money, different people. Is the big pile of money at fault?
The issue is not the billions. The money just reveals the character and values of the PERSON behind their accumulated wealth.
Let me show you what values-driven wealth actually looks like in practice.
The Purpose Trust
Yvon Chouinard, founder of Patagonia, had abandoned any ideas of making Patagonia a publicly traded company. Selling shares to investors would have trapped the business in obligations that would ultimately undermine its core principles. The company would face pressure for constant expansion. Leadership would obsess over three-month profit cycles, and aggressive investment firms would likely attack. "The stock market has zero appeal to me," Chouinard explained. "Going public means surrendering control and being forced to prioritize shareholder returns above all else. You lose your agency and end up becoming the kind of reckless corporation you never wanted to be."
Here's how Patagonia solved the challenge of preserving their values and environmental mission. The breakthrough came when attorney Dan Mosley introduced an unconventional legal structure the Patagonia leadership team hadn't explored: the Purpose trust. While this tool had existed for years, typically used for modest tasks like pet care or property maintenance after someone's death, no one had considered applying it at a corporate scale.
The innovation was to use a purpose trust to permanently protect Patagonia's mission itself. This became the foundation for a revolutionary ownership model that accomplished three critical goals: it transferred ownership away from the founding family, kept Patagonia independent from outside investors, and directed all future profits toward environmental protection through a newly created organization, the Holdfast Collective. Rather than maximizing shareholder returns, every dollar the company earned would fund conservation efforts and environmental advocacy, transforming Patagonia's success into a perpetual engine for planetary stewardship.
Chouinard transformed Patagonia into a model of values-driven business, demonstrating that profitability could serve a higher purpose. He created an exceptional workplace with on-site childcare and healthy food, while pioneering corporate environmental responsibility. In 1986, he committed Patagonia to donate either 1% of sales or 10% of profits—whichever was greater—to environmental causes, and even paid employees to work full-time on ecological projects.
His commitment to sustainability led him to switch entirely to organic cotton in 1996 after discovering conventional cotton's environmental harm. He founded 1% for the Planet in 2002, inspiring other businesses to pledge revenue to environmental protection, and backed advocacy efforts like the documentary DamNation.
Chouinard's ultimate expression of his values through his work proved that business success and environmental stewardship aren't opposing forces, but can be powerfully aligned to create lasting positive impact.
While Chouinard reimagined corporate structure itself, Melinda French Gates used her platform to dismantle systemic barriers.
Using Philanthropy to Make Systemic Change
Melinda Gates's leadership of the Gates Foundation which is now the world's largest charitable foundation reveals her deep commitment to equity and justice. The foundation addresses systemic inequalities through five major areas: global health, development, economic opportunity, U.S.-focused initiatives, and policy advocacy, tackling issues from poverty to healthcare access worldwide.
Her philanthropic impact earned recognition when she and Bill Gates were named Time's Persons of the Year in 2005. The foundation's influence expanded further through a $150 million partnership with the Rockefeller Foundation and Warren Buffett's extraordinary commitment of over 10 million shares. Together with Buffett, the Gates created "The Giving Pledge," inspired by the Salwen family's book The Power of Half, committing signatories to donate at least half their wealth during their lifetimes.
Gates's values shine particularly in her advocacy for women's empowerment. She championed the 2012 London Summit on Family Planning, aiming to provide contraceptive access to 120 million women in developing nations by 2020. Her 2019 book, The Moment of Lift: How Empowering Women Changes the World, articulates her belief that gender equality is fundamental to global progress. Through Pivotal Ventures, her investment company, she tackles pay inequality and supports women entrepreneurs in the U.S.
Gates demonstrates that transformative philanthropy requires both significant resources and strategic focus—using wealth not just to address symptoms, but to dismantle the structural barriers that perpetuate inequality, particularly for women and marginalized communities.
If Melinda French Gates attacked systems, MacKenzie Scott revolutionized the very practice of giving.
Giving Pledge: Not Waiting to Give Wealth Away
MacKenzie Scott's wealth originated from her Amazon stake (approximately 4% valued at $36 billion) that she received in her divorce settlement. As Amazon's value climbed, her fortune grew accordingly. Yet unlike most billionaires who accumulate wealth, Scott has deliberately dismantled hers through unprecedented giving. Scott signed the Giving Pledge in 2019, committing to give away most of her wealth. Her pledge letter reveals her moral clarity: "I have a disproportionate amount of money to share...I won't wait. And I will keep at it until the safe is empty."
Scott has revolutionized philanthropy by rejecting the control typically associated with major donations. Since 2020, she has given over $14 billion to more than 1,600 organizations, guided by principles that reflect profound trust and urgency:
Trust Over Control. She makes unrestricted gifts, demonstrating her belief that those closest to problems know best how to solve them—a radical departure from donor-imposed mandates.
Justice as Priority. Her giving centers racial equity, gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, public health, and economic mobility, revealing her commitment to addressing systemic inequalities rather than popular causes.
Speed as Imperative. While traditional foundations deliberate for years, Scott acts swiftly, recognizing that delayed philanthropy means prolonged suffering.
Her recipients include HBCUs like Howard University and Morehouse College, food banks such as Feeding America, and public health and education initiatives, often directing resources to communities and leaders historically overlooked by wealthy donors, particularly organizations led by women and people of color.
Scott's approach embodies a belief that extreme wealth concentration is unjust and that those who hold it have an urgent responsibility to redistribute it—not gradually or strategically for legacy, but immediately and with humility about who truly knows how to create change.
While Scott's commitment to sharing her wealth speaks to present injustice, Amos Hostetter Jr.'s work confronts what we owe the future.
Giving to Combat Climate Change
At 84, Amos Hostetter Jr., former chairman and CEO of Continental Cablevision, possesses a $3.8 billion fortune but dedicates most of his energy to philanthropy. Throughout his life, he has donated $1.2 billion, primarily through Boston's Barr Foundation, which distributes approximately $60 million annually toward climate action, arts, and education.
Hostetter's climate work stemmed from a deeply personal question that he frames as universal to parenthood: "Will we leave a better world than the one we inherited?" His honest answer—"No"—revealed a rare willingness among the wealthy to acknowledge collective failure rather than celebrate individual success.
He identifies climate change and the unequal distribution of its harm as evidence of his generation's shortcomings, demonstrating values of accountability and justice. Rather than viewing climate as an abstract issue, he sees it as a moral debt owed to his children and grandchildren.
He co-founded and serves as a trustee of the Barr Foundation, through which he provides support for the Boston Climate Plan. The efforts to reduce building and transportation emissions reflects Hostetter's understanding that climate solutions must address those who suffer the most. His focus on inequity shows he recognizes that environmental destruction and social injustice are inseparable.
Hostetter frames his work not as legacy-building but as obligation, stating that this moment demands recommitment and enhanced effort toward creating "a better, healthier, and more equitable place for future generations." His giving reflects a humility about what remains undone, and an urgency about the limited time to course correct, values that prioritize the future well-being of all over present comfort or reputation for the few.
Grading the Giving
On the Forbes list of billionaires, the group of 5-rating for philanthropy has grown 28% over the past four years.
Intention and Impact
It's the same piles of money. What causes the impact of how billionaires are viewed and their impact on the planet? Is it the money?
No.
It's the individuals behind the wealth. The wealth simply reveals the character and the values of the person holding that wealth.
So perhaps the question isn't whether billionaires should exist, but what kind of billionaires we want influencing our world, and what kind of society we want to create that reflects the values by which we want to live.
Where we must go from here
Billie Eilish most recently said it best. At the WSJ Innovator Awards, she opened with a thoughtful question: “If you are a billionaire, why are you a billionaire?” and then addressed the billionaires in the audience, clearly directing them: “Give your money away, shorties.”
We’ve seen clear examples of wealth applied to the improvement of the state of the world, through the values-based giving of industry leaders and philanthropists. Values-based businesses – especially those led by women of integrity – are the antidote to power addiction. We’ve seen the effects of great wealth accumulated through the abandonment of integrity in pursuit of power. Greed is the flip side of the same coin as lack. Greed in a select few only furthers lack for many.
We must support the rise of leaders who demonstrate values-based actions in business. Be intentional about where you invest your money and your time to support the success of those businesses. Let’s help those leaders rise so that they can in turn return their wealth and profits to their communities, for the betterment of the common good. Only in this way will we reduce the effects and spread of power addiction and return to the ideal of The business of business is improving the state of the world.