We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Paul Stanley of Kiss seems to think Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter isn’t where Musk should be putting his money. Stanley shared, “I May Be Missing Something (please tell me). Rather than funding a personal acquisition, Wouldn’t our world be better advanced by using far less than 44 BILLION DOLLARS to eradicate world hunger?, cure cancer? The list is long & the possibilities endless.”

Stanley has said “charity is not an obligation” in the past, seems to think he knows how to better spend the Musk’s money than Musk himself. He is not alone as many around the world see a wealthy individual and decide they know what that person should do with their money.

In October of last year the director of the UN food scarcity declared 2% ($6B) of Musk’s wealth could solve world hunger.

Dr. Eli David, a member of the Forbes Technology Council pointed out that in 2020 the UN World Food Progarm raised $8.4B and that didn’t “solve world hunger”.

“2% of @elonmusk‘s wealth is $6B, In 2020 the UN World Food Program (WFP) raised $8.4B. How come it didn’t “solve world hunger”?”

Musk replied to Dr. Eli David seemingly explaing why he hasn’t given money to WFP to solve wolrd hunger, “If WFP can describe on this Twitter thread exactly how $6B will solve world hunger, I will sell Tesla stock right now and do it. But it must be open source accounting, so the public sees precisely how the money is spent.”

WFP failed to respond to must highlighting they were only using talking points to placate to those who feel they would do more good spending other peoples money, and possibly try to pressure Musk into making a donation.

Stanley belives in suppoting the military saying in 2017, “Freedom is a word we take for granted far too often. It’s not politics that keeps us safe its the miltary.” After playing a concert to provide a mortgage free home to a wounded venteran.

Maybe Stanley is unaware that Musk doesn’t just throw money at things he doesn’t see value in even when it comes to his philathropy. Many charities take money pay their people and not much else gets done with it so it seems. With ammount of mony the WFP has raised over the years you would think they would have made better progress already.

Stanley’s statment seems to be just an attack talking point that many others use who “know better”. There hearts may be in the right place or maybe not but the logic behind the statment isn’t there and it comes off very disingenuous.

Latest posts by Kay Williamson (see all)