5 ms·

That's not what the article said at all - nor the German billionaire. He said that having a few very wealthy people decide what were the most important causes w

That's not what the article said at all - nor the German billionaire. He said that having a few very wealthy people decide what were the most important causes was bad compared to having the democratically elected government decide. You may disagree with that, but it is quite different from simply saying public good and private bad.

Afforess 11y ago
> He said that having a few very wealthy people decide what were the most important causes was bad compared to having the democratically elected government decide. This sentence is really amusing to me, because our democratically elected government, at least at the congressional level, is nearly all wealthy millionaires. So either way, important causes are decided by the wealthy.
- maxmzd_ 11y ago
  While that is true, and a problem, it doesn't make the point of the article any less valid. If anything, you are agreeing with it now.
- username223 11y ago
  Congressmen are mostly rich people rented by richer ones, but a small amount of plebian influence is surely better than none at all if you're into that whole "democracy" thing.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - dorfsmay 11y ago
    In terms of how to spend "extra money", I would have agreed with you before Bill Gates' foundation delivered result few governments ever did. Heck, I'm in Alberta where we've had a government returning taxes when we had budget surplus... just before the election.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - BuckRogers 11y ago
    I've always wondered why more people aren't demanding direct democracy. I know why the founders of the US didn't go for it, but as a working class American I fail to see why I don't want direct democracy. It would slow the pace of government doing stuff down and if someone got bribed, it would be me. And even if we did wrong, at least we'd truly be responsible. And screwing things up is kind of our birthright.
- kuschku 11y ago
  That depends on where you are – this German billionaire, obviously, is German. It’s not nearly as bad over here yet.
- applecore 11y ago
  Your argument makes no sense: the people control everything in a democracy, literally, by voting for their representation in government.
  - jaggederest 11y ago
    How well does that representation actually fulfill the wishes of their constituency as a whole, let alone any individual voter? That's the point - by being representative with no accountability, there's only the binary ability to hire or fire with no ability to manage.
    - zzalpha 11y ago
      How well does that representation actually fulfill the wishes of their constituency as a whole, let alone any individual voter? Yeah yeah yeah, being cynical about democracy is cool, blah blah blah. I suppose you should, what, just burn the motherf*cker down and be done with it, then? You know, in 50 years the GOP will be able to look back and point to one of their most brilliant victories of all time: actively sabotaging the activities of government, and then using the results of their very own actions to convince the electorate that government doesn't work and cannot represent them, despite the fact that they got themselves elected into the very system they claim to despise. It's utterly brilliant. "Starve-the-beast" neocon tactics taken to a whole new level.
      - ancap 11y ago
        >"Starve-the-beast" neocon tactics taken to a whole new level. I'm not sure you know what a "neocon" is. Neocons derived from Trotskyism and are found in both major U.S. political parties. Neoconservatism has done more to expand government than perhaps any other ideology present in American politics. >actively sabotaging the activities of government, and then using the results of their very own actions to convince the electorate that government doesn't work and cannot represent them, despite the fact that they got themselves elected into the very system they claim to despise. Ironically that strategy sounds a lot like a strategy that's been deployed by progressives. If you look at some of the most heavily regulated sectors of the economy--healthcare, banking, housing, wall street, etc--those are the same areas which progressives hold up as free market failures.
- thomnottom 11y ago
  You are correct in that the current state of US politics almost makes it the same thing. However it is possible that the US electorate could fix that problem over time.
  - saint_fiasco 11y ago
    Is that more difficult or less difficult than convincing people to stop using Zuckerberg's products?
    - thomnottom 11y ago
      I wish I knew the answer. But a change coming through the electorate process should have a more lasting effect as simply boycotting Facebook would merely shift the wealth and influence to another person instead of Zuckerberg.
- rayiner 11y ago
  That's pretty misleading. The median net worth of a member of Congress is about $1 million: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/01/millionaires-club-for-first-time-most-lawmakers-are-worth-1-million-plus http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/01/millionaires-club-fo.... You also have to take into account that the average age of Congress is almost 60. I.e. they have been working and accumulating assets for decades. Adjusted for age, the net worth of the median Congressman is at the 80th percentile: http://www.census.gov/people/wealth/files/Wealth%20distribution%202000%20to%202011.pdf http://www.census.gov/people/wealth/files/Wealth%20distribut.... Is 80th percentile "wealthy"? It's within one standard deviation of the median. I'd call that upper middle class. Fun fact: the median doctor is worth over $1 million by age 50, and about $2 million by age 65: http://www.medicalpracticeinsider.com/news/which-doctors-stash-most-cash http://www.medicalpracticeinsider.com/news/which-doctors-sta....
  - DawkinsGawd 11y ago
    Yes, being a millionaire politician or doctor makes you wealthy.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      It's fine if you believe that, and it's reasonable to point out the huge class distinction between a doctor and a greeter at Walmart, but I just want to point out that your sentence pretty much reduces to "Yes, being a doctor makes you wealthy". Which, again, fine, but I can't be the only one who thinks we'd be better off if we had more doctors in Congress.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
JoshTriplett 11y ago
> He said that having a few very wealthy people decide what were the most important causes was bad compared to having the democratically elected government decide. You may disagree with that, but it is quite different from simply saying public good and private bad. How is that any different from the comment you're replying to? If the government is running something, it's a government ("public") program rather than a private one.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  It's different in that it's a more accurate characterization of the argument.
- thomnottom 11y ago
  Because neither the article nor the German billionaire (sorry, I really should go back and get his name instead of referencing the title, but I'm being lazy) are saying that private foundations are inherently bad - which is what the comment I replied to stated. What he says is bad is shifting the decision to the wealthy instead of the public.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    That's still the same thing; if the public is deciding where the funding is going then it isn't a private foundation anymore. Now, if the public is deciding by choosing where to put their own funding, in the form of donations, that makes more sense. But in that sense, the millionaires and billionaires creating or donating to charitable foundations are doing the same thing: deciding where to put their own funding.
    - thomnottom 11y ago
      No, it is not the same thing. A private foundation can continue to be a part of the solution without it being the focus. Krämer's (I checked the name!) point is that the focus in the US is private donations which means that the billionaires have a much higher level of influence on where the money goes. It's not that, say, the Make A Wish Foundation is inherently bad or that donating to them is a bad thing, rather the possibility that Zuckerberg could decide to give them 95% of his wealth while more critical social services receive none of it that is concerning.
wyldfire 11y ago
I suppose that makes sense, but it's not really a dichotomy. The ultra-wealthy pays taxes and the state does decide how to spend it. Should the ultra-wealthy get taxed more than they are now in the US? Yes, probably.
ocfx 11y ago
But we already have a few wealthy people deciding things for us, we live in an oligarchy. I trust the motives of Bill Gates more than Obama.

Afforess 11y ago

> He said that having a few very wealthy people decide what were the most important causes was bad compared to having the democratically elected government decide. This sentence is really amusing to me, because our democratically elected government, at least at the congressional level, is nearly all wealthy millionaires. So either way, important causes are decided by the wealthy.

maxmzd_ 11y ago
While that is true, and a problem, it doesn't make the point of the article any less valid. If anything, you are agreeing with it now.
username223 11y ago
Congressmen are mostly rich people rented by richer ones, but a small amount of plebian influence is surely better than none at all if you're into that whole "democracy" thing.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- dorfsmay 11y ago
  In terms of how to spend "extra money", I would have agreed with you before Bill Gates' foundation delivered result few governments ever did. Heck, I'm in Alberta where we've had a government returning taxes when we had budget surplus... just before the election.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- BuckRogers 11y ago
  I've always wondered why more people aren't demanding direct democracy. I know why the founders of the US didn't go for it, but as a working class American I fail to see why I don't want direct democracy. It would slow the pace of government doing stuff down and if someone got bribed, it would be me. And even if we did wrong, at least we'd truly be responsible. And screwing things up is kind of our birthright.
kuschku 11y ago
That depends on where you are – this German billionaire, obviously, is German. It’s not nearly as bad over here yet.
applecore 11y ago
Your argument makes no sense: the people control everything in a democracy, literally, by voting for their representation in government.
- jaggederest 11y ago
  How well does that representation actually fulfill the wishes of their constituency as a whole, let alone any individual voter? That's the point - by being representative with no accountability, there's only the binary ability to hire or fire with no ability to manage.
  - zzalpha 11y ago
    How well does that representation actually fulfill the wishes of their constituency as a whole, let alone any individual voter? Yeah yeah yeah, being cynical about democracy is cool, blah blah blah. I suppose you should, what, just burn the motherf*cker down and be done with it, then? You know, in 50 years the GOP will be able to look back and point to one of their most brilliant victories of all time: actively sabotaging the activities of government, and then using the results of their very own actions to convince the electorate that government doesn't work and cannot represent them, despite the fact that they got themselves elected into the very system they claim to despise. It's utterly brilliant. "Starve-the-beast" neocon tactics taken to a whole new level.
    - ancap 11y ago
      >"Starve-the-beast" neocon tactics taken to a whole new level. I'm not sure you know what a "neocon" is. Neocons derived from Trotskyism and are found in both major U.S. political parties. Neoconservatism has done more to expand government than perhaps any other ideology present in American politics. >actively sabotaging the activities of government, and then using the results of their very own actions to convince the electorate that government doesn't work and cannot represent them, despite the fact that they got themselves elected into the very system they claim to despise. Ironically that strategy sounds a lot like a strategy that's been deployed by progressives. If you look at some of the most heavily regulated sectors of the economy--healthcare, banking, housing, wall street, etc--those are the same areas which progressives hold up as free market failures.
thomnottom 11y ago
You are correct in that the current state of US politics almost makes it the same thing. However it is possible that the US electorate could fix that problem over time.
- saint_fiasco 11y ago
  Is that more difficult or less difficult than convincing people to stop using Zuckerberg's products?
  - thomnottom 11y ago
    I wish I knew the answer. But a change coming through the electorate process should have a more lasting effect as simply boycotting Facebook would merely shift the wealth and influence to another person instead of Zuckerberg.
rayiner 11y ago
That's pretty misleading. The median net worth of a member of Congress is about $1 million: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/01/millionaires-club-for-first-time-most-lawmakers-are-worth-1-million-plus http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/01/millionaires-club-fo.... You also have to take into account that the average age of Congress is almost 60. I.e. they have been working and accumulating assets for decades. Adjusted for age, the net worth of the median Congressman is at the 80th percentile: http://www.census.gov/people/wealth/files/Wealth%20distribution%202000%20to%202011.pdf http://www.census.gov/people/wealth/files/Wealth%20distribut.... Is 80th percentile "wealthy"? It's within one standard deviation of the median. I'd call that upper middle class. Fun fact: the median doctor is worth over $1 million by age 50, and about $2 million by age 65: http://www.medicalpracticeinsider.com/news/which-doctors-stash-most-cash http://www.medicalpracticeinsider.com/news/which-doctors-sta....
- DawkinsGawd 11y ago
  Yes, being a millionaire politician or doctor makes you wealthy.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    It's fine if you believe that, and it's reasonable to point out the huge class distinction between a doctor and a greeter at Walmart, but I just want to point out that your sentence pretty much reduces to "Yes, being a doctor makes you wealthy". Which, again, fine, but I can't be the only one who thinks we'd be better off if we had more doctors in Congress.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

JoshTriplett 11y ago

> He said that having a few very wealthy people decide what were the most important causes was bad compared to having the democratically elected government decide. You may disagree with that, but it is quite different from simply saying public good and private bad. How is that any different from the comment you're replying to? If the government is running something, it's a government ("public") program rather than a private one.

s73v3r 11y ago
It's different in that it's a more accurate characterization of the argument.
thomnottom 11y ago
Because neither the article nor the German billionaire (sorry, I really should go back and get his name instead of referencing the title, but I'm being lazy) are saying that private foundations are inherently bad - which is what the comment I replied to stated. What he says is bad is shifting the decision to the wealthy instead of the public.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  That's still the same thing; if the public is deciding where the funding is going then it isn't a private foundation anymore. Now, if the public is deciding by choosing where to put their own funding, in the form of donations, that makes more sense. But in that sense, the millionaires and billionaires creating or donating to charitable foundations are doing the same thing: deciding where to put their own funding.
  - thomnottom 11y ago
    No, it is not the same thing. A private foundation can continue to be a part of the solution without it being the focus. Krämer's (I checked the name!) point is that the focus in the US is private donations which means that the billionaires have a much higher level of influence on where the money goes. It's not that, say, the Make A Wish Foundation is inherently bad or that donating to them is a bad thing, rather the possibility that Zuckerberg could decide to give them 95% of his wealth while more critical social services receive none of it that is concerning.

wyldfire 11y ago

I suppose that makes sense, but it's not really a dichotomy. The ultra-wealthy pays taxes and the state does decide how to spend it. Should the ultra-wealthy get taxed more than they are now in the US? Yes, probably.

ocfx 11y ago

But we already have a few wealthy people deciding things for us, we live in an oligarchy. I trust the motives of Bill Gates more than Obama.