4 ms·

I really don't think this deserves the level of skepticism it's being met with. What else could this guy possibly do to demonstrate that he is genuinely not int

I really don't think this deserves the level of skepticism it's being met with. What else could this guy possibly do to demonstrate that he is genuinely not interested in material wealth? Look at how he lives, and how he has (not) monetized Facebook along the way. Look at how he turned down a million-dollar-plus acquisition offer for a company he didn't care about in high school. Whatever you think about Facebook, Zuckerberg truly and somewhat uniquely does not appear to be motivated by money. Apparently that's very difficult for most people to understand, and they attribute their own motives to his actions. He's given away gobs of money before; he's still incredibly well off with 'just' 1% of his wealth remaining; why doubt his intentions here?

viscanti 11y ago
> Look at how he lives You mean buying multiple homes around his home for privacy? http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24285169/mark-zuckerberg-buys-four-houses-near-his-palo-alto-home http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24285169/mark-zuckerb... Or you mean driving his neighbors crazy with his over-the-top construction http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Neighbors-feeling-squeezed-by-work-on-Mark-5771069.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Neighbors-...
- numlocked 11y ago
  I live in SF and this is happening everywhere. The house directly next to me has been under construction for more than 18 months, with parking blocked off, huge amounts of noise, etc. And I live on a fairly undistinguished block (though one that is about to have a $5m home hit the market...). This is just par for the course in SF. His home attracted a particular amount of attention because it's his. $10 in SF for a billionaire is really pretty modest. Compare to e.g. Larry Ellison: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2011/05/31/pacific_heights_larry_ellison_buys_house_next_door_for_40m_shrubbery_fracas_settled.php http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2011/05/31/pacific_heights_lar...
- DevX101 11y ago
  So what? If I was a billionaire I'd have multiple homes too!
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
rm999 11y ago
Most of the educated criticism I've seen isn't about money, it's about power. A lot of his actions have shown that he values power far more than money, and we all know he has been successful in this pursuit (look at the way his facebook voting rights are structured). I think a lot of the criticism in this case is that he isn't really being altruistic - instead he is strengthening the power he has in the most efficient way possible. Nothing too surprising, most intelligent billionaires are very good at this. The difference is most of them don't act like they're doing the world a huge favor for it.
- jayess 11y ago
  Yet every single politician values power more than the average person, and they're treated as saints.
  - eggie 11y ago
    In the US at least, Congressional approval ratings would suggest otherwise. Currently they clock in at a hot 13% "approve": http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_...
    - jayess 11y ago
      Yes, but most people give their own congressman good ratings: http://www.gallup.com/poll/162362/americans-down-congress-own-representative.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/162362/americans-down-congress-ow... I suppose I meant, in the context of this discussion, that people here tend to complain that "we" should decide how MZ spends his money and that it's a scandal that he's not participating in some collective decision making process. Of course that necessitates politicians and bureaucrats making those decisions, instead of MZ. As though they are better equipped to spend MZ's money than MZ.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > In the US at least, Congressional approval ratings would suggest otherwise. Congressional approval ratings have nothing to do with individual politicians' power and influence; it measures voters approval of an institution over which each person rating the institution has a vote for at most 3 members, each of which spends a substantial amount of their campaign time using the rest of the institution as an excuse for anything that their constituents might not like. Really, low Congressional approval ratings are, arguably, evidence of the success of individual politicians' "don't hate the player, hate the game" strategy for maximizing their personal position.
socalnate1 11y ago
Because internet message boards are dominated by cynics.
cerebrum 11y ago
You forgot the /s at the end.
cookiecaper 11y ago
>What else could this guy possibly do to demonstrate that he is genuinely not interested in material wealth? Let me start with the caveat that I don't really care if Zuck is "interested in material wealth" or not. That said, if he wants to prove it, he needs to give it all away in a way where he doesn't have control over what happens to it anymore. Putting your money in a "charitable foundation" that you control is not giving it away; you still decide how, where, and in what quantities it gets spent. You can still give people you like a salary as "employees of the charity". None of that counts as giving it away. Giving it away is actually giving it to others in one fell swoop and letting those people decide what happens to it. If he really wanted to be egaliatarian and de-elevate himself to the level of a "normal guy", he'd just divide his shares by the number of Facebook employees and evenly disperse. In my book, "I moved all my money into a different entity which I still control" is not giving all your money away, it's just paper pushing.
flubert 11y ago
> What else could this guy possibly do to demonstrate that he is genuinely not interested in material wealth? Possibly just do it, instead of talking about doing it? Why make up a phony press release and shell corporation and try to brag about how noble you are in trying to avoid taxes? Is there another angle I'm missing here besides extreme narcissism?

viscanti 11y ago

> Look at how he lives You mean buying multiple homes around his home for privacy? http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24285169/mark-zuckerberg-buys-four-houses-near-his-palo-alto-home http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24285169/mark-zuckerb... Or you mean driving his neighbors crazy with his over-the-top construction http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Neighbors-feeling-squeezed-by-work-on-Mark-5771069.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Neighbors-...

numlocked 11y ago
I live in SF and this is happening everywhere. The house directly next to me has been under construction for more than 18 months, with parking blocked off, huge amounts of noise, etc. And I live on a fairly undistinguished block (though one that is about to have a $5m home hit the market...). This is just par for the course in SF. His home attracted a particular amount of attention because it's his. $10 in SF for a billionaire is really pretty modest. Compare to e.g. Larry Ellison: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2011/05/31/pacific_heights_larry_ellison_buys_house_next_door_for_40m_shrubbery_fracas_settled.php http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2011/05/31/pacific_heights_lar...
DevX101 11y ago
So what? If I was a billionaire I'd have multiple homes too!
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

rm999 11y ago

Most of the educated criticism I've seen isn't about money, it's about power. A lot of his actions have shown that he values power far more than money, and we all know he has been successful in this pursuit (look at the way his facebook voting rights are structured). I think a lot of the criticism in this case is that he isn't really being altruistic - instead he is strengthening the power he has in the most efficient way possible. Nothing too surprising, most intelligent billionaires are very good at this. The difference is most of them don't act like they're doing the world a huge favor for it.

jayess 11y ago
Yet every single politician values power more than the average person, and they're treated as saints.
- eggie 11y ago
  In the US at least, Congressional approval ratings would suggest otherwise. Currently they clock in at a hot 13% "approve": http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_...
  - jayess 11y ago
    Yes, but most people give their own congressman good ratings: http://www.gallup.com/poll/162362/americans-down-congress-own-representative.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/162362/americans-down-congress-ow... I suppose I meant, in the context of this discussion, that people here tend to complain that "we" should decide how MZ spends his money and that it's a scandal that he's not participating in some collective decision making process. Of course that necessitates politicians and bureaucrats making those decisions, instead of MZ. As though they are better equipped to spend MZ's money than MZ.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > In the US at least, Congressional approval ratings would suggest otherwise. Congressional approval ratings have nothing to do with individual politicians' power and influence; it measures voters approval of an institution over which each person rating the institution has a vote for at most 3 members, each of which spends a substantial amount of their campaign time using the rest of the institution as an excuse for anything that their constituents might not like. Really, low Congressional approval ratings are, arguably, evidence of the success of individual politicians' "don't hate the player, hate the game" strategy for maximizing their personal position.

socalnate1 11y ago

Because internet message boards are dominated by cynics.

cerebrum 11y ago

You forgot the /s at the end.

cookiecaper 11y ago

>What else could this guy possibly do to demonstrate that he is genuinely not interested in material wealth? Let me start with the caveat that I don't really care if Zuck is "interested in material wealth" or not. That said, if he wants to prove it, he needs to give it all away in a way where he doesn't have control over what happens to it anymore. Putting your money in a "charitable foundation" that you control is not giving it away; you still decide how, where, and in what quantities it gets spent. You can still give people you like a salary as "employees of the charity". None of that counts as giving it away. Giving it away is actually giving it to others in one fell swoop and letting those people decide what happens to it. If he really wanted to be egaliatarian and de-elevate himself to the level of a "normal guy", he'd just divide his shares by the number of Facebook employees and evenly disperse. In my book, "I moved all my money into a different entity which I still control" is not giving all your money away, it's just paper pushing.

flubert 11y ago

> What else could this guy possibly do to demonstrate that he is genuinely not interested in material wealth? Possibly just do it, instead of talking about doing it? Why make up a phony press release and shell corporation and try to brag about how noble you are in trying to avoid taxes? Is there another angle I'm missing here besides extreme narcissism?