4 ms·

Why the glass half empty view? $1 Billion is still $1 Billion.

by melvinram 10y ago

samirillian 10y ago
Because trump is the us president-elect.
- lucasmullens 10y ago
  So a billion would be a lot if Hillary was the president-elect? Not sure how this is relevant.
  - samirillian 10y ago
    It directly answers why a person might have a glass-half-empty perspective about piecemeal environmental efforts, like a billion dollars won't begin to undo the damage of Trump's appointments. Sounds relevant to me.
muse900 10y ago
in my opinion people get too absorbed by hearing others that they donated X amount of money and then they make them like they are some kind of God's amongst us for doing so. My whole life I've been hearing by colleagues etc that Bill Gates is an amazing human being and he has donated all his money and he has done so many things for humanity. I am sorry but I just don't feel the same way and although I think I shouldn't force my thoughts on others I just feel the need of reminding them that this person still owns a yacht costing half a billion, he is still the richest man in the world, and no matter what he donates in my mind he will still be one of the "humans" that felt the need of having a 400m $ yacht while there are people out there starving to death. Please and Thank you. P.S I know am gonna get down-voted to hell and prolly shadow-banned cause of my opinion, but doesn't matter no matter what I say or what happens to me will change the way the world works (there will always be people that see goodness in people and others like my that are seeing the bad side in people).
- ohstopitu 10y ago
  A lot of my friends have the same view but refuse to discuss about it (I have THE EXACT opposite view). In my opinion, he didn't owe the world anything - yet he's donating quiet a bit (clean water, anti-malaria etc.) - Sure he's got luxuries that most of us would probably dream about - yatches, jets etc., but he's also done net positive to the world and that's great. Usually people who share my view generally counter with "so what have you done?" and imo that's a wrong way to think about it - everyone's level of contribution will be different. If I were in his position, I too would have spent on luxuries (maybe more so than him) but the end goal is never lost - he's still helping people all over the world. --- My political view on the topic: in a way, your comment reminds me of the previous election - moral policing of "oh, Trump's against X" and that's terrible and if you support him for Y, you are still a terrible person because he supports X lead to the result - people who supported him for Y were unable to ever get Y discussed and every time they did, X was always brought up, dismissing Y - so they never bothered discussing/learning etc and instead did the only thing in their power - look after their self interest of Y.
  - zajd 10y ago
    > In my opinion, he didn't owe the world anything Maybe you're familiar with the social contract? The guy has made billions in the business world, he doesn't deserve to be lauded for donating a small fraction of the wealth he'll never need to survive. It's the equivalent of a grocery store clerk donating $10 to the salvation army. I don't see news articles written about them. Hell, the poor consistently donate a greater portion of their wealth than the rich.
    - peller 10y ago
      But it's not equivalent, because there's this thing about wealth: Scenario A: Let's say he donates all he's worth today, minus what he needs to live out his days and provide for his family. Call it $80B. Awesome. Potential downsides: giant influx of cash invites corruption/skimming etc, and it also doesn't promote self-sustainability (from the recipients' cash flow perspective). Scenario B: He leaves the bulk of his money invested, accruing 5% annually. (But since Ray Dalio is mentioned as a partner, it might be closer to 10% or 15%) That's at least $3.5B annually (after 15% capital gains tax). He's 61 years old; call it 25 years of life left. So now we're at 3.5B * 25y = 87.5B. As a very conservative estimate (5%, no compound interest). AND, he's still got his original $80B investment "in the bank." The choice is obvious.
kkotak 10y ago
True. I'm merely reflecting upon the mindset of money. If Bill really owns a $1/2B yacht (which I don't know) then he values it the same as saving the oceans it sails on. And as to other example - Sean Parker's $250M fund to cure cancer. Just comparing that to $15B raise by Uber. It's just a sad commentary that's all.
- patrickaljord 10y ago
  Maybe it doesn't make sense to invest more than $1B for now. That's a lot of money, you don't want it to go it to waste. Heck I wouldn't even know where to start with a $1B grant to save the environment. I guess they are trying to use it for research and development and it makes sense not to just throw $100B at it for now. They'll start with smalls teams of smart people to try come up with great ideas, $1B may be enough for that. Great discovery in R&D usually happen by accident with smart people and not because of how much money you threw at it once you get to a big enough amount.

Why the glass half empty view? $1 Billion is still $1 Billion.

samirillian 10y ago

Because trump is the us president-elect.

lucasmullens 10y ago
So a billion would be a lot if Hillary was the president-elect? Not sure how this is relevant.
- samirillian 10y ago
  It directly answers why a person might have a glass-half-empty perspective about piecemeal environmental efforts, like a billion dollars won't begin to undo the damage of Trump's appointments. Sounds relevant to me.

muse900 10y ago

in my opinion people get too absorbed by hearing others that they donated X amount of money and then they make them like they are some kind of God's amongst us for doing so. My whole life I've been hearing by colleagues etc that Bill Gates is an amazing human being and he has donated all his money and he has done so many things for humanity. I am sorry but I just don't feel the same way and although I think I shouldn't force my thoughts on others I just feel the need of reminding them that this person still owns a yacht costing half a billion, he is still the richest man in the world, and no matter what he donates in my mind he will still be one of the "humans" that felt the need of having a 400m $ yacht while there are people out there starving to death. Please and Thank you. P.S I know am gonna get down-voted to hell and prolly shadow-banned cause of my opinion, but doesn't matter no matter what I say or what happens to me will change the way the world works (there will always be people that see goodness in people and others like my that are seeing the bad side in people).

ohstopitu 10y ago
A lot of my friends have the same view but refuse to discuss about it (I have THE EXACT opposite view). In my opinion, he didn't owe the world anything - yet he's donating quiet a bit (clean water, anti-malaria etc.) - Sure he's got luxuries that most of us would probably dream about - yatches, jets etc., but he's also done net positive to the world and that's great. Usually people who share my view generally counter with "so what have you done?" and imo that's a wrong way to think about it - everyone's level of contribution will be different. If I were in his position, I too would have spent on luxuries (maybe more so than him) but the end goal is never lost - he's still helping people all over the world. --- My political view on the topic: in a way, your comment reminds me of the previous election - moral policing of "oh, Trump's against X" and that's terrible and if you support him for Y, you are still a terrible person because he supports X lead to the result - people who supported him for Y were unable to ever get Y discussed and every time they did, X was always brought up, dismissing Y - so they never bothered discussing/learning etc and instead did the only thing in their power - look after their self interest of Y.
- zajd 10y ago
  > In my opinion, he didn't owe the world anything Maybe you're familiar with the social contract? The guy has made billions in the business world, he doesn't deserve to be lauded for donating a small fraction of the wealth he'll never need to survive. It's the equivalent of a grocery store clerk donating $10 to the salvation army. I don't see news articles written about them. Hell, the poor consistently donate a greater portion of their wealth than the rich.
  - peller 10y ago
    But it's not equivalent, because there's this thing about wealth: Scenario A: Let's say he donates all he's worth today, minus what he needs to live out his days and provide for his family. Call it $80B. Awesome. Potential downsides: giant influx of cash invites corruption/skimming etc, and it also doesn't promote self-sustainability (from the recipients' cash flow perspective). Scenario B: He leaves the bulk of his money invested, accruing 5% annually. (But since Ray Dalio is mentioned as a partner, it might be closer to 10% or 15%) That's at least $3.5B annually (after 15% capital gains tax). He's 61 years old; call it 25 years of life left. So now we're at 3.5B * 25y = 87.5B. As a very conservative estimate (5%, no compound interest). AND, he's still got his original $80B investment "in the bank." The choice is obvious.

kkotak 10y ago

True. I'm merely reflecting upon the mindset of money. If Bill really owns a $1/2B yacht (which I don't know) then he values it the same as saving the oceans it sails on. And as to other example - Sean Parker's $250M fund to cure cancer. Just comparing that to $15B raise by Uber. It's just a sad commentary that's all.

patrickaljord 10y ago
Maybe it doesn't make sense to invest more than $1B for now. That's a lot of money, you don't want it to go it to waste. Heck I wouldn't even know where to start with a $1B grant to save the environment. I guess they are trying to use it for research and development and it makes sense not to just throw $100B at it for now. They'll start with smalls teams of smart people to try come up with great ideas, $1B may be enough for that. Great discovery in R&D usually happen by accident with smart people and not because of how much money you threw at it once you get to a big enough amount.