7 ms·

Chinese philanthropist donates all his fortune

69 points by MikeCapone 16y ago

slantyyz 16y ago
I think this quote is a nice wake-up call to any potential heir who thinks he/she is entitled to a large inheritance: “If my children are competent, they don’t need my money,” Mr. Yu explained. “If they’re not, leaving them a lot of money is only doing them harm.”
- moolave 16y ago
  I would say that by the time he said this, his children already have their own businesses, acquired some good wealth of their own, and have been groomed well to run them (and as well as handle/invest money wisely)
- tarkin2 16y ago
  Bit of a logical play, the dilemmic fallacy to be precise, but, alternatively: If they're competent, leaving them a lot of money won't do them any harm. If they're not, they need his money. [edit] here's the classical example of this change in perspective: http://divisbyzero.com/2008/11/30/euathlus-and-protagoras/ http://divisbyzero.com/2008/11/30/euathlus-and-protagoras/
  - kiba 16y ago
    Competent people will manage their wealth wisely, while the incompetent simply squander it.
    - tarkin2 16y ago
      I'm playing with his dilemma more than anything else, but you could also attack his assertion that the competent don't need his wealth. His children could be competent and unlucky, for instance, which could mean they need a lot of money: chronic illnesses, for example.
  - sorbus 16y ago
    But if they're competent, they don't need the money, because they'll be able to work up to the point where they have as much as he did - according to the article, he started off as a "poor street hawker," so his belief that his children could do the same is certainly logical. They probably also have the advantage of his connections, better education, and so forth, meaning that they should be even more capable than he was. Also, if they're competent, lacking money might be good for their moral character, and encourage them to eventually do the same if they gather a lot of money, doing more good for society. If they're not competent, it's better to give the money to the foundation he started, so that it can help as many people as possible, instead of being squandered. Sure, his children might need it more, but they wouldn't be able to do as much with it which would be useful to society, which is what he is trying to do.
    - tarkin2 16y ago
      Yeah, I'm not arguing against those points, per se. The dilemmic fallacy is simply a way to show the dilemma is subject to perspective, and therefore not as steely as it may seem.
  - dieterrams 16y ago
    Incompetence isn't an irreversible trait. A lot of people face barriers that make reversing the condition extremely difficult or impossible, but these typically aren't the children of rich people. Their problem is more likely one of never experiencing true need, and thus not understanding the risk of being incompetent.
- exit 16y ago
  actually the idea of his children resenting this gesture is crucial to endearing himself.
- angstrom 16y ago
  Or the ultimate in Asian parenting... "What?! You get A- in math?! You not smart enough to get A+? Maybe you not smart enough to inherit fortune..."
  - bokchoi 16y ago
    Racist much?
- leelin 16y ago
  How about if the children are competent AND they receive the money? At the risk of having spoiled kids, might this potent combination bring us another Warren Buffet or Bill Gates? Sure it might not be fair, but children who inherit get a nice safety net which allows them to take greater risks to pursue their dreams. Edit: I didn't realize the extent that Buffet bootstrapped his wealth. Still, there are plenty of good inheritance examples... the Trumps and Kushners?
  - philk 16y ago
    Warren Buffett made almost all of his money himself. The problem is that when people get unearned money they usually become wasteful and lose their drive. It's also really hard to keep working on something financial when you've got a large external income; if you're making a million bucks a year in investment income then spending all your waking hours on a business that's making fifty grand a year doesn't seem worthwhile even if it might eventually grow much larger.
    - edanm 16y ago
      True. But I'm guessing the children of successful business people also get, besides the money, a great education on business. More importantly, they probably inherit a great worldview of money/business, which drives them to also try and do great things. This isn't true in every case, but it's probably true in some cases. I'm guessing any child of a person like Bill Gates might be given the kind of education which pushes him/her to great heights. Should probably check some statistics on this issue.
      - bjoernw 16y ago
        The problem is that success and money are not the same. There might be a parent that made a lot of money taking stupid risk. The education that the child gets from the parent isn't worth anything and he will have to burn through a lot of money to unlearn the things his parent taught him. Therefore he could use the large inheritance. Even though people are rich doesn't mean they are smart. Survivorship bias
    - 16y ago
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- tzm 16y ago
  So... he's not an evolutionist and thinks being a philanthropist is more fulfilling. Seems self-righteous to me.
  - tzm 16y ago
    To clarify... if his children were competent AND had his money, I'm sure they could make an even greater impact to the world than he did. Instead, he would rather give his money away to charity as some form of personal achievement. ?? Isn't life suppose to evolute in some form, rather than starting from scratch? That is effectively what he's imposing on his children. His comment about "competence" makes no sense to me.
    - Confusion 16y ago
      Isn't life suppose to evolute in some form, [..] Life is not 'supposed to' do anything. That we evolved is a fact of this universe, not a moral guideline. Arguing otherwise would be pursuing the naturalistic fallacy: something is natural, therefore it is morally good.
      - tzm 16y ago
        Evolution as a natural order. I'm pretty sure evolution trumps de-evolution, otherwise you wouldn't be here my friend. At the core is "knowledge transfer" from one generation to the next.
- jchonphoenix 16y ago
  Its an old adage that's been handed down many generations. I hear it from a lot of the wealthy in Hong Kong.
- known 16y ago
  I told my wife "My son will inherit my wealth, only if he is competent." and I made will accordingly. My son is 3 now.
MikeCapone 16y ago
The article states that this makes him the first Chinese citizen to donate more than $1 billion to charity.
- electromagnetic 16y ago
  I believe this is a notable feat due to the ever present communist state that usually steps in on big companies in the Chinese mainland. Hong Kong is still trailing many western cities in terms of GDP per capita (not by too far mind you), however I rarely hear of this happening in western cities. Surely in richer countries this should be happening far more frequently, but it doesn't.
exit 16y ago
philanthropic donations are only ever patronizing. it shouldn't be possible to accumulate that much wealth to begin with.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- MikeCapone 16y ago
  Who decides how much wealth it is okay to accumulate? (said another way: who decides how economically productive a person can be?)
  - Ardit20 16y ago
    We, the People! We decide who to lock up, so why not put a limit on how much wealth one can accumulate, say something like no more than 1000% of the average wage, all other income taxed at 100%, or 90% or 80%. They only gain this income by exploiting the proletariat so its only fair!
    - MikeCapone 16y ago
      > They only gain this income by exploiting the proletariat so its only fair! I can't tell if this is serious or parody. Honestly.
      - Ardit20 16y ago
        I think I was being fairly serious. Do you have any reason to think that the part you quoted was a parody?
        MikeCapone 16y ago
        Because I thought that of all places, a site dedicated to entrepreneurship would attract people who understand that it isn't true that the only way to make money is to "exploit the proletariat", but rather that the proletariat would be a lot worse off without successful entrepreneurs.
gonefishin 16y ago
> In a society where capitalism is just 30 years old Chinese capitalism is many things, but one thing it's not is young.
jiganti 16y ago
I wonder how much influence, if any, Gates/Buffett and their recent push for the wealthiest Americans to give 50% away before death had on him. With Americans potentially giving away more, it makes the rest of the world look worse by contrast.
cwtann 16y ago
This idea was planted via inception?
Dylanfm 16y ago
This brings something from Philip Greenspun's site to mind: http://philip.greenspun.com/materialism/early-retirement/ http://philip.greenspun.com/materialism/early-retirement/ "The standard tools that rich families use to preserve their wealth down through the centuries include the following: ... * charitable foundations and organizations that are supposed to work for the public benefit, but in fact provide jobs and luxurious vacations ("board meetings") for members of your family for decades to come..." Although, I do think this guy is doing this for good, his family will still at least have employment from it. It says his sons are on the organisation's board, for example.

69 points by MikeCapone 16y ago

I think this quote is a nice wake-up call to any potential heir who thinks he/she is entitled to a large inheritance: “If my children are competent, they don’t need my money,” Mr. Yu explained. “If they’re not, leaving them a lot of money is only doing them harm.”

moolave 16y ago
I would say that by the time he said this, his children already have their own businesses, acquired some good wealth of their own, and have been groomed well to run them (and as well as handle/invest money wisely)
tarkin2 16y ago
Bit of a logical play, the dilemmic fallacy to be precise, but, alternatively: If they're competent, leaving them a lot of money won't do them any harm. If they're not, they need his money. [edit] here's the classical example of this change in perspective: http://divisbyzero.com/2008/11/30/euathlus-and-protagoras/ http://divisbyzero.com/2008/11/30/euathlus-and-protagoras/
- kiba 16y ago
  Competent people will manage their wealth wisely, while the incompetent simply squander it.
  - tarkin2 16y ago
    I'm playing with his dilemma more than anything else, but you could also attack his assertion that the competent don't need his wealth. His children could be competent and unlucky, for instance, which could mean they need a lot of money: chronic illnesses, for example.
- sorbus 16y ago
  But if they're competent, they don't need the money, because they'll be able to work up to the point where they have as much as he did - according to the article, he started off as a "poor street hawker," so his belief that his children could do the same is certainly logical. They probably also have the advantage of his connections, better education, and so forth, meaning that they should be even more capable than he was. Also, if they're competent, lacking money might be good for their moral character, and encourage them to eventually do the same if they gather a lot of money, doing more good for society. If they're not competent, it's better to give the money to the foundation he started, so that it can help as many people as possible, instead of being squandered. Sure, his children might need it more, but they wouldn't be able to do as much with it which would be useful to society, which is what he is trying to do.
  - tarkin2 16y ago
    Yeah, I'm not arguing against those points, per se. The dilemmic fallacy is simply a way to show the dilemma is subject to perspective, and therefore not as steely as it may seem.
- dieterrams 16y ago
  Incompetence isn't an irreversible trait. A lot of people face barriers that make reversing the condition extremely difficult or impossible, but these typically aren't the children of rich people. Their problem is more likely one of never experiencing true need, and thus not understanding the risk of being incompetent.
exit 16y ago
actually the idea of his children resenting this gesture is crucial to endearing himself.
angstrom 16y ago
Or the ultimate in Asian parenting... "What?! You get A- in math?! You not smart enough to get A+? Maybe you not smart enough to inherit fortune..."
- bokchoi 16y ago
  Racist much?
leelin 16y ago
How about if the children are competent AND they receive the money? At the risk of having spoiled kids, might this potent combination bring us another Warren Buffet or Bill Gates? Sure it might not be fair, but children who inherit get a nice safety net which allows them to take greater risks to pursue their dreams. Edit: I didn't realize the extent that Buffet bootstrapped his wealth. Still, there are plenty of good inheritance examples... the Trumps and Kushners?
- philk 16y ago
  Warren Buffett made almost all of his money himself. The problem is that when people get unearned money they usually become wasteful and lose their drive. It's also really hard to keep working on something financial when you've got a large external income; if you're making a million bucks a year in investment income then spending all your waking hours on a business that's making fifty grand a year doesn't seem worthwhile even if it might eventually grow much larger.
  - edanm 16y ago
    True. But I'm guessing the children of successful business people also get, besides the money, a great education on business. More importantly, they probably inherit a great worldview of money/business, which drives them to also try and do great things. This isn't true in every case, but it's probably true in some cases. I'm guessing any child of a person like Bill Gates might be given the kind of education which pushes him/her to great heights. Should probably check some statistics on this issue.
    - bjoernw 16y ago
      The problem is that success and money are not the same. There might be a parent that made a lot of money taking stupid risk. The education that the child gets from the parent isn't worth anything and he will have to burn through a lot of money to unlearn the things his parent taught him. Therefore he could use the large inheritance. Even though people are rich doesn't mean they are smart. Survivorship bias
  - 16y ago
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
tzm 16y ago
So... he's not an evolutionist and thinks being a philanthropist is more fulfilling. Seems self-righteous to me.
- tzm 16y ago
  To clarify... if his children were competent AND had his money, I'm sure they could make an even greater impact to the world than he did. Instead, he would rather give his money away to charity as some form of personal achievement. ?? Isn't life suppose to evolute in some form, rather than starting from scratch? That is effectively what he's imposing on his children. His comment about "competence" makes no sense to me.
  - Confusion 16y ago
    Isn't life suppose to evolute in some form, [..] Life is not 'supposed to' do anything. That we evolved is a fact of this universe, not a moral guideline. Arguing otherwise would be pursuing the naturalistic fallacy: something is natural, therefore it is morally good.
    - tzm 16y ago
      Evolution as a natural order. I'm pretty sure evolution trumps de-evolution, otherwise you wouldn't be here my friend. At the core is "knowledge transfer" from one generation to the next.
jchonphoenix 16y ago
Its an old adage that's been handed down many generations. I hear it from a lot of the wealthy in Hong Kong.
known 16y ago
I told my wife "My son will inherit my wealth, only if he is competent." and I made will accordingly. My son is 3 now.

MikeCapone 16y ago

The article states that this makes him the first Chinese citizen to donate more than $1 billion to charity.

electromagnetic 16y ago
I believe this is a notable feat due to the ever present communist state that usually steps in on big companies in the Chinese mainland. Hong Kong is still trailing many western cities in terms of GDP per capita (not by too far mind you), however I rarely hear of this happening in western cities. Surely in richer countries this should be happening far more frequently, but it doesn't.

exit 16y ago

philanthropic donations are only ever patronizing. it shouldn't be possible to accumulate that much wealth to begin with.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
MikeCapone 16y ago
Who decides how much wealth it is okay to accumulate? (said another way: who decides how economically productive a person can be?)
- Ardit20 16y ago
  We, the People! We decide who to lock up, so why not put a limit on how much wealth one can accumulate, say something like no more than 1000% of the average wage, all other income taxed at 100%, or 90% or 80%. They only gain this income by exploiting the proletariat so its only fair!
  - MikeCapone 16y ago
    > They only gain this income by exploiting the proletariat so its only fair! I can't tell if this is serious or parody. Honestly.
    - Ardit20 16y ago
      I think I was being fairly serious. Do you have any reason to think that the part you quoted was a parody?
      - MikeCapone 16y ago
        Because I thought that of all places, a site dedicated to entrepreneurship would attract people who understand that it isn't true that the only way to make money is to "exploit the proletariat", but rather that the proletariat would be a lot worse off without successful entrepreneurs.

gonefishin 16y ago

> In a society where capitalism is just 30 years old Chinese capitalism is many things, but one thing it's not is young.

jiganti 16y ago

I wonder how much influence, if any, Gates/Buffett and their recent push for the wealthiest Americans to give 50% away before death had on him. With Americans potentially giving away more, it makes the rest of the world look worse by contrast.

cwtann 16y ago

This idea was planted via inception?

Dylanfm 16y ago

This brings something from Philip Greenspun's site to mind: http://philip.greenspun.com/materialism/early-retirement/ http://philip.greenspun.com/materialism/early-retirement/ "The standard tools that rich families use to preserve their wealth down through the centuries include the following: ... * charitable foundations and organizations that are supposed to work for the public benefit, but in fact provide jobs and luxurious vacations ("board meetings") for members of your family for decades to come..." Although, I do think this guy is doing this for good, his family will still at least have employment from it. It says his sons are on the organisation's board, for example.