5 ms·

philanthropic donations are only ever patronizing You're wrong. The Gates Foundation has pledged $10 billion to vaccine research and I can't think of how that

by philk 16y ago

philanthropic donations are only ever patronizing You're wrong. The Gates Foundation has pledged $10 billion to vaccine research and I can't think of how that could be considered "patronizing". it shouldn't be possible to accumulate that much wealth to begin with. I disagree. The most productive people in society should be rewarded accordingly, and encouraged to keep producing. If you put a cap on rewards you'll put a cap on productivity.

sbov 16y ago
I don't agree with a wealth cap, but: How do you define productivity, the one who makes the most money? Theres also this mentality that pretty much anything goes in businesses, which I find a bit interesting. Hence the phrase: it's not personal, it's business. So people are allowed to screw you over and be complete a-holes when it comes to business. Some businesses (see: credit cards) are most profitable when they siphon billions from the poor, which is then placed in the hands of the rich. Then, after doing so, they are lauded for donating that money to philanthropic causes. I don't know how this can be viewed as anything other than patronizing.
- lionhearted 16y ago
  > Theres also this mentality that pretty much anything goes in businesses, which I find a bit interesting. Hence the phrase: it's not personal, it's business. So people are allowed to screw you over and be complete a-holes when it comes to business. In my experience, this isn't how the vast majority of wealthy people operate. It's how it's portrayed in the movies, but it doesn't really jive with the real world. People love stories of the evil geniuses so those get spread around, but the vast majority of wealthy people deliver pretty well, keep their promises, work extremely hard, are fair and even-handed, and make the world a better place. Generally speaking, the higher up you go in wealth, the more likely you are to get a fair shake by that person in business. It's hard to get wealthy without people trusting you and building a good reputation as a reliable and effective person. You're much more likely to have someone try to screw you over if they're poor or middle class - which is why those people remain poor and middle class. It's quite hard to get wealthy if you're leaving a trail of carnage behind you (it's been done, but it makes it a hell of a lot harder).
  - _delirium 16y ago
    Are you including how the wealthy people operate when they're running businesses, or just in their personal lives? I've interacted with a number of game companies, for example, and I've found the big ones much more likely to try to screw you over if you don't have lawyers keeping them from doing so, whereas small indie studios will keep their word and try to act in a way that seems ethical, even if the letter of the law would let them screw you. And even within the large companies, it gets worse as you go up the corporate ladder: you can meet some designers who are trustworthy and will even go out of their way to make sure your dealings with them are positive (fighting their own management if necessary), but you always have to be wary if it's a CEO or VP you're talking to, because they'll stab you in the back if an opportunity arises. Of course, some people get rich by operating those smallish businesses, and lots of them seem upstanding to me. But a lot of people get rich by filling the decision-maker (CEO/VP/etc.) roles at large firms, where they tend to be somewhat ruthless, perhaps because there's something of a disconnect in ethical responsibility (they're just doing their jobs, nothing personal).
    - lionhearted 16y ago
      Good comment/questions. Thought provoking. > Are you including how the wealthy people operate when they're running businesses, or just in their personal lives? Generally speaking, both. Some people do poorly in one direction or the other, but I find successful people to be pretty honorable most of the time. > I've interacted with a number of game companies, for example, and I've found the big ones much more likely to try to screw you over if you don't have lawyers keeping them from doing so, whereas small indie studios will keep their word and try to act in a way that seems ethical Care to share some anecdotes about the game industry? That'd be cool to hear. Gaming seems like an interesting example, I don't have any friends in gaming specifically. I get the impression that indie studios are really in it for the love of it, so you're dealing with people who are working with their passionate love for less money, so that's a good point. Actually, if anything, the worst gap is when going from a laborer or craftsman (generally pretty honest and good guys) to a middle manager. I think, I hope we're on the path to obsoleting middle managers in general, because its just not a role conducive to good people. Good middle managers get promoted or hired away to be upper level managers, or leave to start their own company pretty quickly. So you get all sorts of bureaucratic flunkeys in that role - no good. I'm surprised to hear you've got to be wary around a CEO of a major company, though. I'm friends with more business owners and skilled professionals (architects, engineers, etc) than high level executives, but the high level executives I've met seem like decent sorts. Can't comment so much - I was thinking more about business owners than high level employees when I commented. I guess that's my bias. > Of course, some people get rich by operating those smallish businesses, and lots of them seem upstanding to me. Right, this is mostly my social circle and our acquaintances. Maybe the corporate world is uglier and I was overlooking it... one potential HUGE conflict of interest nobody talks about is when ownership and management are mis-aligned, especially in public companies. I think I'll never, ever buy stock in a public company again unless the top 5 decisionmakers in the organization own like a combine 30-40% of the company at least. Good question, good comment. I would be interested in hearing about your experiences in gaming if you think you can talk in a way that wouldn't potentially bring heat on you.
Locke1689 16y ago
Actually, a "wealth cap" is not such a ridiculous idea. Essentially, it's simply a progressive income tax with a tax bracket at 100%. If the bracket is high enough, e.g. $200 million, then it doesn't act as a disincentive and helps to balance the imperfectness of the market. Many would cite John Rawls here, but I have my own criticisms and my philosophical debates (I am a philosophy minor) can run into weeks of time. Instead, I'm going to simply make the argument that wealth over $200 million is meaningless to a single person. That is, from a practical perspective, that is more money than one could ever spend. The only positive use that could come from that amount of money is heavy watched investment and philanthropy. It is not easy to see that $1 billion is enough to move the world. Why should that responsibility fall into a single citizen's hands? In the best circumstances, the citizen hires a flotilla of people to manage that wealth (e.g., Gates and Buffet) and they spend it wisely and do great good. I don't see the fundamental reason why the government couldn't just do the exact same thing. By awarding the money of a government to a single person (Gates and Buffet each had, at the height of their wealth, more money than most of the governments in the world), this simply ensures an entrenched oligarchy of the rich (and therefore powerful) unless they decide to give it away. Many would argue that this is "their" money so they deserve it. I think this argument is mostly bollocks, though. Bill Gates had over $100 billion at one point. Let's say that a skilled professional makes ~$1 million (gross) over the same time period. That's a 100,000x multiplier. Did Gates really do 100,000x more work? Did he really have 100,000x more insight? I think he just got lucky. He was at the right time at the right place with a good idea. From there he built a company. But the trick is that it's a lot easier to make a lot of money when you already have a whole lot of money. Anyway, I'm gonna end this here, even though I'm not completely satisfied with my argument because this is becoming ridiculous. P.S. This is not for those who believe that the government can do nothing right. I'm not sure that it's even worth arguing with those people. Theoretically, there's no satisfying proof that that's the case and practically the only evidence I see is that when those same people set the government up to fall, it falls hard.
- jodrellblank 16y ago
  That is, from a practical perspective, that is more money than one could ever spend. There are lots of things which cost more than a billion dollars which makes this statement false. Not individual items, of course, but buying a billion dollar railway is both possible and spending. I don't think philanthropy (as in, charity) goes far enough. It isn't thinking big enough. Imagine what Buffet could do if he spent his fortune on a Manhatten Project for room temperature superconductors? He could nearly start a lunar colony for that money. The fundamental reason the government can't do the same thing is because they would be voted out for 'wasting' money on speculative ivory tower wankery. Anyway, so what if Bill Gates got lucky, this just sounds like sour grapes. Is he not allowed to get more lucky than you approve of? Whether he 'deserves' it is neither here nor there - it's a non question, like does he deserve two feet or to live past 30. P.S. This is not for those who believe that the government can do nothing right I'll just note that here in England, our recent government scandal is on what MPs had been taking from taxpayer money for their expenses. It included one MP expensing £1600 (>$2000) on an ornamental floating duck house. They do a lot right, but just giving them money because they will magically spend it better than any normal person is not something I can go along with.
exit 16y ago
> You're wrong. No actually i'm right. > and I can't think of how that could be considered "patronizing". the part where bill gates accumulates wealth through computer technology, and where computer technology depends on minerals mined under slave labor conditions, or devices put together in sweatshops, and then he gets lauded for "donating" what he dispossessed those people of. that would be one of many patronizing threads to this story, for example. > The most productive people in society should be rewarded accordingly, the non-linear returns of capitalist accumulation do not reward people "accordingly".
w00pla 16y ago
The Bill&Melissa Gates foundation wasted a lot of money on the "Love life" programme. It was essentially a program that was supposed to use advertisements to encourage youths to practice safe sex. It turned out into more of a sex advertisement and soft money for advertisers and managers (i.e. completely misspent money). The media did not complain though (since they received a shitload of advertisement money).

by philk 16y ago

sbov 16y ago

I don't agree with a wealth cap, but: How do you define productivity, the one who makes the most money? Theres also this mentality that pretty much anything goes in businesses, which I find a bit interesting. Hence the phrase: it's not personal, it's business. So people are allowed to screw you over and be complete a-holes when it comes to business. Some businesses (see: credit cards) are most profitable when they siphon billions from the poor, which is then placed in the hands of the rich. Then, after doing so, they are lauded for donating that money to philanthropic causes. I don't know how this can be viewed as anything other than patronizing.

lionhearted 16y ago
> Theres also this mentality that pretty much anything goes in businesses, which I find a bit interesting. Hence the phrase: it's not personal, it's business. So people are allowed to screw you over and be complete a-holes when it comes to business. In my experience, this isn't how the vast majority of wealthy people operate. It's how it's portrayed in the movies, but it doesn't really jive with the real world. People love stories of the evil geniuses so those get spread around, but the vast majority of wealthy people deliver pretty well, keep their promises, work extremely hard, are fair and even-handed, and make the world a better place. Generally speaking, the higher up you go in wealth, the more likely you are to get a fair shake by that person in business. It's hard to get wealthy without people trusting you and building a good reputation as a reliable and effective person. You're much more likely to have someone try to screw you over if they're poor or middle class - which is why those people remain poor and middle class. It's quite hard to get wealthy if you're leaving a trail of carnage behind you (it's been done, but it makes it a hell of a lot harder).
- _delirium 16y ago
  Are you including how the wealthy people operate when they're running businesses, or just in their personal lives? I've interacted with a number of game companies, for example, and I've found the big ones much more likely to try to screw you over if you don't have lawyers keeping them from doing so, whereas small indie studios will keep their word and try to act in a way that seems ethical, even if the letter of the law would let them screw you. And even within the large companies, it gets worse as you go up the corporate ladder: you can meet some designers who are trustworthy and will even go out of their way to make sure your dealings with them are positive (fighting their own management if necessary), but you always have to be wary if it's a CEO or VP you're talking to, because they'll stab you in the back if an opportunity arises. Of course, some people get rich by operating those smallish businesses, and lots of them seem upstanding to me. But a lot of people get rich by filling the decision-maker (CEO/VP/etc.) roles at large firms, where they tend to be somewhat ruthless, perhaps because there's something of a disconnect in ethical responsibility (they're just doing their jobs, nothing personal).
  - lionhearted 16y ago
    Good comment/questions. Thought provoking. > Are you including how the wealthy people operate when they're running businesses, or just in their personal lives? Generally speaking, both. Some people do poorly in one direction or the other, but I find successful people to be pretty honorable most of the time. > I've interacted with a number of game companies, for example, and I've found the big ones much more likely to try to screw you over if you don't have lawyers keeping them from doing so, whereas small indie studios will keep their word and try to act in a way that seems ethical Care to share some anecdotes about the game industry? That'd be cool to hear. Gaming seems like an interesting example, I don't have any friends in gaming specifically. I get the impression that indie studios are really in it for the love of it, so you're dealing with people who are working with their passionate love for less money, so that's a good point. Actually, if anything, the worst gap is when going from a laborer or craftsman (generally pretty honest and good guys) to a middle manager. I think, I hope we're on the path to obsoleting middle managers in general, because its just not a role conducive to good people. Good middle managers get promoted or hired away to be upper level managers, or leave to start their own company pretty quickly. So you get all sorts of bureaucratic flunkeys in that role - no good. I'm surprised to hear you've got to be wary around a CEO of a major company, though. I'm friends with more business owners and skilled professionals (architects, engineers, etc) than high level executives, but the high level executives I've met seem like decent sorts. Can't comment so much - I was thinking more about business owners than high level employees when I commented. I guess that's my bias. > Of course, some people get rich by operating those smallish businesses, and lots of them seem upstanding to me. Right, this is mostly my social circle and our acquaintances. Maybe the corporate world is uglier and I was overlooking it... one potential HUGE conflict of interest nobody talks about is when ownership and management are mis-aligned, especially in public companies. I think I'll never, ever buy stock in a public company again unless the top 5 decisionmakers in the organization own like a combine 30-40% of the company at least. Good question, good comment. I would be interested in hearing about your experiences in gaming if you think you can talk in a way that wouldn't potentially bring heat on you.

Locke1689 16y ago

Actually, a "wealth cap" is not such a ridiculous idea. Essentially, it's simply a progressive income tax with a tax bracket at 100%. If the bracket is high enough, e.g. $200 million, then it doesn't act as a disincentive and helps to balance the imperfectness of the market. Many would cite John Rawls here, but I have my own criticisms and my philosophical debates (I am a philosophy minor) can run into weeks of time. Instead, I'm going to simply make the argument that wealth over $200 million is meaningless to a single person. That is, from a practical perspective, that is more money than one could ever spend. The only positive use that could come from that amount of money is heavy watched investment and philanthropy. It is not easy to see that $1 billion is enough to move the world. Why should that responsibility fall into a single citizen's hands? In the best circumstances, the citizen hires a flotilla of people to manage that wealth (e.g., Gates and Buffet) and they spend it wisely and do great good. I don't see the fundamental reason why the government couldn't just do the exact same thing. By awarding the money of a government to a single person (Gates and Buffet each had, at the height of their wealth, more money than most of the governments in the world), this simply ensures an entrenched oligarchy of the rich (and therefore powerful) unless they decide to give it away. Many would argue that this is "their" money so they deserve it. I think this argument is mostly bollocks, though. Bill Gates had over $100 billion at one point. Let's say that a skilled professional makes ~$1 million (gross) over the same time period. That's a 100,000x multiplier. Did Gates really do 100,000x more work? Did he really have 100,000x more insight? I think he just got lucky. He was at the right time at the right place with a good idea. From there he built a company. But the trick is that it's a lot easier to make a lot of money when you already have a whole lot of money. Anyway, I'm gonna end this here, even though I'm not completely satisfied with my argument because this is becoming ridiculous. P.S. This is not for those who believe that the government can do nothing right. I'm not sure that it's even worth arguing with those people. Theoretically, there's no satisfying proof that that's the case and practically the only evidence I see is that when those same people set the government up to fall, it falls hard.

jodrellblank 16y ago
That is, from a practical perspective, that is more money than one could ever spend. There are lots of things which cost more than a billion dollars which makes this statement false. Not individual items, of course, but buying a billion dollar railway is both possible and spending. I don't think philanthropy (as in, charity) goes far enough. It isn't thinking big enough. Imagine what Buffet could do if he spent his fortune on a Manhatten Project for room temperature superconductors? He could nearly start a lunar colony for that money. The fundamental reason the government can't do the same thing is because they would be voted out for 'wasting' money on speculative ivory tower wankery. Anyway, so what if Bill Gates got lucky, this just sounds like sour grapes. Is he not allowed to get more lucky than you approve of? Whether he 'deserves' it is neither here nor there - it's a non question, like does he deserve two feet or to live past 30. P.S. This is not for those who believe that the government can do nothing right I'll just note that here in England, our recent government scandal is on what MPs had been taking from taxpayer money for their expenses. It included one MP expensing £1600 (>$2000) on an ornamental floating duck house. They do a lot right, but just giving them money because they will magically spend it better than any normal person is not something I can go along with.

exit 16y ago

> You're wrong. No actually i'm right. > and I can't think of how that could be considered "patronizing". the part where bill gates accumulates wealth through computer technology, and where computer technology depends on minerals mined under slave labor conditions, or devices put together in sweatshops, and then he gets lauded for "donating" what he dispossessed those people of. that would be one of many patronizing threads to this story, for example. > The most productive people in society should be rewarded accordingly, the non-linear returns of capitalist accumulation do not reward people "accordingly".

w00pla 16y ago

The Bill&Melissa Gates foundation wasted a lot of money on the "Love life" programme. It was essentially a program that was supposed to use advertisements to encourage youths to practice safe sex. It turned out into more of a sex advertisement and soft money for advertisers and managers (i.e. completely misspent money). The media did not complain though (since they received a shitload of advertisement money).