4 ms·

There is absolute and relative generosity. On absolute terms Bill is the most generous. On relative terms even after giving away $30b he still has more money th

There is absolute and relative generosity. On absolute terms Bill is the most generous. On relative terms even after giving away $30b he still has more money than he could ever spend so there is really no personal sacrifice made.

x220 8y ago
Actually, on relative terms I think he has given away roughly half the money he has ever earned, which makes him exceptionally generous relatively speaking.
- nielsbot 8y ago
  "earned" seems a bit loaded for this discussion--a lot of this is paper money, no? But 50% of wealth ever possessed, sure.
  - x220 8y ago
    He absolutely earned all of it.
- ben_w 8y ago
  I stopped calling myself Christian as a result of reading the Bible, but it does have some interesting takes on this topic: “””Amen, I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury. For they have all contributed from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had, her whole livelihood.””” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_the_widow%27s_mite https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_the_widow%27s_mite
  - CMCDragonkai 8y ago
    The commentary is very interesting and observes that the passage is talking about something entirely different than generosity. It is intead rebuking the institution that receives such gifts.
  - x220 8y ago
    I don't think this story is useful because it makes poverty imaginarily virtuous and downplays the very real benefit of philanthropy. In absolute and relative terms, Bill Gates is lightyears ahead of nearly everyone, since he both pledges billions of dollars to charity and also pledges (if I remember correctly) a majority of his money to charities. Would you mind explaining why you think it's better for the woman to donate what little she had than the rich to donate their surplus?
    - crdoconnor 8y ago
      It's not depicting poverty as virtuous it's depicting sacrifice as virtuous. Bill Gates is sacrificing basically nothing by giving away half (or even 90%) of his wealth. He lives the exact same life of supreme comfort that he did before. Weirdly this is one of the few things the bible was actually abundantly clear about (and it's a pretty good point).
    - ben_w 8y ago
      I’m saying “more generous”, not “better”. As CMCDragonkai wrote, the passage is a criticism of a system which says gift givers are more virtuous the more they give, when many others cannot give without harming themselves. To put it another way, although one can give the Gates generosity-brownie-points for caring about other people, they don’t get fourty thousand times as many such points as a normal couple who “only” donates a million dollars to charity.
    - didibus 8y ago
      I've thought about this one before. First, in terms of ends, it's not better, but you can say it is more virtuous, in the sacrificial sense of putting the needs of others before hers, even though probably pointless in practice. Thus, in terms of practicality, I do think it's better for the poor to keep their money, and the rich to redistribute their surplus. But, in this practical sense, I feel it would be even more efficient if our society could improve its systems so that the surplus simply never happened in the first place. What would be both virtuous and better in practice in my opinion is if Bill Gates simply had chosen to give himself a smaller share and a lower wage from the beginning. Now, maybe if you take into account psychology and motivations, it might be that humans require our current system of winning it all and then giving it back. So its hard to say if it could be implemented at all.
- spectrum1234 8y ago
  The utility value of money means this is not true.
roenxi 8y ago
Curses, he's working to eradicate polio without suffering personally for it? This has always been the argument in favour of things like materialist and capitalist philosophy - the outcomes are much better than the alternative. There are countless well-meaning individuals who have achieved nothing, because they give their wealth away early on, compared to this one convenient counterexample in Gates, who firstly made obscene wealth with tactics that were pretty shady in my opinion, certainly anti competitive, then did flat-out more good. If Gates were more relatively generous through his life, it is pretty plausible that he and a lot of poor people throughout in the world would be _worse off_. This is a strong argument against being relatively generous.
- x220 8y ago
  But you don't understand: eradicating Polio is one thing, but what if we instead lived in a world with competitive desktop operating systems? /s
  - crdoconnor 8y ago
    Then the rules that got us there would probably ensure competitive drug prices too.
- echion 8y ago
  tl;dr: the ends kind of justify the means.
- growlist 8y ago
  I've made a similar point to yours myself in the past, and people really don't like hearing it. I guess part of the problem is that Gates just so happens to have deployed his vast wealth for good, whereas there are plenty of very rich people that are ambivalent at best and (depending on your political viewpoint) negative at worst i.e. rich people funding climate-sceptic organisations. On balance though I'm sticking to my point, which is that all the people preaching on incessantly about why us evil unenlightened need to mend our ways would do far better to shut up, make a stack of money being an evil capitalist, and then give it all away to their noble cause of preference.
thrav 8y ago
Don’t discount the fact that he also gives time. Time that eh could literally do anything in the world he wants with, since he has all of that money. In my mind, time is where the real giving happens. Anyone with a lot of money can give a lot without any impact on themselves. When someone inconveniences themselves / gives their time and sweat, I’m more impressed.

x220 8y ago

Actually, on relative terms I think he has given away roughly half the money he has ever earned, which makes him exceptionally generous relatively speaking.

nielsbot 8y ago
"earned" seems a bit loaded for this discussion--a lot of this is paper money, no? But 50% of wealth ever possessed, sure.
- x220 8y ago
  He absolutely earned all of it.
ben_w 8y ago
I stopped calling myself Christian as a result of reading the Bible, but it does have some interesting takes on this topic: “””Amen, I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury. For they have all contributed from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had, her whole livelihood.””” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_the_widow%27s_mite https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_the_widow%27s_mite
- CMCDragonkai 8y ago
  The commentary is very interesting and observes that the passage is talking about something entirely different than generosity. It is intead rebuking the institution that receives such gifts.
- x220 8y ago
  I don't think this story is useful because it makes poverty imaginarily virtuous and downplays the very real benefit of philanthropy. In absolute and relative terms, Bill Gates is lightyears ahead of nearly everyone, since he both pledges billions of dollars to charity and also pledges (if I remember correctly) a majority of his money to charities. Would you mind explaining why you think it's better for the woman to donate what little she had than the rich to donate their surplus?
  - crdoconnor 8y ago
    It's not depicting poverty as virtuous it's depicting sacrifice as virtuous. Bill Gates is sacrificing basically nothing by giving away half (or even 90%) of his wealth. He lives the exact same life of supreme comfort that he did before. Weirdly this is one of the few things the bible was actually abundantly clear about (and it's a pretty good point).
  - ben_w 8y ago
    I’m saying “more generous”, not “better”. As CMCDragonkai wrote, the passage is a criticism of a system which says gift givers are more virtuous the more they give, when many others cannot give without harming themselves. To put it another way, although one can give the Gates generosity-brownie-points for caring about other people, they don’t get fourty thousand times as many such points as a normal couple who “only” donates a million dollars to charity.
  - didibus 8y ago
    I've thought about this one before. First, in terms of ends, it's not better, but you can say it is more virtuous, in the sacrificial sense of putting the needs of others before hers, even though probably pointless in practice. Thus, in terms of practicality, I do think it's better for the poor to keep their money, and the rich to redistribute their surplus. But, in this practical sense, I feel it would be even more efficient if our society could improve its systems so that the surplus simply never happened in the first place. What would be both virtuous and better in practice in my opinion is if Bill Gates simply had chosen to give himself a smaller share and a lower wage from the beginning. Now, maybe if you take into account psychology and motivations, it might be that humans require our current system of winning it all and then giving it back. So its hard to say if it could be implemented at all.
spectrum1234 8y ago
The utility value of money means this is not true.

roenxi 8y ago

Curses, he's working to eradicate polio without suffering personally for it? This has always been the argument in favour of things like materialist and capitalist philosophy - the outcomes are much better than the alternative. There are countless well-meaning individuals who have achieved nothing, because they give their wealth away early on, compared to this one convenient counterexample in Gates, who firstly made obscene wealth with tactics that were pretty shady in my opinion, certainly anti competitive, then did flat-out more good. If Gates were more relatively generous through his life, it is pretty plausible that he and a lot of poor people throughout in the world would be _worse off_. This is a strong argument against being relatively generous.

x220 8y ago
But you don't understand: eradicating Polio is one thing, but what if we instead lived in a world with competitive desktop operating systems? /s
- crdoconnor 8y ago
  Then the rules that got us there would probably ensure competitive drug prices too.
echion 8y ago
tl;dr: the ends kind of justify the means.
growlist 8y ago
I've made a similar point to yours myself in the past, and people really don't like hearing it. I guess part of the problem is that Gates just so happens to have deployed his vast wealth for good, whereas there are plenty of very rich people that are ambivalent at best and (depending on your political viewpoint) negative at worst i.e. rich people funding climate-sceptic organisations. On balance though I'm sticking to my point, which is that all the people preaching on incessantly about why us evil unenlightened need to mend our ways would do far better to shut up, make a stack of money being an evil capitalist, and then give it all away to their noble cause of preference.

thrav 8y ago

Don’t discount the fact that he also gives time. Time that eh could literally do anything in the world he wants with, since he has all of that money. In my mind, time is where the real giving happens. Anyone with a lot of money can give a lot without any impact on themselves. When someone inconveniences themselves / gives their time and sweat, I’m more impressed.