6 ms·

Honestly, this is what gets me. Say what you will about the man, but few people complain that Elon Musk is a billionaire because clearly he's repeatedly invest

Honestly, this is what gets me. Say what you will about the man, but few people complain that Elon Musk is a billionaire because clearly he's repeatedly investing his wealth in actually trying to advance humanity in meaningful ways. Similar story with Bill Gates and his foundation. But wtf is the average billionaire (of which there are thousands) or hundred-millionaire (of which there are tens of thousands) doing with their money aside from trying to acquire more money? You would think such people would be into building a positive legacy, but it's just not happening that way.

chii 7y ago
Or they are just quietly building businesses, rather than make flashy headlines. You don't need to "advance humanity" - just creating a service or product to satisfy since other human's needs is a good enough goal.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  Advancing humanity should be a requirement for access to that kind of money. It's a hugely privileged position to be in, and the idea that it comes with exactly zero responsibility to Rest of World is nonsensical.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    Why? The service and/or product provided by their business is providing significant value to society (lest they wouldn’t be collecting profit). Is the reward for creating a successful business really more responsibility to just give back instead of using it to create more business?
    - pjc50 7y ago
      > The service and/or product provided by their business is providing significant value to society (lest they wouldn’t be collecting profit). This is assuming the conclusion. They could just be collecting a monopoly rent or a land-rent or an IP rent; for example, when Martin Shkreli raised the price of insulin dramatically he wasn't "providing more value to society", he was extracting that value, potentially at the cost of human lives. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/shkrelis-former-company-is-now-losing-money-even-with-the-5000-price-hike/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/shkrelis-former-...
      - chii 7y ago
        There's a lot of confounding issues here in relation to the insulin problem: the fact that medical patents are poorly structured - insulin is hard to make, and making it via a biological mechanism means the "molecule" is slightly different, and so the FDA needs time and money to assess it. This creates a defacto monopoly, and thus, said monopoly can raise their prices. The fix isn't to force billionaires to give out their wealth for free - but instead to fix monopoly laws, as well as to stream line the way approvals can be made for generic molecules made via biological means (like the way generic drugs are today). In fact, an insulin factory _should_ be easy for a billionaire to fund and if the relevant regulations are better, there'd be more insulin sellers as there's profit to be made (seeing as Shkreli has raised the price).
        jacobush 7y ago
        This close to the money, there's no distinction between what you are proposing (fixing the monopoly laws) and force billionaires to do something. Currently, the companies write the laws. You want to force them to stop writing the laws.
        kortilla 7y ago
        > there's no distinction between what you are proposing (fixing the monopoly laws) and force billionaires to do something Of course there is. One is punitive and accomplishes no long term positive effects. The other encourages competition and subsequently innovation.
      - kortilla 7y ago
        You’re joking, right? You do know that when people pay rent for land or for a property they get something in return? I get immense value out of my apartment that I pay rent for.
    - CharlesColeman 7y ago
      > The service and/or product provided by their business is providing significant value to society (lest they wouldn’t be collecting profit). Making a profit is not proof of providing value to society. It's a tempting simplification to make, but it's false.
  - chii 7y ago
    > It's a hugely privileged position to be in, and the idea that it comes with exactly zero responsibility to Rest of World is nonsensical. and tell me if you also spend a portion of your income on donations to under-developed countries. Because that's what you're asking the billionaires to do - altruistic giving. I m of the position that if they legitimately made their money (i.e., nothing illegal), they are entitled to spend it however they see fit. It's _good_ if they spend it on altruism - but it's not an entitlement that i expect of them.
    - macintux 7y ago
      There was once a tradition of public service among the elites; they recognized that their position was good fortune at having been born into a family of means, and that selfishly speaking without a strong civic society their position would be fragile (even setting aside the altruism many of them felt). This notion was reinforced by the Ivy League system. Bushes, Kennedys, you can see the tradition of service (even if we may tire of political dynasties). Selfishly, if you're wealthy and wish your progeny to be the same, it's not a bad idea to make sure the cathedral doesn't collapse around you.
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      Legally speaking sure. Pragmatically, extreme wealth is as much a product of luck and timing as innate superiority or diligence, and often that wealth is expanded through political lobbying; eventually the resulting asymmetries will become unsustainable and the wealth will be redistributed one way or the other. The less prospect people have of economic security through normal effort, the less incentive they have to uphold the property rights of those with structural influence.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    Advancing humanity can be very terrible but I am sure most people would create that certificate for themselves. Especially if you are high on money and cocaine.
- larnmar 7y ago
  Sure, but once you’ve done that and you’re rich, what do you do then? For most billionaires the answer seems to be that you buy a moderately upgraded version of all the stuff you had when you were middle class, and then you sit around content to watch the numbers slowly increase. Do something interesting! It doesn’t have to be noble, it doesn’t have to be for the greater good, just do something! Build a palace to rival the Queen’s! Build an enormous statue of yourself! Hire a thousand concubines on a desert island! Colonise Antarctica! Single-handedly bring back the classical symphony by sponsoring an annual competition for the best one! Build an island and declare yourself king of it! Just do something, guys!
  - kortilla 7y ago
    > For most billionaires the answer seems to be that you buy a moderately upgraded version of all the stuff you had when you were middle class, I don’t think you know what billionaires live like. Either that or the middle class you refer to is something very different from the one in the states. A 150ft yacht that you fly to with your helicopter from an airport you landed at with your private plane isn’t really relatable to anything in the middle class... unless you count jumping out of a tree into a canoe.
    - blfr 7y ago
      A 150ft yacht is exactly the upgraded version of a fishing boat from a 1950s driveway in a newly minted middle class neighbourhood.
      - webmaven 7y ago
        But is it a moderate upgrade?
        username90 7y ago
        In terms of cost? No. In terms of derived personal value? Absolutely.
      - 7y ago
hapless 7y ago
Bill Gates also used his wealth to advance the interests of one of the country's most notorious sex traffickers. There's no reason for _anyone_ to have that much money, or individual influence over public policy.
dade_ 7y ago
Those that inherit it, ruthlessly protect it or try to. After all, they have no idea how to create wealth or even manage it. They have a family office for that: https://qz.com/1412024/how-to-invest-like-a-billionaire-tips-from-family-offices/ https://qz.com/1412024/how-to-invest-like-a-billionaire-tips...

chii 7y ago

Or they are just quietly building businesses, rather than make flashy headlines. You don't need to "advance humanity" - just creating a service or product to satisfy since other human's needs is a good enough goal.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
Advancing humanity should be a requirement for access to that kind of money. It's a hugely privileged position to be in, and the idea that it comes with exactly zero responsibility to Rest of World is nonsensical.
- kortilla 7y ago
  Why? The service and/or product provided by their business is providing significant value to society (lest they wouldn’t be collecting profit). Is the reward for creating a successful business really more responsibility to just give back instead of using it to create more business?
  - pjc50 7y ago
    > The service and/or product provided by their business is providing significant value to society (lest they wouldn’t be collecting profit). This is assuming the conclusion. They could just be collecting a monopoly rent or a land-rent or an IP rent; for example, when Martin Shkreli raised the price of insulin dramatically he wasn't "providing more value to society", he was extracting that value, potentially at the cost of human lives. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/shkrelis-former-company-is-now-losing-money-even-with-the-5000-price-hike/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/shkrelis-former-...
    - chii 7y ago
      There's a lot of confounding issues here in relation to the insulin problem: the fact that medical patents are poorly structured - insulin is hard to make, and making it via a biological mechanism means the "molecule" is slightly different, and so the FDA needs time and money to assess it. This creates a defacto monopoly, and thus, said monopoly can raise their prices. The fix isn't to force billionaires to give out their wealth for free - but instead to fix monopoly laws, as well as to stream line the way approvals can be made for generic molecules made via biological means (like the way generic drugs are today). In fact, an insulin factory _should_ be easy for a billionaire to fund and if the relevant regulations are better, there'd be more insulin sellers as there's profit to be made (seeing as Shkreli has raised the price).
      - jacobush 7y ago
        This close to the money, there's no distinction between what you are proposing (fixing the monopoly laws) and force billionaires to do something. Currently, the companies write the laws. You want to force them to stop writing the laws.
        kortilla 7y ago
        > there's no distinction between what you are proposing (fixing the monopoly laws) and force billionaires to do something Of course there is. One is punitive and accomplishes no long term positive effects. The other encourages competition and subsequently innovation.
    - kortilla 7y ago
      You’re joking, right? You do know that when people pay rent for land or for a property they get something in return? I get immense value out of my apartment that I pay rent for.
  - CharlesColeman 7y ago
    > The service and/or product provided by their business is providing significant value to society (lest they wouldn’t be collecting profit). Making a profit is not proof of providing value to society. It's a tempting simplification to make, but it's false.
- chii 7y ago
  > It's a hugely privileged position to be in, and the idea that it comes with exactly zero responsibility to Rest of World is nonsensical. and tell me if you also spend a portion of your income on donations to under-developed countries. Because that's what you're asking the billionaires to do - altruistic giving. I m of the position that if they legitimately made their money (i.e., nothing illegal), they are entitled to spend it however they see fit. It's _good_ if they spend it on altruism - but it's not an entitlement that i expect of them.
  - macintux 7y ago
    There was once a tradition of public service among the elites; they recognized that their position was good fortune at having been born into a family of means, and that selfishly speaking without a strong civic society their position would be fragile (even setting aside the altruism many of them felt). This notion was reinforced by the Ivy League system. Bushes, Kennedys, you can see the tradition of service (even if we may tire of political dynasties). Selfishly, if you're wealthy and wish your progeny to be the same, it's not a bad idea to make sure the cathedral doesn't collapse around you.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    Legally speaking sure. Pragmatically, extreme wealth is as much a product of luck and timing as innate superiority or diligence, and often that wealth is expanded through political lobbying; eventually the resulting asymmetries will become unsustainable and the wealth will be redistributed one way or the other. The less prospect people have of economic security through normal effort, the less incentive they have to uphold the property rights of those with structural influence.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  Advancing humanity can be very terrible but I am sure most people would create that certificate for themselves. Especially if you are high on money and cocaine.
larnmar 7y ago
Sure, but once you’ve done that and you’re rich, what do you do then? For most billionaires the answer seems to be that you buy a moderately upgraded version of all the stuff you had when you were middle class, and then you sit around content to watch the numbers slowly increase. Do something interesting! It doesn’t have to be noble, it doesn’t have to be for the greater good, just do something! Build a palace to rival the Queen’s! Build an enormous statue of yourself! Hire a thousand concubines on a desert island! Colonise Antarctica! Single-handedly bring back the classical symphony by sponsoring an annual competition for the best one! Build an island and declare yourself king of it! Just do something, guys!
- kortilla 7y ago
  > For most billionaires the answer seems to be that you buy a moderately upgraded version of all the stuff you had when you were middle class, I don’t think you know what billionaires live like. Either that or the middle class you refer to is something very different from the one in the states. A 150ft yacht that you fly to with your helicopter from an airport you landed at with your private plane isn’t really relatable to anything in the middle class... unless you count jumping out of a tree into a canoe.
  - blfr 7y ago
    A 150ft yacht is exactly the upgraded version of a fishing boat from a 1950s driveway in a newly minted middle class neighbourhood.
    - webmaven 7y ago
      But is it a moderate upgrade?
      - username90 7y ago
        In terms of cost? No. In terms of derived personal value? Absolutely.
    - 7y ago

hapless 7y ago

Bill Gates also used his wealth to advance the interests of one of the country's most notorious sex traffickers. There's no reason for _anyone_ to have that much money, or individual influence over public policy.

dade_ 7y ago

Those that inherit it, ruthlessly protect it or try to. After all, they have no idea how to create wealth or even manage it. They have a family office for that: https://qz.com/1412024/how-to-invest-like-a-billionaire-tips-from-family-offices/ https://qz.com/1412024/how-to-invest-like-a-billionaire-tips...