6 ms·

Dear Larry and Sergey, Thank you for creating Google. Nobody could prove that without it the web would have been a better place. You couldn’t have known what’

Dear Larry and Sergey, Thank you for creating Google. Nobody could prove that without it the web would have been a better place. You couldn’t have known what’s to come when you were raising hundreds of thousands of dollars as two students in 1998. Maybe your leadership has been one of the least evil among the possibilities in the evil world we live in. However, we know what is it like to lose control of your company, and how it could inspire dystopian novels under your leadership now. There’re many lessons for all the entrepreneurs to take from your story. I sincerely hope that you would prioritize the greater benefit rather than the Google’s benefit as years pass. Sincerely, A Non-Googler, one of the 7.7 billion

xtracto 7y ago
That is something that I kind of admire about Bill Gates: As Microsoft's boss he was ruthless, and even anti-competitive, all to benefit his own company. But somehow, he is one of the "best type of person" that could become the richest man in our world. There are so many rich people that just look to be buried with their millions or pass it to their family. Hopefully Sergei and Larry will try to get the same type of legacy.
- hangonhn 7y ago
  So Gates is not alone. Buffet and Ellison have both pledged the vast majority of their wealth to the Gates Foundation. Somewhat unique to the US, our billionaires tends to be fairly philanthropic.
  - rosege 7y ago
    Didn't Page and Brin pledge their fortunes to Musk?
    - Lerc 7y ago
      I believe one of them said they were more likely to give their fortune to someone like Musk over a traditional charitable venture. I feel that was expressing a desire for more transformative change over fixing the individual problems we have now. Change the world so much that the problems are no longer an issue.
  - op12op12 7y ago
    The latest Patriot Act episode did a great deep dive into why this is true, particularly in the US. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS9CFBlLOcg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS9CFBlLOcg
    - stjohnswarts 7y ago
      Billionaires can't save us. But they could save me if they really wanted to.
  - yardie 7y ago
    Also unique to the US. We have one of the highest infant mortality rates of any developed country. And our average life expectancy is one of the lowest for a developed country [0]. We could a lot less philanthropic billionaires and more economic policies that don't treat everyone as disposable cogs. [0] http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/life-expectancy-by-country/ http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/life-expectancy-b...
    - ALittleLight 7y ago
      The high infant mortality is largely explained by the fact that the US counts premature birth related deaths as part of infant mortality and other countries don't. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161013103132.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161013103132.h... Life expectancy loss is mostly drugs and obesity. Hard to see how philanthropic billionaires are a problem on either front.
      - arrosenberg 7y ago
        Drug abuse and obesity are generally a response to chronic stress. America has a chronic stress epidemic due to our work culture and lack of social safety nets. Philanthropic billionaires are people (or progeny of those) who successfully exploited this system. Ergo, the existence of one is correlated with the other, and they share a common cause.
        ALittleLight 7y ago
        Has our work culture recently become more stressful or our safety nets diminished?
        arrosenberg 7y ago
        Both, but probably more of the latter. Since the 70s the entire economy and society has been built for consumption and price optimization. That has resulted in both higher life stresses (more two income working households, most Americans have no savings, etc.) and encouraged politicians to cut safety nets which might have diminished the negative effects.
  - Barrin92 7y ago
    >Somewhat unique to the US, our billionaires tends to be fairly philanthropic. slightly more philanthropic than the rest of the world which makes sense given how prosperous the US is, but overall US billionaires actually do not give much and Gates and Buffet are indeed outliers. The average billionaire donates barely more than the small fraction of a per cent annually. The average top 20 billionaire does in fact give less relatively speaking than the average American household. https://twitter.com/gabriel_zucman/status/1198422794607845377?s=20 https://twitter.com/gabriel_zucman/status/119842279460784537...
    - lonelappde 7y ago
      What do you call a billionaire who gives away their billions? Survivorship bias.
      - Aunche 7y ago
        Technically, the billionaires who don't give away their money would be the "survivors."
        nhumrich 7y ago
        I think that's the point. The bias leans towards those who don't give
      - jeremyfranco 7y ago
        > What do you call a billionaire who gives away their billions? A generous billionaire. Those that don't are just greedy billionaires.
  - mschuster91 7y ago
    And now imagine a society in which it would not be decided by self-proclaimed "philantropists" where societal progress is made and which basic human needs (like a roof over the head of every person, or kids having a lunch at school instead of being shamed for parents too poor to pay) are met, but instead the super rich pay their fair share in taxes and society decides democratically. US billionaires are only philantropic because they don't want to end up either dead or stripped off of all their assets when there is any kind of revolution - no matter if a "real" revolution or an elected one, e.g. if Warren or Sanders win in 2020.
    - foota 7y ago
      Sometimes I feel like (some, not all) billionaires are better stewards of money than the US government and people. How much of his wealth does Bill Gates spend on the military industrial complex?
      - basch 7y ago
        Same argument as letting Mark run Facebook instead of Wall Street quarterly reports. Decisive focus with longer term planning. Autocrats are often more efficient at achieving specific goals. Plus neither really need to campaign and gather votes to stay in power.
      - mschuster91 7y ago
        And here's the thing, the billionaires depend on the military-industrial complex and police to keep their investments safe and growing... but at the same time, they are not contributing their fair share in taxes towards that goal, which means that the lower classes have to pay for it. It's the same problem that Europe has with its defense - we have over decades relied on the US to keep us safe, without contributing our fair share.
    - xtracto 7y ago
      I completely agree with you. but then, I'm not from the usa and I have experienced the wonders of good social systems in Germany and in the UK. As you put it, if there was some kind of "richness cap" (say, 1 billion) and all the rest was held as interest generator for social services and society, population wouldn't have to depend on the "goodwill" of people, but would have the basic necessities fulfilled. Humanity will get there at some point. There is no other alternative, given population growth. But right now we humans are still quite underdeveloped as a society.
  - jackbravo 7y ago
    Larry Ellison? From Oracle? I though he did the opposite.
    - blueberry_47 7y ago
      I thought he HATED Bill Gates too.
      - meddlepal 7y ago
        They've been spotted at sporting events together so I suspect the hatred doesn't extend beyond fierce business rivals.
    - Tsagadai 7y ago
      Nah, those are charity superyachts. They help poor people by showing them how good it is to be rich.
- stjohnswarts 7y ago
  That happens a lot with american robber barons. check out the carnegie's, morgan's, rockefeller's, stanford's etc
- emrehan 7y ago
  They could help with their money, but if they could help with their visions, social capital and network that would set them apart. I admire Brian Acton in this respect. He regretted the decision of selling WhatsApp and publicized it. Since then he has taken on the leadership of Signal while donating money into it.
emrehan 7y ago
Since I can't edit this post, I've written my thoughts more clearly in a Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/hantuzn/status/1202179388571340805 https://twitter.com/hantuzn/status/1202179388571340805

xtracto 7y ago

That is something that I kind of admire about Bill Gates: As Microsoft's boss he was ruthless, and even anti-competitive, all to benefit his own company. But somehow, he is one of the "best type of person" that could become the richest man in our world. There are so many rich people that just look to be buried with their millions or pass it to their family. Hopefully Sergei and Larry will try to get the same type of legacy.

hangonhn 7y ago
So Gates is not alone. Buffet and Ellison have both pledged the vast majority of their wealth to the Gates Foundation. Somewhat unique to the US, our billionaires tends to be fairly philanthropic.
- rosege 7y ago
  Didn't Page and Brin pledge their fortunes to Musk?
  - Lerc 7y ago
    I believe one of them said they were more likely to give their fortune to someone like Musk over a traditional charitable venture. I feel that was expressing a desire for more transformative change over fixing the individual problems we have now. Change the world so much that the problems are no longer an issue.
- op12op12 7y ago
  The latest Patriot Act episode did a great deep dive into why this is true, particularly in the US. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS9CFBlLOcg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS9CFBlLOcg
  - stjohnswarts 7y ago
    Billionaires can't save us. But they could save me if they really wanted to.
- yardie 7y ago
  Also unique to the US. We have one of the highest infant mortality rates of any developed country. And our average life expectancy is one of the lowest for a developed country [0]. We could a lot less philanthropic billionaires and more economic policies that don't treat everyone as disposable cogs. [0] http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/life-expectancy-by-country/ http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/life-expectancy-b...
  - ALittleLight 7y ago
    The high infant mortality is largely explained by the fact that the US counts premature birth related deaths as part of infant mortality and other countries don't. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161013103132.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161013103132.h... Life expectancy loss is mostly drugs and obesity. Hard to see how philanthropic billionaires are a problem on either front.
    - arrosenberg 7y ago
      Drug abuse and obesity are generally a response to chronic stress. America has a chronic stress epidemic due to our work culture and lack of social safety nets. Philanthropic billionaires are people (or progeny of those) who successfully exploited this system. Ergo, the existence of one is correlated with the other, and they share a common cause.
      - ALittleLight 7y ago
        Has our work culture recently become more stressful or our safety nets diminished?
        arrosenberg 7y ago
        Both, but probably more of the latter. Since the 70s the entire economy and society has been built for consumption and price optimization. That has resulted in both higher life stresses (more two income working households, most Americans have no savings, etc.) and encouraged politicians to cut safety nets which might have diminished the negative effects.
- Barrin92 7y ago
  >Somewhat unique to the US, our billionaires tends to be fairly philanthropic. slightly more philanthropic than the rest of the world which makes sense given how prosperous the US is, but overall US billionaires actually do not give much and Gates and Buffet are indeed outliers. The average billionaire donates barely more than the small fraction of a per cent annually. The average top 20 billionaire does in fact give less relatively speaking than the average American household. https://twitter.com/gabriel_zucman/status/1198422794607845377?s=20 https://twitter.com/gabriel_zucman/status/119842279460784537...
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    What do you call a billionaire who gives away their billions? Survivorship bias.
    - Aunche 7y ago
      Technically, the billionaires who don't give away their money would be the "survivors."
      - nhumrich 7y ago
        I think that's the point. The bias leans towards those who don't give
    - jeremyfranco 7y ago
      > What do you call a billionaire who gives away their billions? A generous billionaire. Those that don't are just greedy billionaires.
- mschuster91 7y ago
  And now imagine a society in which it would not be decided by self-proclaimed "philantropists" where societal progress is made and which basic human needs (like a roof over the head of every person, or kids having a lunch at school instead of being shamed for parents too poor to pay) are met, but instead the super rich pay their fair share in taxes and society decides democratically. US billionaires are only philantropic because they don't want to end up either dead or stripped off of all their assets when there is any kind of revolution - no matter if a "real" revolution or an elected one, e.g. if Warren or Sanders win in 2020.
  - foota 7y ago
    Sometimes I feel like (some, not all) billionaires are better stewards of money than the US government and people. How much of his wealth does Bill Gates spend on the military industrial complex?
    - basch 7y ago
      Same argument as letting Mark run Facebook instead of Wall Street quarterly reports. Decisive focus with longer term planning. Autocrats are often more efficient at achieving specific goals. Plus neither really need to campaign and gather votes to stay in power.
    - mschuster91 7y ago
      And here's the thing, the billionaires depend on the military-industrial complex and police to keep their investments safe and growing... but at the same time, they are not contributing their fair share in taxes towards that goal, which means that the lower classes have to pay for it. It's the same problem that Europe has with its defense - we have over decades relied on the US to keep us safe, without contributing our fair share.
  - xtracto 7y ago
    I completely agree with you. but then, I'm not from the usa and I have experienced the wonders of good social systems in Germany and in the UK. As you put it, if there was some kind of "richness cap" (say, 1 billion) and all the rest was held as interest generator for social services and society, population wouldn't have to depend on the "goodwill" of people, but would have the basic necessities fulfilled. Humanity will get there at some point. There is no other alternative, given population growth. But right now we humans are still quite underdeveloped as a society.
- jackbravo 7y ago
  Larry Ellison? From Oracle? I though he did the opposite.
  - blueberry_47 7y ago
    I thought he HATED Bill Gates too.
    - meddlepal 7y ago
      They've been spotted at sporting events together so I suspect the hatred doesn't extend beyond fierce business rivals.
  - Tsagadai 7y ago
    Nah, those are charity superyachts. They help poor people by showing them how good it is to be rich.
stjohnswarts 7y ago
That happens a lot with american robber barons. check out the carnegie's, morgan's, rockefeller's, stanford's etc
emrehan 7y ago
They could help with their money, but if they could help with their visions, social capital and network that would set them apart. I admire Brian Acton in this respect. He regretted the decision of selling WhatsApp and publicized it. Since then he has taken on the leadership of Signal while donating money into it.

emrehan 7y ago

Since I can't edit this post, I've written my thoughts more clearly in a Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/hantuzn/status/1202179388571340805 https://twitter.com/hantuzn/status/1202179388571340805