5 ms·

Why does this matter? If he truly is pledging $10B, it can only be a win for society and the future of humanity. It shouldn't really matter if he gets a tax b

Why does this matter? If he truly is pledging $10B, it can only be a win for society and the future of humanity. It shouldn't really matter if he gets a tax break or not.

monadic2 7y ago
I wouldn’t call relying on consensual handouts from rich people a win for society.
- bcrosby95 7y ago
  Maybe governments are good sometimes, but sometimes individuals unilaterally deciding something is a problem can be good too. We can have it both ways, and we currently do.
  - maest 7y ago
    > sometimes individuals unilaterally deciding something is a problem can be good too This view is mostly true if you agree with that thing being a problem. What if the billionaire unilaterally decides to spend 10B to combat the pro-choice/pro-life movement (whichere you agree with)?
    - bcrosby95 7y ago
      I think individuals that answer to no one is important for the 'random walk' aspect of solutions to problems. If someone fails then oh well. If they succeed it perhaps provides a model for less risk averse agencies to pursue, perhaps even governmental bodies. Politicians are too risk adverse to approve something that might turn out to be a waste of money. Organizations like these oftentimes even work with government on some level doing stuff government isn't really able to do for various reasons. And 10 billion is a drop in the bucket for the US government. I think in the long run it tends to work out better. You're focusing on a single issue I might disagree with. I'm looking at all issues this can affect - those I agree with, those I disagree with, and those that everyone agrees with but doesn't really give enough of a crap about so they don't push to have their governments allocate a budget for it. Looking at just rabidly disagree/agree is a very thin slice of things opposing this sort of action affects. So to answer your question, yeah, I wouldn't oppose it for an issue I disagree with, because even if they exist I think the system as a whole nets out towards the positive end of things.
inerte 7y ago
Well, three things. First of all, I searched and couldn't find he's actually giving $10b. What I mean is that I don't know if the $10b accounts for any Amazon investments / costs. Second, it's not -$10b if he's getting a tax break for some of this. It's $7.6b as someone else mentioned. I know, still a lot of money! But he's not loosing $10b from his fortune. Third, in this case you happen to think it's a win for society and the future of humanity. Other billionaires give money for causes they believe, like The Koch family for "advancing liberty and freedom", or Bloomberg advocating for a third term as mayor. The lack of accountability for the influence billionaires have in our society should be a concern. We praise when they give to causes we believe, but the system that allows them to do this has nefarious byproducts. It's like we're watching billionaires shape our society and our culture and think that's alright.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  > The lack of accountability for the influence billionaires have in our society should be a concern The thing is, a lot of us like that what people do with their own money is not accountable to the government. I think it's essential that not all of society is under control by a single central power. EDIT: As someone said on Twitter - "Say what you want about billionaires, I doubt any of them would have decided to give farmers $10 billion to not grow crops."
  - dantheman 7y ago
    It's always interesting that often those who yell the loudest about private power / monopolies (even when they're not), are always advocating for more power in the monopoly of violence - the government.
  - inerte 7y ago
    This "single" central power is actually 250M potential voters, 130M actual voters, 20M workers, 90k, 50 states, and 20k cities / town / villages. On the other side, 600 billionaires. Which because they figured out how to earn and keep a lot of money somehow makes them capable of fixing women's issues, racial conflicts, climate change, mass incarceration, homelessness, education, hunger, and healthcare problems. Somehow, they will do all that without influencing public policy, in a sustainable, ethical, morally justifiable and rightful way, so as long as we let them keep getting richer.
TLightful 7y ago
Depends where it is spent.

Why does this matter? If he truly is pledging $10B, it can only be a win for society and the future of humanity. It shouldn't really matter if he gets a tax break or not.

monadic2 7y ago

I wouldn’t call relying on consensual handouts from rich people a win for society.

bcrosby95 7y ago
Maybe governments are good sometimes, but sometimes individuals unilaterally deciding something is a problem can be good too. We can have it both ways, and we currently do.
- maest 7y ago
  > sometimes individuals unilaterally deciding something is a problem can be good too This view is mostly true if you agree with that thing being a problem. What if the billionaire unilaterally decides to spend 10B to combat the pro-choice/pro-life movement (whichere you agree with)?
  - bcrosby95 7y ago
    I think individuals that answer to no one is important for the 'random walk' aspect of solutions to problems. If someone fails then oh well. If they succeed it perhaps provides a model for less risk averse agencies to pursue, perhaps even governmental bodies. Politicians are too risk adverse to approve something that might turn out to be a waste of money. Organizations like these oftentimes even work with government on some level doing stuff government isn't really able to do for various reasons. And 10 billion is a drop in the bucket for the US government. I think in the long run it tends to work out better. You're focusing on a single issue I might disagree with. I'm looking at all issues this can affect - those I agree with, those I disagree with, and those that everyone agrees with but doesn't really give enough of a crap about so they don't push to have their governments allocate a budget for it. Looking at just rabidly disagree/agree is a very thin slice of things opposing this sort of action affects. So to answer your question, yeah, I wouldn't oppose it for an issue I disagree with, because even if they exist I think the system as a whole nets out towards the positive end of things.

inerte 7y ago

Well, three things. First of all, I searched and couldn't find he's actually giving $10b. What I mean is that I don't know if the $10b accounts for any Amazon investments / costs. Second, it's not -$10b if he's getting a tax break for some of this. It's $7.6b as someone else mentioned. I know, still a lot of money! But he's not loosing $10b from his fortune. Third, in this case you happen to think it's a win for society and the future of humanity. Other billionaires give money for causes they believe, like The Koch family for "advancing liberty and freedom", or Bloomberg advocating for a third term as mayor. The lack of accountability for the influence billionaires have in our society should be a concern. We praise when they give to causes we believe, but the system that allows them to do this has nefarious byproducts. It's like we're watching billionaires shape our society and our culture and think that's alright.

BurningFrog 7y ago
> The lack of accountability for the influence billionaires have in our society should be a concern The thing is, a lot of us like that what people do with their own money is not accountable to the government. I think it's essential that not all of society is under control by a single central power. EDIT: As someone said on Twitter - "Say what you want about billionaires, I doubt any of them would have decided to give farmers $10 billion to not grow crops."
- dantheman 7y ago
  It's always interesting that often those who yell the loudest about private power / monopolies (even when they're not), are always advocating for more power in the monopoly of violence - the government.
- inerte 7y ago
  This "single" central power is actually 250M potential voters, 130M actual voters, 20M workers, 90k, 50 states, and 20k cities / town / villages. On the other side, 600 billionaires. Which because they figured out how to earn and keep a lot of money somehow makes them capable of fixing women's issues, racial conflicts, climate change, mass incarceration, homelessness, education, hunger, and healthcare problems. Somehow, they will do all that without influencing public policy, in a sustainable, ethical, morally justifiable and rightful way, so as long as we let them keep getting richer.

TLightful 7y ago

Depends where it is spent.