6 ms·

I wonder what he'd need so much money for. Especially considering his age.

by ginko 6y ago

Uhhrrr 6y ago
"Family" is the obvious guess.
coldtea 6y ago
After 2-3 million you don't really "need" money for anything yourself. You take them for family, because you can, to not let it go away, because you want the power that comes with it, and for extravagance. But not for "need".
- ngold 6y ago
  There's a great story about the police getting a call for a homeless man wandering around a super posh neighborhood. Turned out to be bob dylan, I think he might have been house hunting.
- artificialLimbs 6y ago
  Or you have that much money because you need to invent air conditioning, nuclear power, water treatment plants, or Tesla. Little things like that..
  - coldtea 6y ago
    That's basically the "power trip" case, as you don't really "need" to invent anything.
    - zmix 6y ago
      Many inventions, these days, are often the result of expensive research and trial. Also, inventing is not enough, you need to "develop".
- YetAnotherNick 6y ago
  What do you mean by your so called "need"?
  - coldtea 6y ago
    The casual/dictionary one. With 3-4 million (less in many countries) all your needs are covered for life. You wont die or have any harmful effect (lack of job, nutricion, housing, clothing, health coverage) when you don't get to have more, except for things common to everybody like natural death, accidents etc. If you go for more, you do it for various wants, not for needs. Even when it comes to happiness, there's a plataeu at around that level: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/map-happiness-benchmark_n_5592194?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHmWYAIFfzsAISH6pUFmI1FScWWxGaMG_zuVnm2ggRhJIhR1AEpi82ClWGpNMNIEPFWgGK88wXJOxnw_XSEgzHxBSx8Lujg76-T5t_1MugOVOCoBrjpCig9MnOoD3ulps0FmDhcA3u7ws-5uOf5irglNnVJh74BNhkTBqDmO98C_ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/map-happiness-benchmark_n_559...
    - YetAnotherNick 6y ago
      > lack of job, nutricion, housing, clothing, health coverage Minimum wage is enough for this. And the link you shared couldn't get the analysis more wrong just to come up with clickbaity title. They are taking average happiness of state and average wage, and even then the data doesn't look like it is plateauing.
      - coldtea 6y ago
        >Minimum wage is enough for this. Minimum wage? LOL. Even with a $80,000 salary, in the US a medical or other emergency (e.g. getting fired in a bad economy), can leave you unemployed, homeless, or living with a big debt. Even worse so for your retirement prospects (or lack thereof). With a few cool million in the bank you don't need to worry about any of those things. >And the link you shared couldn't get the analysis more wrong just to come up with clickbaity title. They are taking average happiness of state and average wage, and even then the data doesn't look like it is plateauing. Missed this part, linked to from the article? https://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.abstract https://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.abstract Or the fact that "non plateuing" still shows clear diminishing returns... Why exactly do you think e.g. 10 million will make you any happier than e.g. 5 million (never mind anywhere close to double as happy)?
robbrown451 6y ago
Well I'd also wonder what he'd need to retain ownership for. For some people that's important, but others it's not, especially if they trust the new stewards.
Andrex 6y ago
It was less likely that Dylan was looking to unload his catalogue, and more likely Universal were just extremely hungry for it. At that point you can name the price.
jankassens 6y ago
If he thinks he'd have enough money by selling for $x, he should probably take $x + $y and donate $y to some cause.
toyg 6y ago
He has 6 children, 2 ex-wives, and I don’t know how many grandchildren. I can think of a couple of reasons they could use some cash. Also, this settles what could have been a pretty thorny inheritance issue.
sandworm101 6y ago
>> Especially considering his age. A lawyer might call this "cold hand" control. He, like every other rich old person, is probably setting up a complex will to control how his wealth functions after his death (the cold hand from the grave). If he gives a song to someone, that person can do what they want with it. They could keep the money. Sell the song. Or just sit on it and let it never be played again. The dead man would not be in control. But if he convert that song into a pile of cash, and inserts that cash into a trust, then the dead man can exercise more direct/itemized control for many years to come. Give your house to your son and the day after you die he can sell it. But fund a trust to "administer" the house and you can tell the kid he can live in it but never sell it. Even decades later, the dead hand still controls the house and behavior of the child. Rich people do these things. When I was a law student working at a legal clinic, maybe 1/4 of the clients were old people who wanted to leave their house to their daughter but didn't want her to sell the day after they died. My advice was always to not do this because it burdened the daughter immensely. They didn't care. They wanted the house to continue in the family forever regardless.
- chrisdhoover 6y ago
  Cold hand makes sense. Frank Zappa’s estate left his family at odds. Dylan could avoid that with careful planning.
  - sandworm101 6y ago
    (Generic situation, not an ethics violation): One couple I talked to wanted to give their house to their infant grandson. So long as Billy lived in the house his parents could stay too. (Parents effectively passed over, avoiding some taxation issue.) I had a standard approach to this: So you don't want Billy to join the army? What if Billy wants to be a fighter pilot? Then he won't then be living in the house. What if he is offered a great job in New York? Do you want him to turn that job down in order to keep his parents living your house? When Little Billy is 50 years old, and you have been dead for decades, do you still want him opening up your will to ask your permission before he makes a life choice? Instead, how about we let him live in the house until he is 25 and then he can sell it?
dfxm12 6y ago
I wonder why he needs the liquidity. I'm sure he's making a ton of money from royalties alone. Even to his ancestors, it's probably better off long term, and good enough short term, to leave the catalog than cash.
jchrisa 6y ago
I figure it's more about his legacy. Better to have the music commercially exploited by experts than by a family office.

I wonder what he'd need so much money for. Especially considering his age.

by ginko 6y ago

I wonder what he'd need so much money for. Especially considering his age.

Uhhrrr 6y ago

"Family" is the obvious guess.

coldtea 6y ago

After 2-3 million you don't really "need" money for anything yourself. You take them for family, because you can, to not let it go away, because you want the power that comes with it, and for extravagance. But not for "need".

ngold 6y ago
There's a great story about the police getting a call for a homeless man wandering around a super posh neighborhood. Turned out to be bob dylan, I think he might have been house hunting.
artificialLimbs 6y ago
Or you have that much money because you need to invent air conditioning, nuclear power, water treatment plants, or Tesla. Little things like that..
- coldtea 6y ago
  That's basically the "power trip" case, as you don't really "need" to invent anything.
  - zmix 6y ago
    Many inventions, these days, are often the result of expensive research and trial. Also, inventing is not enough, you need to "develop".
YetAnotherNick 6y ago
What do you mean by your so called "need"?
- coldtea 6y ago
  The casual/dictionary one. With 3-4 million (less in many countries) all your needs are covered for life. You wont die or have any harmful effect (lack of job, nutricion, housing, clothing, health coverage) when you don't get to have more, except for things common to everybody like natural death, accidents etc. If you go for more, you do it for various wants, not for needs. Even when it comes to happiness, there's a plataeu at around that level: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/map-happiness-benchmark_n_5592194?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHmWYAIFfzsAISH6pUFmI1FScWWxGaMG_zuVnm2ggRhJIhR1AEpi82ClWGpNMNIEPFWgGK88wXJOxnw_XSEgzHxBSx8Lujg76-T5t_1MugOVOCoBrjpCig9MnOoD3ulps0FmDhcA3u7ws-5uOf5irglNnVJh74BNhkTBqDmO98C_ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/map-happiness-benchmark_n_559...
  - YetAnotherNick 6y ago
    > lack of job, nutricion, housing, clothing, health coverage Minimum wage is enough for this. And the link you shared couldn't get the analysis more wrong just to come up with clickbaity title. They are taking average happiness of state and average wage, and even then the data doesn't look like it is plateauing.
    - coldtea 6y ago
      >Minimum wage is enough for this. Minimum wage? LOL. Even with a $80,000 salary, in the US a medical or other emergency (e.g. getting fired in a bad economy), can leave you unemployed, homeless, or living with a big debt. Even worse so for your retirement prospects (or lack thereof). With a few cool million in the bank you don't need to worry about any of those things. >And the link you shared couldn't get the analysis more wrong just to come up with clickbaity title. They are taking average happiness of state and average wage, and even then the data doesn't look like it is plateauing. Missed this part, linked to from the article? https://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.abstract https://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.abstract Or the fact that "non plateuing" still shows clear diminishing returns... Why exactly do you think e.g. 10 million will make you any happier than e.g. 5 million (never mind anywhere close to double as happy)?

robbrown451 6y ago

Well I'd also wonder what he'd need to retain ownership for. For some people that's important, but others it's not, especially if they trust the new stewards.

Andrex 6y ago

It was less likely that Dylan was looking to unload his catalogue, and more likely Universal were just extremely hungry for it. At that point you can name the price.

jankassens 6y ago

If he thinks he'd have enough money by selling for $x, he should probably take $x + $y and donate $y to some cause.

toyg 6y ago

He has 6 children, 2 ex-wives, and I don’t know how many grandchildren. I can think of a couple of reasons they could use some cash. Also, this settles what could have been a pretty thorny inheritance issue.

sandworm101 6y ago

>> Especially considering his age. A lawyer might call this "cold hand" control. He, like every other rich old person, is probably setting up a complex will to control how his wealth functions after his death (the cold hand from the grave). If he gives a song to someone, that person can do what they want with it. They could keep the money. Sell the song. Or just sit on it and let it never be played again. The dead man would not be in control. But if he convert that song into a pile of cash, and inserts that cash into a trust, then the dead man can exercise more direct/itemized control for many years to come. Give your house to your son and the day after you die he can sell it. But fund a trust to "administer" the house and you can tell the kid he can live in it but never sell it. Even decades later, the dead hand still controls the house and behavior of the child. Rich people do these things. When I was a law student working at a legal clinic, maybe 1/4 of the clients were old people who wanted to leave their house to their daughter but didn't want her to sell the day after they died. My advice was always to not do this because it burdened the daughter immensely. They didn't care. They wanted the house to continue in the family forever regardless.

chrisdhoover 6y ago
Cold hand makes sense. Frank Zappa’s estate left his family at odds. Dylan could avoid that with careful planning.
- sandworm101 6y ago
  (Generic situation, not an ethics violation): One couple I talked to wanted to give their house to their infant grandson. So long as Billy lived in the house his parents could stay too. (Parents effectively passed over, avoiding some taxation issue.) I had a standard approach to this: So you don't want Billy to join the army? What if Billy wants to be a fighter pilot? Then he won't then be living in the house. What if he is offered a great job in New York? Do you want him to turn that job down in order to keep his parents living your house? When Little Billy is 50 years old, and you have been dead for decades, do you still want him opening up your will to ask your permission before he makes a life choice? Instead, how about we let him live in the house until he is 25 and then he can sell it?

dfxm12 6y ago

I wonder why he needs the liquidity. I'm sure he's making a ton of money from royalties alone. Even to his ancestors, it's probably better off long term, and good enough short term, to leave the catalog than cash.

jchrisa 6y ago

I figure it's more about his legacy. Better to have the music commercially exploited by experts than by a family office.