9 ms·

From the article : "In 2015, Mr Cook said he would give away his entire fortune before he dies, and is known to have donated tens of millions of dollars to cha

From the article : "In 2015, Mr Cook said he would give away his entire fortune before he dies, and is known to have donated tens of millions of dollars to charity". Success during one's life , paying it back to make the society a better place once gone. Take a bow, Mr Cook. What more can one ask for in a lifetime :)

spottybanana 5y ago
He is already making society a better place by making products and services that people value. Charity isn't the only option for that.
- jollybean 5y ago
  He is only making society better if the value he is creating is larger than the value he is extracting. You can build a regular home, get paid $5 million for it, the net act was probably negative for the system. It's the same for companies turning profits: it's entirely possible to make profits in a system while actually shrinking the overall pie. This is common when certain activities are externalized (i.e. pollution). Capitalism, broadly, does create a bigger pie, but it's a very uneven process and the true value creation doesn't always happen where the value is created. Value capture happens where the power is.
- diordiderot 5y ago
  Just like the Sineloa Cartel! People would die to get their hands in their product.
DasIch 5y ago
Rich people spend money on charities they like. They change society the way they want it to change that does not necessarily make society a better place nor is it necessarily what most people want. If he had to pay all of this on taxes, society could decide how to use that money and it would be just as much, if not more "a better place".
- golergka 5y ago
  Society had already decided how to use that money when it's members were buying Apple products.
- Invictus0 5y ago
  Why this criticism? Is HIV research not a good enough cause for you? Much better than a 10 billion dollar airport or 15 billion dollar Olympics in my opinion.
  - avianlyric 5y ago
    There’s no guarantee that Tim’s going to use his money for “good” causes, we’re entirely dependent on his good will. He may go down the evangelical Christian path and fund a war of sex, abortions, gays, trans and people’s reproductive rights. That’s not even a hypothetical outcome, there’s plenty of millionaires and billionaires (like David Green) already funding that war.
    - bzbarsky 5y ago
      Tim funding a war on "gays" would be .... very surprising. But also, there's no guarantee that _anyone_ including the government will use money for "good" causes. Bridges to nowhere, military adventurism, wars on drugs, personal enrichment of politicians and government employees, vanity projects of various sorts, the list of things governments mis-spend on is vast. And of course we don't all agree on the relative merits of different causes.
      - avianlyric 5y ago
        True, but at least you can vote a government out of power. Same can’t be said for billionaires.
        bzbarsky 5y ago
        The practical distinction is often not there except for things that are so egregious there is a good chance billionaires would be crossing the boundaries of legality for doing them. But yes, government does have a slight edge on billionaires for accountability, I agree.
jollybean 5y ago
What is the point of grabbing surpluses and then handing them back? Re: the note above about Foxconn workers, Cooks money comes from the market power developed by Apple which they can leverage on everyone in the system, consumers, workers, suppliers, distributors etc.. So he can leverage against Foxconn workers and then give $1B to charity - or he could not leverage, and double Foxconn workers wages. And that's just his comp, not everything else. Now - maybe there is a theoretical greater efficiency in his charity work, and of course it's spent on 'his interests' not others, etc.. But the notion of 'giving it away' doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless that giving is frankly more effective than otherwise. I think Gates Foundation for example is reasonable - a lot of philanthropy is effective in ways that governments and regular private corps are not - that makes sense. But from a purely charitable perspective, it does seem a little bit odd to accumulate in one column on the ledger in order to put it back in the other column.
eliaspro 5y ago
And during his lifetime, this money is locked away, only accessible by him, taken out of circulation and thereby not adding any worth against ever-growing inequality, supporting economic prosperity or tax-funded investments. This is just once again a case of philanthropic green-washing of what should be actually simply heavily taxed.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  Lol, you think the money is any less locked in Apple’s coffers? At least there is a chance it goes somewhere good now.
  - pavlov 5y ago
    Since these are stock awards, the money really comes from old and new Apple shareholders, not the company itself. When the stock award was granted, existing shareholders agreed to dilute their holdings by allowing the company to issue new shares to Cook. And when Cook sells this newly issued stock for cash, the money comes from new shareholders who want a slice of Apple (or existing shareholders buying more, thus paying cash for the shares they themselves gave to Cook).
    - Aeolun 5y ago
      Yeah? If people have money to spend on Apple stock they clearly don’t need it to survive.
      - pavlov 5y ago
        Who said anything about that? I wanted to clarify that the money Cook is receiving isn’t paid out of Apple’s cash reserves. Although the question you raise is an interesting one in the sense that many buyers of Apple stock are indirectly depending on it to make a living after they’ve stopped working. For a blue chip giant like Apple, many of the buyers are index funds and pensions where the ultimate beneficiaries are retirees. They literally are buying Apple stock to survive, although through intermediaries.
cuillevel3 5y ago
Why not just pay taxes instead? That's literally paying it back to society.
- sumedh 5y ago
  To fund wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or some other country?
purple_ferret 5y ago
He's got no kids so, where else would it go?

spottybanana 5y ago

He is already making society a better place by making products and services that people value. Charity isn't the only option for that.

jollybean 5y ago
He is only making society better if the value he is creating is larger than the value he is extracting. You can build a regular home, get paid $5 million for it, the net act was probably negative for the system. It's the same for companies turning profits: it's entirely possible to make profits in a system while actually shrinking the overall pie. This is common when certain activities are externalized (i.e. pollution). Capitalism, broadly, does create a bigger pie, but it's a very uneven process and the true value creation doesn't always happen where the value is created. Value capture happens where the power is.
diordiderot 5y ago
Just like the Sineloa Cartel! People would die to get their hands in their product.

DasIch 5y ago

Rich people spend money on charities they like. They change society the way they want it to change that does not necessarily make society a better place nor is it necessarily what most people want. If he had to pay all of this on taxes, society could decide how to use that money and it would be just as much, if not more "a better place".

golergka 5y ago
Society had already decided how to use that money when it's members were buying Apple products.
Invictus0 5y ago
Why this criticism? Is HIV research not a good enough cause for you? Much better than a 10 billion dollar airport or 15 billion dollar Olympics in my opinion.
- avianlyric 5y ago
  There’s no guarantee that Tim’s going to use his money for “good” causes, we’re entirely dependent on his good will. He may go down the evangelical Christian path and fund a war of sex, abortions, gays, trans and people’s reproductive rights. That’s not even a hypothetical outcome, there’s plenty of millionaires and billionaires (like David Green) already funding that war.
  - bzbarsky 5y ago
    Tim funding a war on "gays" would be .... very surprising. But also, there's no guarantee that _anyone_ including the government will use money for "good" causes. Bridges to nowhere, military adventurism, wars on drugs, personal enrichment of politicians and government employees, vanity projects of various sorts, the list of things governments mis-spend on is vast. And of course we don't all agree on the relative merits of different causes.
    - avianlyric 5y ago
      True, but at least you can vote a government out of power. Same can’t be said for billionaires.
      - bzbarsky 5y ago
        The practical distinction is often not there except for things that are so egregious there is a good chance billionaires would be crossing the boundaries of legality for doing them. But yes, government does have a slight edge on billionaires for accountability, I agree.

jollybean 5y ago

What is the point of grabbing surpluses and then handing them back? Re: the note above about Foxconn workers, Cooks money comes from the market power developed by Apple which they can leverage on everyone in the system, consumers, workers, suppliers, distributors etc.. So he can leverage against Foxconn workers and then give $1B to charity - or he could not leverage, and double Foxconn workers wages. And that's just his comp, not everything else. Now - maybe there is a theoretical greater efficiency in his charity work, and of course it's spent on 'his interests' not others, etc.. But the notion of 'giving it away' doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless that giving is frankly more effective than otherwise. I think Gates Foundation for example is reasonable - a lot of philanthropy is effective in ways that governments and regular private corps are not - that makes sense. But from a purely charitable perspective, it does seem a little bit odd to accumulate in one column on the ledger in order to put it back in the other column.

eliaspro 5y ago

And during his lifetime, this money is locked away, only accessible by him, taken out of circulation and thereby not adding any worth against ever-growing inequality, supporting economic prosperity or tax-funded investments. This is just once again a case of philanthropic green-washing of what should be actually simply heavily taxed.

Aeolun 5y ago
Lol, you think the money is any less locked in Apple’s coffers? At least there is a chance it goes somewhere good now.
- pavlov 5y ago
  Since these are stock awards, the money really comes from old and new Apple shareholders, not the company itself. When the stock award was granted, existing shareholders agreed to dilute their holdings by allowing the company to issue new shares to Cook. And when Cook sells this newly issued stock for cash, the money comes from new shareholders who want a slice of Apple (or existing shareholders buying more, thus paying cash for the shares they themselves gave to Cook).
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    Yeah? If people have money to spend on Apple stock they clearly don’t need it to survive.
    - pavlov 5y ago
      Who said anything about that? I wanted to clarify that the money Cook is receiving isn’t paid out of Apple’s cash reserves. Although the question you raise is an interesting one in the sense that many buyers of Apple stock are indirectly depending on it to make a living after they’ve stopped working. For a blue chip giant like Apple, many of the buyers are index funds and pensions where the ultimate beneficiaries are retirees. They literally are buying Apple stock to survive, although through intermediaries.

cuillevel3 5y ago

Why not just pay taxes instead? That's literally paying it back to society.

sumedh 5y ago
To fund wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or some other country?

purple_ferret 5y ago

He's got no kids so, where else would it go?