4 ms·

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 inequ

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.
webinvest 5y ago
That’s not how checking accounts, savings accounts, or shares of stock work. It’s only how physical dollars in your wallet work.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I think this is an important insight, but not without challenges. One could argue that stocks in the secondary market work like a wallet. Funds from additional offerings do go on a company ledger and get spent, but in investor to investor sale, the profits are mostly reinvested in other stock. Money leaves the market when it is diversified into other investment classes, or when investors spend profits outside the market, or gains are taxed.
gomox 5y ago
Taken out of circulation? The money will surely be invested into the economy where it will very much fund (profit motivated) initiatives.
vmurthy 5y ago
> This is just once again a case of philanthropic green-washing of what should be actually simply heavily taxed. Not being snarky but heavily taxed and then what? Expect the government to make the best decision on how to spend money?
- DSingularity 5y ago
  I think if we go heavy handed against wealth inequality then we should also legislate conservative spending by governments. This money can’t go to the fund next Afghanistan or to Israel to fund another settlement. It has to go to simple but surely-helpful efforts like: feeding the poor, improving education, and building infrastructure.
  - bzbarsky 5y ago
    Both improving education and building infrastructure, as they are actually practiced, are not "simple" and questionably "surely-helpful". See also bridges to nowhere and schools with top-of-the-line computers but broken heating/cooling systems. Just throwing money at things does not mean it gets used to actually improve them, unfortunately... The question is when you have gotten to diminishing, or negative, returns.
    - DSingularity 5y ago
      So what’s the alternative? If you are unwilling to build schools for the poor. If you are unwilling to build water cleaning stations for the poor. If you are unwilling to build them libraries and parks. Then you are basically willing to let them live as third class citizens. We need to recognize this. In my opinion the whole “throwing money at the problem is not a solution” excuse is not enough to justify maintaining status quo. Yes, I agree, governments are the worst at efficient spending. Wasted money. Unjustified spending. Corruption. Nonetheless, we have a problem that must be solved. If the wealthy have a better idea that involves no money being spent — great. But let’s not pretend like the human cost is going to go on pause while we debate this. Impoverished children will continue to live and grow in environments that do not help them to break out of poverty. What is worse is that the odds are getting worse for them because disparities are getting larger.
azth 5y ago
The solution is Zakat. Look it up.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

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.

webinvest 5y ago

That’s not how checking accounts, savings accounts, or shares of stock work. It’s only how physical dollars in your wallet work.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
I think this is an important insight, but not without challenges. One could argue that stocks in the secondary market work like a wallet. Funds from additional offerings do go on a company ledger and get spent, but in investor to investor sale, the profits are mostly reinvested in other stock. Money leaves the market when it is diversified into other investment classes, or when investors spend profits outside the market, or gains are taxed.

gomox 5y ago

Taken out of circulation? The money will surely be invested into the economy where it will very much fund (profit motivated) initiatives.

vmurthy 5y ago

> This is just once again a case of philanthropic green-washing of what should be actually simply heavily taxed. Not being snarky but heavily taxed and then what? Expect the government to make the best decision on how to spend money?

DSingularity 5y ago
I think if we go heavy handed against wealth inequality then we should also legislate conservative spending by governments. This money can’t go to the fund next Afghanistan or to Israel to fund another settlement. It has to go to simple but surely-helpful efforts like: feeding the poor, improving education, and building infrastructure.
- bzbarsky 5y ago
  Both improving education and building infrastructure, as they are actually practiced, are not "simple" and questionably "surely-helpful". See also bridges to nowhere and schools with top-of-the-line computers but broken heating/cooling systems. Just throwing money at things does not mean it gets used to actually improve them, unfortunately... The question is when you have gotten to diminishing, or negative, returns.
  - DSingularity 5y ago
    So what’s the alternative? If you are unwilling to build schools for the poor. If you are unwilling to build water cleaning stations for the poor. If you are unwilling to build them libraries and parks. Then you are basically willing to let them live as third class citizens. We need to recognize this. In my opinion the whole “throwing money at the problem is not a solution” excuse is not enough to justify maintaining status quo. Yes, I agree, governments are the worst at efficient spending. Wasted money. Unjustified spending. Corruption. Nonetheless, we have a problem that must be solved. If the wealthy have a better idea that involves no money being spent — great. But let’s not pretend like the human cost is going to go on pause while we debate this. Impoverished children will continue to live and grow in environments that do not help them to break out of poverty. What is worse is that the odds are getting worse for them because disparities are getting larger.

azth 5y ago

The solution is Zakat. Look it up.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]