3 ms·

You can't afford a decent jet, a yacht and houses on $100M. On $700M you can. small jets start in the single digit millions. Decent jets (10+ people) are $50M

You can't afford a decent jet, a yacht and houses on $100M. On $700M you can. small jets start in the single digit millions. Decent jets (10+ people) are $50M easily, costing $1M+ a year. yachts can get extreme. Add in a few homes throughout the world and you've burnt through that $100M easily. Think of it as comparing a toyota to a bentley.

ugh 15y ago
You can buy better toys but I very much doubt that the quality of life improves much. The difference between $100m and $700m is at any rate much, much smaller than the difference between $15m and $100m. Maybe that’s why so much has to be payed. A million or so more doesn’t cut it.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  I don't know about that. There's a lot of things I'd like to do that would be possible with $5b that wouldn't be possible with $500m. I could start a good ISP, or make a big stab at commercializing spaceflight, or attempt a viable and powerful mind-machine interface... Big Money buys Big Things, and if I were in Cook's position I'd care less about yachts and more about really damned cool things that I could do with that kind of cash.
  - RuadhanMc 15y ago
    $500m would be more than sufficient to do all of those things you've outlined. If you can put up 25% (random percent) of the money then you'd be able to get investors to put in the rest. Only a nut would invest the entire amount themselves. But that aside, we're talking here about quality of life which does not equal being able to pay for the craziest most expensive ideas that you can come up with.
    - redthrowaway 15y ago
      >Only a nut would invest the entire amount themselves. Not everything I'd want to do would have an immediate commercial payoff, which would rule out investors. That, in turn, would rule out anyone else doing it, which is why having a wealthy backer is necessary. >But that aside, we're talking here about quality of life which does not equal being able to pay for the craziest most expensive ideas that you can come up with. If I'm retired, the ability to do those things would be a huge influence on quality of life for me.
      - cabalamat 15y ago
        > Not everything I'd want to do would have an immediate commercial payoff, which would rule out investors. That, in turn, would rule out anyone else doing it, which is why having a wealthy backer is necessary. If something is a good idea, you can probably persuade some other people to contribute to it. If you can't persuade anyone, it's probably not a good idea. Even if $500M wouldn't get the job done, it'd be enough to fund a prototype or demonstrator that could attract more funding.
jamesbritt 15y ago
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." -- Arnold Schwarzenegger
- beedogs 15y ago
  he never had $700m though.

ugh 15y ago

You can buy better toys but I very much doubt that the quality of life improves much. The difference between $100m and $700m is at any rate much, much smaller than the difference between $15m and $100m. Maybe that’s why so much has to be payed. A million or so more doesn’t cut it.

redthrowaway 15y ago
I don't know about that. There's a lot of things I'd like to do that would be possible with $5b that wouldn't be possible with $500m. I could start a good ISP, or make a big stab at commercializing spaceflight, or attempt a viable and powerful mind-machine interface... Big Money buys Big Things, and if I were in Cook's position I'd care less about yachts and more about really damned cool things that I could do with that kind of cash.
- RuadhanMc 15y ago
  $500m would be more than sufficient to do all of those things you've outlined. If you can put up 25% (random percent) of the money then you'd be able to get investors to put in the rest. Only a nut would invest the entire amount themselves. But that aside, we're talking here about quality of life which does not equal being able to pay for the craziest most expensive ideas that you can come up with.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    >Only a nut would invest the entire amount themselves. Not everything I'd want to do would have an immediate commercial payoff, which would rule out investors. That, in turn, would rule out anyone else doing it, which is why having a wealthy backer is necessary. >But that aside, we're talking here about quality of life which does not equal being able to pay for the craziest most expensive ideas that you can come up with. If I'm retired, the ability to do those things would be a huge influence on quality of life for me.
    - cabalamat 15y ago
      > Not everything I'd want to do would have an immediate commercial payoff, which would rule out investors. That, in turn, would rule out anyone else doing it, which is why having a wealthy backer is necessary. If something is a good idea, you can probably persuade some other people to contribute to it. If you can't persuade anyone, it's probably not a good idea. Even if $500M wouldn't get the job done, it'd be enough to fund a prototype or demonstrator that could attract more funding.

jamesbritt 15y ago

"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." -- Arnold Schwarzenegger

beedogs 15y ago
he never had $700m though.