5 ms·

I think he's probably optimizing for both. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

by c22 4y ago

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
Por que no los dos?
s1artibartfast 4y ago
Its not a feature, it is a bug. You don't have to hate either.
heartbreak 4y ago
Anyone that wealthy has substantial influence over the design of the game itself.
- c22 4y ago
  Very true, but I think the dubious-donation game predates Musk by quite a bit.
brookst 4y ago
I don’t see how a charity can be simultaneously optimized for benefiting its founder and also benefiting people other than its founder. Different goals, different choices. Unless you’re suggesting that Musk is such an egomaniac that he thinks the best thing a charity can do is help him personally?
- dbfx 4y ago
  One could argue that he wants the charity to be good just because of the "prestige" of having a top charity, and that would be helping personally I guess. Not sure how putting money in a charity would make him more money even with tax breaks than just investing that money somewhere else, although I got no clue how charity tax breaks work in the US,
- c22 4y ago
  It goes like this: I want to lower my tax liability by donating to charity > as long as I'm doing that I want to make sure I'm supporting something I agree with > I'll start my own charity to ensure that's the case. Frankly I'm much more concerned about the billion dollar roth IRAs and 529 plans which seem to have a much lower chance of helping anyone else.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Roth IRAs aren't supposed to benefit anyone else. That's not why they exist
    - c22 4y ago
      They're also not meant to hold billions of dollars (the annual contribution limit is like $6000). Yet somehow this happens [0]. [0]: http://www.propublica.org/article/lord-of-the-roths-how-tech-mogul-peter-thiel-turned-a-retirement-account-for-the-middle-class-into-a-5-billion-dollar-tax-free-piggy-bank http://www.propublica.org/article/lord-of-the-roths-how-tech...
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        yeah, I'm aware of that. They are designed with no cap, but clearly this type of growth was not expected. Seems like it is an easy fix if it is determined to be a problem worth fixing. Just add a IRA cap at something like 50 million before you have to withdraw.
        c22 4y ago
        Or convert Roths back into regular IRAs after a point. I agree it's fixable and I think it ought to be fixed. I'm not so concerned about tax shenanigans that produce beneficial charity as a byproduct.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erection or maintenance of public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency. Easy to see how a charity could line up with what Musk is interested in and/or his companies are doing. Advancement of space travel, advancing rocket science, reducing rocket launch cost for government, communications connectivity for people, electric vehicles and batteries, self-driving cars, reducing government costs for tunnels and transport infrastructure, relief for conservatives who were distressed about being banned from Twitter, advancing the Gospel of Musk, etc. EDIT: http://www.muskfoundation.org/ http://www.muskfoundation.org/ yep, looks about right.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  If you're rich and gay, you might donate to a charity promoting LGBT equality. That benefits both you and other people. I don't think there's anything wrong about this at all
mattalex 4y ago
Just that in this case the players are so powerful they can use their wealth to define the rules themselves.
nimbius 4y ago
“In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.” ― Diogenes of Sinope
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pwinnski 4y ago
Or both. One can certainly despise a particular player playing a horrible game.
yunohn 4y ago
Ah of course, “the game”. Which part of the game do you play and succeed at? Do you also get to make the rules? If not, don’t simp for billionaires.
- c22 4y ago
  I'm playing the same game everyone else is and so far I've found moderate success. I have some small say in the rules, just like I hope you do and I agree that in a lot of cases the rules are completely whack. Rather than "simping for billionaires" the intent of my comment was to cause the reader to introspect upon the part they play in crafting the rules and allowing the game to exist as it's currently played.

I think he's probably optimizing for both. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

by c22 4y ago

I think he's probably optimizing for both. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago

Por que no los dos?

s1artibartfast 4y ago

Its not a feature, it is a bug. You don't have to hate either.

heartbreak 4y ago

Anyone that wealthy has substantial influence over the design of the game itself.

c22 4y ago
Very true, but I think the dubious-donation game predates Musk by quite a bit.

brookst 4y ago

I don’t see how a charity can be simultaneously optimized for benefiting its founder and also benefiting people other than its founder. Different goals, different choices. Unless you’re suggesting that Musk is such an egomaniac that he thinks the best thing a charity can do is help him personally?

dbfx 4y ago
One could argue that he wants the charity to be good just because of the "prestige" of having a top charity, and that would be helping personally I guess. Not sure how putting money in a charity would make him more money even with tax breaks than just investing that money somewhere else, although I got no clue how charity tax breaks work in the US,
c22 4y ago
It goes like this: I want to lower my tax liability by donating to charity > as long as I'm doing that I want to make sure I'm supporting something I agree with > I'll start my own charity to ensure that's the case. Frankly I'm much more concerned about the billion dollar roth IRAs and 529 plans which seem to have a much lower chance of helping anyone else.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Roth IRAs aren't supposed to benefit anyone else. That's not why they exist
  - c22 4y ago
    They're also not meant to hold billions of dollars (the annual contribution limit is like $6000). Yet somehow this happens [0]. [0]: http://www.propublica.org/article/lord-of-the-roths-how-tech-mogul-peter-thiel-turned-a-retirement-account-for-the-middle-class-into-a-5-billion-dollar-tax-free-piggy-bank http://www.propublica.org/article/lord-of-the-roths-how-tech...
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      yeah, I'm aware of that. They are designed with no cap, but clearly this type of growth was not expected. Seems like it is an easy fix if it is determined to be a problem worth fixing. Just add a IRA cap at something like 50 million before you have to withdraw.
      - c22 4y ago
        Or convert Roths back into regular IRAs after a point. I agree it's fixable and I think it ought to be fixed. I'm not so concerned about tax shenanigans that produce beneficial charity as a byproduct.
throwawaylinux 4y ago
The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erection or maintenance of public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency. Easy to see how a charity could line up with what Musk is interested in and/or his companies are doing. Advancement of space travel, advancing rocket science, reducing rocket launch cost for government, communications connectivity for people, electric vehicles and batteries, self-driving cars, reducing government costs for tunnels and transport infrastructure, relief for conservatives who were distressed about being banned from Twitter, advancing the Gospel of Musk, etc. EDIT: http://www.muskfoundation.org/ http://www.muskfoundation.org/ yep, looks about right.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
If you're rich and gay, you might donate to a charity promoting LGBT equality. That benefits both you and other people. I don't think there's anything wrong about this at all

mattalex 4y ago

Just that in this case the players are so powerful they can use their wealth to define the rules themselves.

nimbius 4y ago

“In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.” ― Diogenes of Sinope

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

pwinnski 4y ago

Or both. One can certainly despise a particular player playing a horrible game.

yunohn 4y ago

Ah of course, “the game”. Which part of the game do you play and succeed at? Do you also get to make the rules? If not, don’t simp for billionaires.

c22 4y ago
I'm playing the same game everyone else is and so far I've found moderate success. I have some small say in the rules, just like I hope you do and I agree that in a lot of cases the rules are completely whack. Rather than "simping for billionaires" the intent of my comment was to cause the reader to introspect upon the part they play in crafting the rules and allowing the game to exist as it's currently played.