4 ms·
Including Rockefeller and Carnegie in that graphic is poor choice if you ask me. True they gave a lot of their money away... but mostly to their own causes.When
by gph 15y ago
Including Rockefeller and Carnegie in that graphic is poor choice if you ask me. True they gave a lot of their money away... but mostly to their own causes.When it came to their own workers they were more willing to give money to thugs who killed them than giving them equitable wages and working conditions.
And while I find it impressive what Warren Buffet has accomplished, I don't find it very productive for humanity. I'm not anti-capitalist, but the pure money makers who gather wealth without providing a service/product are not heroes in my book.
- corin_ 15y agoBuffet isn't a hero for how he made his money (not from a charitable point of view anyway), but for what he does with it. Making your money in stocks and shares isn't praiseworthy work at all, but I don't see how you can look down on someone who does that and gives so much of the profit to charity.
- gph 15y agoI'm not looking down on him, just saying he doesn't really belong in the same company as Bill Gates. There is a lot of Microsoft hate out there, which is partially deserved, but he still provided a needed and useful product/service that has revolutionized the PC industry. And then after doing that he turned around and gave most of it away. Much more praiseworthy than Buffet IMO.
- jaredhansen 15y agoProviding capital to fund productive and risky ventures undertaken by others is a valuable service. Everyone on HN recognizes the importance of angels and VCs in the ecosystem - what's so different about what Buffett does? What's so magical about an IPO that means, once it happens, no one who risks their own money on the venture should count as having contributed to its growth?