3 ms·
> I guess thats what I mean. Of course he wouldn't continue because he wouldn't have the money to continue. Not exactly what I was saying. Let's say he stopped
by nkozyra 3y ago
> I guess thats what I mean. Of course he wouldn't continue because he wouldn't have the money to continue.
Not exactly what I was saying. Let's say he stopped today. Or when he hit $25M in total wealth. Some figure where he could live a comfortable life while still contributing to these kinds of acts.
Would he still do it? Or is continued profit / brand building / etc a key component? Is this fundamentally a transaction?
- motoxpro 3y agoI would assume not. I don't think he thinks of it as a charity, but the tension between continued profit and doing amazing things in this case doesn't bother me. I think it's positive in that the better he does the more people he can impact. Transactions can be incredibly positive even if they are dispassionate. I understand your point. It's a good one and well taken. Very eloquently put. Those two things are definitely not always aligned and probably arent always in this case either.