5 ms·
The article reminds me of the philanthropists of the late 19th/early 20th century like Andrew Carnegie. His attitude was to amass wealth in the first half of yo
by ricardo81 3y ago
The article reminds me of the philanthropists of the late 19th/early 20th century like Andrew Carnegie. His attitude was to amass wealth in the first half of your life and then give it away in the second.
It makes sense to me that once you accumulate sufficient wealth, the surplus is for 'the greater good'. The big question is what is that greater good. I guess an easy answer to it is 'leaving the next generation in a better place than the previous'.
- keiferski 3y agoNot precisely accurate: he had a three-part life plan: The "Andrew Carnegie Dictum" was: - To spend the first third of one's life getting all the education one can. - To spend the next third making all the money one can. - To spend the last third giving it all away for worthwhile causes.
- ricardo81 3y agoAh, I stand corrected. Perhaps the same modus operandi all the same. That extra education third explains away why he donated so much towards libraries in the US and Scotland.
- oh_sigh 3y agoWas that actually his life plan from the beginning, or was that a post hoc rationalization of his life?
- keiferski 3y agoWell he grew up in poverty so I don’t think it was from the beginning. I do think that he became interested in philanthropy from his thirties onward and I believe he made his first library donation at at 44, but didn’t retire and commit himself to philanthropy full-time until his sixties.
- HumblyTossed 3y ago> The big question is what is that greater good. Yes. And the second question is, should only a handful of people be deciding that. They amass great fortunes on the backs of the labor force then tell them what's good for them is to ... go to mars[1]. The fuck!? No. Hell no. People shouldn't be allowed to be THAT wealthy. I don't know how that looks but just no. [1] Knowing full well that same labor force won't be invited.
- mc32 3y agoWhat happens when you don’t have these captains of industry to set up large enterprises to leverage labor? Does labor self-organize and endeavor in creating its own wealth-creating machine? Who would be a better distributor? The government, those with a self interest, or idealists like Bill Gates or Buffett, etc? I personally don’t know.
- vsareto 3y agoI think you'll find that even if you cap lifetime earnings and max inheritance at one billion dollars (and were able to rigorously enforce that), you'd still have a healthy population willing to start large enterprises. If someone needs more motivation than earning billion dollars to start large industrial enterprises, I guarantee there's someone who'd be willing to try it for a billion or less.
- HPsquared 3y agoIf someone earns their allotted billion under that system, wouldn't they just stop working once they reach the limit? Seems counterproductive.
- jonasdegendt 3y agopg has an interesting essay exploring this question called Billionaires Build[0], the TLDR is that he finds that these people are intrinsically motivated to keep going for reasons other than monetary gain. Otherwise they would’ve quit long before a billion dollars anyway. [0] http://www.paulgraham.com/ace.html http://www.paulgraham.com/ace.html
- verisimi 3y ago> The big question is what is that greater good. Well, luckily we have billionaires to explain it to us. Most billionaires seem agreed that its mandatory health policies + a bio-metric management id scheme, education, less children, protect the environment, etc. No need to worry! And anyway, once your children are educated in the right way, they'll know too!
- gryn 3y agowell if the way to make that wealth is more nefarious to society that whatever philanthropic behavior you do afterward when you retire, then was it worth it ? for you if you only care about how it made you feel then probably, but for society I'm not sure.
- ricardo81 3y agoyes, I think this is the crux of it. Even if you're actually able to accumulate masses amounts of wealth, would you be able to better redirect it based on 1. other ideas of 'better' 2. how you achieved it. It's a very tough question to answer.
- anonu 3y agoUndoubtedly Andrew Carnegie distributed his fortune to the benefit of the populace and created a lasting legacy while doing it. However, he believed wealth was supposed to be in the hands of a select few and not in the broader population: leveraging the working man to attain his position of privelege.
- hammock 3y agoIs there a single personal fortune that did not leverage the working man? That’s kind of how labor + capital work
- Workaccount2 3y agoFind a massive boulder of pure gold in unclaimed territory. But of course you could still make the case that gold only has value when there are workers to work it.
- momirlan 3y agomost gold prospectors work hard to find that boulder. you could argue one could fall upon it in the middle of Manhattan, but that is a good story, not a typical example
- AndrewKemendo 3y agoFunny how that works eh? It's almost as if the system itself is corrupt
- AndrewKemendo 3y agoHe shouldn't have acquired it in the first place, and appropriately allocated ownership to those doing the work in the first place The act of accumulating it in the first place is unethical If you then, on your own WHIM and directed however you and you alone want to, give your money away it's no different than starting yet another "going concern" of people who are now employed to give your money based on how YOU want to spend it This is a bad and socially destructive pattern