3 ms·

Bah! Entrepreneurs should reinvest their profits into more businesses. Profits are the reward you get for serving society effectively. Society would probably be

by jgmmo 15y ago

Bah! Entrepreneurs should reinvest their profits into more businesses. Profits are the reward you get for serving society effectively. Society would probably be better served if Bill Gates, etc. reinvested their cash instead of donating to charities. If charities actually cost-effectively served society than they would be a business instead!

amirmc 15y ago
Have you looked at the kinds of things Gates is actually funding? It's the kind of stuff most people overlook as there's little to no profit in it. "... we think an essential role of philanthropy is to make bets on promising solutions that governments and businesses can’t afford to make." http://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/Pages/bill-melinda-gates-letter.aspx http://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/Pages/bill-melinda-gate...
yesbabyyes 15y ago
How about you decide what you do with your money, and Bill Gates and Marc Andreessen decide what they do with their money?
- jgmmo 15y ago
  Well of course I'm not suggesting we forcibly make them do anything with their money. I am just saying, in terms of societal net benefit, we are probably much better off if our most successful investors continue investing in more businesses rather than charities. Not a fan of thought experiments?
  - yesbabyyes 15y ago
    I assure you that there are lots of wealthy people who reinvest their money into more businesses, so I'm not sure of the value of your thought experiment. There seem to be fewer wealthy people giving half their fortune to charity. Not a fan of real-world experiments?
  - zfran 15y ago
    >I am just saying, in terms of societal net benefit, we are probably much better off if our most successful investors continue investing in more businesses rather than charities. Not a fan of thought experiments? Exactly, WE. Thing is, there are millions of people that aren't included in that "we" and the benefits they get (i.e. saving lives) FAR outweights the benefits we'd get.
  - tfb 15y ago
    You can only build so many businesses within a given period of time; and when the business leaders have more money than is required to do so is when they donate to charity. Donations like the one outlined in this article give me faith in humanity. It's nice to see us looking out for one another. As for me, I strive to build business(es) so I can do the same, whether the most effective way to raise the standard of living for everyone is donating, building, or most likely both.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
peterjs 15y ago
Is that irony or ignorance? There are plenty of things worth doing that do not have a viable business model. How would you achieve the goals of the two nonprofits mentioned in the article? There are really no short term benefits from protecting the environment or helping families become self-sufficient. It takes years for trees and families to grow and measuring the economic value of these investments is not straightforward. http://www.shelternetwork.org/ http://www.shelternetwork.org/ http://canopy.org/ http://canopy.org/
moron 15y ago
I am glad a16z is run by the people who run it, and not you.

by jgmmo 15y ago

amirmc 15y ago

Have you looked at the kinds of things Gates is actually funding? It's the kind of stuff most people overlook as there's little to no profit in it. "... we think an essential role of philanthropy is to make bets on promising solutions that governments and businesses can’t afford to make." http://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/Pages/bill-melinda-gates-letter.aspx http://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/Pages/bill-melinda-gate...

yesbabyyes 15y ago

How about you decide what you do with your money, and Bill Gates and Marc Andreessen decide what they do with their money?

jgmmo 15y ago
Well of course I'm not suggesting we forcibly make them do anything with their money. I am just saying, in terms of societal net benefit, we are probably much better off if our most successful investors continue investing in more businesses rather than charities. Not a fan of thought experiments?
- yesbabyyes 15y ago
  I assure you that there are lots of wealthy people who reinvest their money into more businesses, so I'm not sure of the value of your thought experiment. There seem to be fewer wealthy people giving half their fortune to charity. Not a fan of real-world experiments?
- zfran 15y ago
  >I am just saying, in terms of societal net benefit, we are probably much better off if our most successful investors continue investing in more businesses rather than charities. Not a fan of thought experiments? Exactly, WE. Thing is, there are millions of people that aren't included in that "we" and the benefits they get (i.e. saving lives) FAR outweights the benefits we'd get.
- tfb 15y ago
  You can only build so many businesses within a given period of time; and when the business leaders have more money than is required to do so is when they donate to charity. Donations like the one outlined in this article give me faith in humanity. It's nice to see us looking out for one another. As for me, I strive to build business(es) so I can do the same, whether the most effective way to raise the standard of living for everyone is donating, building, or most likely both.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

peterjs 15y ago

Is that irony or ignorance? There are plenty of things worth doing that do not have a viable business model. How would you achieve the goals of the two nonprofits mentioned in the article? There are really no short term benefits from protecting the environment or helping families become self-sufficient. It takes years for trees and families to grow and measuring the economic value of these investments is not straightforward. http://www.shelternetwork.org/ http://www.shelternetwork.org/ http://canopy.org/ http://canopy.org/

moron 15y ago

I am glad a16z is run by the people who run it, and not you.