4 ms·

> You don't see the durable institutions like new universities being setup like after the gilded age. Not sure if it’s a tax code thing or what. For a while, A

> You don't see the durable institutions like new universities being setup like after the gilded age. Not sure if it’s a tax code thing or what. For a while, America was much more aware that you could just kill the rich like you killed kings. The rich gave away more and did more for society as a way of washing their reputation and proving they shouldn’t be killed in an uprising. Today, global society has become much more legally certain around perceptions of property rights and entitlement of the rich to their wealth. If we saw genuine movements in America to (for example) tax wealth above 1B at like a 99% tax rate, I bet you’d suddenly see a few new well endowed universities and concert halls and similar. Instead today, the wealthy are much more interested in showing off their reputation by buying media companies (WashPo, twitter, etc) with influence or by building their vision of the future in a commercial context - look at Elon musk and bezos going to space or Bryan Johnson trying to live forever and selling vitamins along the way. When we do get billionaires donating, and they become unpopular, people try to penalize the institutions. Like the Zuckerberg general hospital getting petitioned to change their name.

steveBK123 2y ago
Agreed! I think that's what I was getting at with historical differences in tax policy. It's interesting some of the former gilded age estates in the northeast that have become public parks of one form or another, for similar reasons. > When we do get billionaires donating, and they become unpopular, people try to penalize the institutions. Like the Zuckerberg general hospital getting petitioned to change their name. To me this always seemed like broken brain syndrome. If you don't like some rich guy, the best possible outcome is that some public good extracts wealth from him that taxes have failed to do. Would we be better off if he kept the money? These people get too hung up on letting the perfect (billionaires shouldn't exist!) get in the way of the good (billionaire funding a hospital).
- carapace 2y ago
  Funding a hospital is fine, A-Okay. Putting your name on it is crass. It's been the "General Hospital" for my entire life and now I'm supposed to call it "Zuckerberg General Hospital"? This from the guy that's feudalizing Kauai. Or should we call it Zuckerberg-Kauai? Yeah I'm being a bit churlish, but c'mon. We don't have to worship them? Let's tax them already and get on with fixing the climate etc.
  - steveBK123 2y ago
    This is not new or unique. I'm not worshipping them. Their vanity doesn't hurt my ego. I had the misfortune of being in 2 different hospitals in the last 18 months. One had its ER named after a hedge fund guy & his (now ex) wife. The other had an entire building named after the deceased wife of another hedge fund guy. Didn't really bother me. Good for the guy honoring his wife, even. Probably some sentimental value in that she had been treated there. I think in the rare event billionaires actually put 8+ figures into social goods, I'm not going to squabble over the name on the label. I think anything that incentivizes the rich to give to social goods is fine with me. Better allocation of capital than another yacht or putting their name in another art museum wing (look around next time you are at one..).
    - carapace 2y ago
      > I think anything that incentivizes the rich to give to social goods is fine with me. You put your finger on the crux of the problem. "The ends justify the means."? All motivations are equal? Vanity is as good as charity as long as the hospital stands?
  - vineyardmike 2y ago
    I’m Ancient Greece they used to name platoons and battleships over the rich who were taxed to pay for it. They’d even announce whose battalion was the winner of the battle to give them a publicity boost. They’d even announce rich would compete to pay more taxes to be the one to show off. I’m not saying that hospitals should exclusively be funding by billionaires honoring their doctor wives who used to work at said hospital, but it’s a pretty innocent gesture.
    - carapace 2y ago
      We have come a long <EXPLETIVE DELETED> way from ancient Greece. Here's what we should be doing: free hospitals. > Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Medical Sciences aims to provide free medical care to the sick and ailing with the dedication, commitment, love and the best of skills, so that they will be cured in body, mind and spirit. https://sssihms.org/ https://sssihms.org/
willcipriano 2y ago
The rich of today lack taste, they aren't funding the opera beacuse they watch marvel movies instead. In the past they were well read, educated and had class. They would dress better, not wearing $1000 sneakers and designer sweatpants but tailored suits and Italian shoes. Talk better due to years of study. The women would walk around with books on their heads to learn to glide around the room ethereally. It doesn't sting as much when the guy who is richer than you is more cultured and put together. When he's an idiot with a mustard stain on his shirt just like you it's unbearable.
- steveBK123 2y ago
  Yes maybe it was a class thing. It's just astonishing how many universities / institutes were founded from ~1800-1900ish by rich industrialists to varying degrees - Vanderbilt, Carnegie Mellon, Drexel, U of Chicago, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, Cornell, WPI, RPI, NYU, Purdue, CalTech, . (Some of these are sort of public-private partnership "land grants") Maybe it's also a change in tax policy or relative cost of capital vs labor (universities are now expensive to operate due to their staff, not the buildings/land). Meanwhile the only schools you see being founded in the last 30 years are scam for-profits / virtual universities / diploma mills. One of these scams were even run by one of our presidential candidates.
  - willcipriano 2y ago
    The work of Vermeer was largely brought to the world by the van Ruijven family. Henry Wriothesley gave us Shakespeare. Archduke Rudolph allowed Beethoven to echo down the ages. Bezos has a really big boat that requires bridges to be dismantled to move it. The wealthy of the past were a different caliber of people. Maybe the simplicity of life kept them more grounded?
    - steveBK123 2y ago
      Yeah that was my point upthread - I think there are just more businesses selling goods to every level of billionaire now .. like the consumer culture goes all the way up to the $100B level. Kind of a weird flattening of American culture. So they can buy bigger boats/homes/jets/etc rather than found a university or fund the arts...

steveBK123 2y ago

Agreed! I think that's what I was getting at with historical differences in tax policy. It's interesting some of the former gilded age estates in the northeast that have become public parks of one form or another, for similar reasons. > When we do get billionaires donating, and they become unpopular, people try to penalize the institutions. Like the Zuckerberg general hospital getting petitioned to change their name. To me this always seemed like broken brain syndrome. If you don't like some rich guy, the best possible outcome is that some public good extracts wealth from him that taxes have failed to do. Would we be better off if he kept the money? These people get too hung up on letting the perfect (billionaires shouldn't exist!) get in the way of the good (billionaire funding a hospital).

carapace 2y ago
Funding a hospital is fine, A-Okay. Putting your name on it is crass. It's been the "General Hospital" for my entire life and now I'm supposed to call it "Zuckerberg General Hospital"? This from the guy that's feudalizing Kauai. Or should we call it Zuckerberg-Kauai? Yeah I'm being a bit churlish, but c'mon. We don't have to worship them? Let's tax them already and get on with fixing the climate etc.
- steveBK123 2y ago
  This is not new or unique. I'm not worshipping them. Their vanity doesn't hurt my ego. I had the misfortune of being in 2 different hospitals in the last 18 months. One had its ER named after a hedge fund guy & his (now ex) wife. The other had an entire building named after the deceased wife of another hedge fund guy. Didn't really bother me. Good for the guy honoring his wife, even. Probably some sentimental value in that she had been treated there. I think in the rare event billionaires actually put 8+ figures into social goods, I'm not going to squabble over the name on the label. I think anything that incentivizes the rich to give to social goods is fine with me. Better allocation of capital than another yacht or putting their name in another art museum wing (look around next time you are at one..).
  - carapace 2y ago
    > I think anything that incentivizes the rich to give to social goods is fine with me. You put your finger on the crux of the problem. "The ends justify the means."? All motivations are equal? Vanity is as good as charity as long as the hospital stands?
- vineyardmike 2y ago
  I’m Ancient Greece they used to name platoons and battleships over the rich who were taxed to pay for it. They’d even announce whose battalion was the winner of the battle to give them a publicity boost. They’d even announce rich would compete to pay more taxes to be the one to show off. I’m not saying that hospitals should exclusively be funding by billionaires honoring their doctor wives who used to work at said hospital, but it’s a pretty innocent gesture.
  - carapace 2y ago
    We have come a long <EXPLETIVE DELETED> way from ancient Greece. Here's what we should be doing: free hospitals. > Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Medical Sciences aims to provide free medical care to the sick and ailing with the dedication, commitment, love and the best of skills, so that they will be cured in body, mind and spirit. https://sssihms.org/ https://sssihms.org/

willcipriano 2y ago

The rich of today lack taste, they aren't funding the opera beacuse they watch marvel movies instead. In the past they were well read, educated and had class. They would dress better, not wearing $1000 sneakers and designer sweatpants but tailored suits and Italian shoes. Talk better due to years of study. The women would walk around with books on their heads to learn to glide around the room ethereally. It doesn't sting as much when the guy who is richer than you is more cultured and put together. When he's an idiot with a mustard stain on his shirt just like you it's unbearable.

steveBK123 2y ago
Yes maybe it was a class thing. It's just astonishing how many universities / institutes were founded from ~1800-1900ish by rich industrialists to varying degrees - Vanderbilt, Carnegie Mellon, Drexel, U of Chicago, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, Cornell, WPI, RPI, NYU, Purdue, CalTech, . (Some of these are sort of public-private partnership "land grants") Maybe it's also a change in tax policy or relative cost of capital vs labor (universities are now expensive to operate due to their staff, not the buildings/land). Meanwhile the only schools you see being founded in the last 30 years are scam for-profits / virtual universities / diploma mills. One of these scams were even run by one of our presidential candidates.
- willcipriano 2y ago
  The work of Vermeer was largely brought to the world by the van Ruijven family. Henry Wriothesley gave us Shakespeare. Archduke Rudolph allowed Beethoven to echo down the ages. Bezos has a really big boat that requires bridges to be dismantled to move it. The wealthy of the past were a different caliber of people. Maybe the simplicity of life kept them more grounded?
  - steveBK123 2y ago
    Yeah that was my point upthread - I think there are just more businesses selling goods to every level of billionaire now .. like the consumer culture goes all the way up to the $100B level. Kind of a weird flattening of American culture. So they can buy bigger boats/homes/jets/etc rather than found a university or fund the arts...