4 ms·

Realistically it probably wouldn't make a difference. $2 billion is ~25 cents/person globally, we aren't talking about a significant amount of money here except

by roenxi 2y ago

Realistically it probably wouldn't make a difference. $2 billion is ~25 cents/person globally, we aren't talking about a significant amount of money here except for the fact that it is concentrated to a small number of people. Which is a problem for a lot of "tax the rich" schemes. The rich don't actually have that much money relative to the large number of people who want a piece of it. The trick is in the effective deployment of capital but that rarely gets enough focus.

noisy_boy 2y ago
If the transfer is done to orgs working on foundational issues for the poor instead of spreading it directly, the impact could be tangible.
akudha 2y ago
“Tax the rich” isn’t just about the money. It is more to the power that comes with a handful of people having insane amounts of money. Money is power, whether we like it or not. Why else an unelected private citizen (Elon) is able to bully congress? He is going to pour 100 million plus dollars to mess with British elections. More than 60% of the money raised by the GOP this year came from ultra wealthy people. Striking Amazon workers are getting beaten up by cops for using their right to protest. And so on
- roenxi 2y ago
  > Why else an unelected private citizen (Elon) is able to bully congress? In China their Elon Musk equivalent can't bully congress. That is Jack Ma, he disappeared for a bit, reappeared and then ... a cynic would say he fled to Japan and has spent the last year or two cowering. Xi Jinping stands unbullied! The question here is who do you want to hold it and why are they qualified? Should Trump have free reign? Should Congress be all-powerful (noting that the likely outcome of that is that power then effectively goes to the whips). I like the idea of no individual having too much power, but outsiders being able to bully congress seems like a great idea. The US Congress is a disgrace to basic principles of competence, honesty and good governance. The US would be well served by more entities that can challenge and bully them, not less. Private citizens being able to loom over them represents a strength of the US system. Better to have someone transient but competent who is powerful than a known-bad institution.
  - akudha 2y ago
    Your logic seems to boil to “Person A is a bully, so let’s bring a bigger bully, aka Person B, to bully A”. Nobody (other than billionaires) is happy with congress, their approval rating is the lowest it has ever been. That doesn’t mean we want one man to bully them, especially one as dumb and vile as Musk. The right way to fight back is by peaceful protests, voting corrupt officials out etc.
    - the_optimist 2y ago
      Can you tell us about the multi-generational involvement of George Soros? David Geffen? We’ve been here a long time, and I’m curious if you’ve developed a longer-term perspective.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      I'm the first to advocate learning from China's economic policies which are a modern miracle of the first degree, but in this instance a fairly cursory comparison between their system and the US system makes things like Musk v. Congress look really good. There is no way that would be allowed in China and that is because of how both systems are designed. > The right way to fight back is by peaceful protests, voting corrupt officials out etc. Go try that in Hong Kong. If the most powerful man in a country is no threat to the politicians, a group of the smallest certainly aren't and will be lucky to get away just being ignored. Seriously, the US is better off if Musk can stare down Congress. For all you don't like him, he's better than a group of politicians that looks to the likes of Mitch McConnell for leadership.
  - jhp123 2y ago
    > The US Congress is a disgrace to basic principles of competence, honesty and good governance. In historic or global terms, no. Congress is squeaky-clean compared to your average oligarch. > Better to have someone transient but competent who is powerful than a known-bad institution. "transient"? Once an oligarch puts themselves above the government, who is going to take away that power?
jvanderbot 2y ago
Wrong. There are 600,000 malaria deaths / year. Most children under 5. A malaria vaccine deployed in the field costs $3/dose, and can be driven down with mass purchases or working with e.g., UNICEF. Assuming 10:1 vaccines / lives saved, you just paid 18,000,000 to eliminate it. Try 100:1 (180M) and you still have a 80% of your investment left over. How many kids grow up healthy because of that? How many parents grow up grateful? If it's 10,000:1 is it a failure to "only" save 60,000 kids for your entire 2B investment? And malaria vaccines have an economic ROI of 100s:1, making them one of the most effective charitable investments for lower income countries. And that's just one of the global maladies that can be directly addressed in a meaningful way with proper investment. Usually, with a Billion-dollar investment, a self-sustaining program can be set up so you get 10x - 100x over the course of the program. You really don't understand how vital and helpful foreign aid is. There are a number of other high impact things you might want to look into, that produce meaningful changes in a data-driven way. - internet and accountability for rural schools in developing countries - Vaccines of any kind save tons of lives - food and relocation assistance for famine-striken areas - Early childhood education is a massive economic ROI, and reduces unwanted population growth through women empowerment - Antiviral treatment to prevent spread of HIV to children during childbirth - Neonatal care in areas without sufficient infra etc etc In some cases, 60-80% of children in developing countries who are affected by preventable diseases are treated by charitable organizations, often in cooperation with a developing local hospital system that is built in parallel until it is sustainable. The initial intervention is basically exclusively through foreign aid from major wealthy donors and governments.
- roenxi 2y ago
  Their parents can't afford to spend $3 on a child for a one-off vaccine. Frankly I don't think dying of malaria is actually the biggest problem with this story - it is the birth-life-death in abject poverty. If they don't die of malaria then they are going to live with nothing (and probably die of something else horrible I would suspect). The actual solution to this sort of problem is what China did - lots of sweatshop labour, slowly scaling up the business opportunities into higher value sectors to the point where they're starting to look quite competitive against European lifestyles. Charity doesn't cut it for getting big fractions of humanity from poverty into the middle class. Then they don't need some billionaire's charity to give them $3 for vaccines. They have incomes of a few thousand dollars and can afford their own medical treatment.
Invictus0 2y ago
Incredible HN comedy gold. YCombinator makes $500k investments into companies to revolutionize industries but $2B to charity "wouldn't make a difference"
- roenxi 2y ago
  Well, yeah. YC doesn't invest in charity, it invests in things that will have big impacts. YC's raison d'être is finding situations where their impact creates positive wealth-generating feedback loops. Charity is explicitly not about doing that. Without the wealth feedback loop part, small amounts of money don't do much.
- MrMcCall 2y ago
  "Their minds are confused by confusion." --Bob Marley Most people remain willfully ignorant of their spiritual potential to self-evolve, so sometimes they behave well and other times less so. We must eacho choose to wake from our unconsciousness and consciously embark upon the road to compassion, for there resides our peace and happiness, both individually and collectively.

by roenxi 2y ago

noisy_boy 2y ago

If the transfer is done to orgs working on foundational issues for the poor instead of spreading it directly, the impact could be tangible.

akudha 2y ago

“Tax the rich” isn’t just about the money. It is more to the power that comes with a handful of people having insane amounts of money. Money is power, whether we like it or not. Why else an unelected private citizen (Elon) is able to bully congress? He is going to pour 100 million plus dollars to mess with British elections. More than 60% of the money raised by the GOP this year came from ultra wealthy people. Striking Amazon workers are getting beaten up by cops for using their right to protest. And so on

roenxi 2y ago
> Why else an unelected private citizen (Elon) is able to bully congress? In China their Elon Musk equivalent can't bully congress. That is Jack Ma, he disappeared for a bit, reappeared and then ... a cynic would say he fled to Japan and has spent the last year or two cowering. Xi Jinping stands unbullied! The question here is who do you want to hold it and why are they qualified? Should Trump have free reign? Should Congress be all-powerful (noting that the likely outcome of that is that power then effectively goes to the whips). I like the idea of no individual having too much power, but outsiders being able to bully congress seems like a great idea. The US Congress is a disgrace to basic principles of competence, honesty and good governance. The US would be well served by more entities that can challenge and bully them, not less. Private citizens being able to loom over them represents a strength of the US system. Better to have someone transient but competent who is powerful than a known-bad institution.
- akudha 2y ago
  Your logic seems to boil to “Person A is a bully, so let’s bring a bigger bully, aka Person B, to bully A”. Nobody (other than billionaires) is happy with congress, their approval rating is the lowest it has ever been. That doesn’t mean we want one man to bully them, especially one as dumb and vile as Musk. The right way to fight back is by peaceful protests, voting corrupt officials out etc.
  - the_optimist 2y ago
    Can you tell us about the multi-generational involvement of George Soros? David Geffen? We’ve been here a long time, and I’m curious if you’ve developed a longer-term perspective.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    I'm the first to advocate learning from China's economic policies which are a modern miracle of the first degree, but in this instance a fairly cursory comparison between their system and the US system makes things like Musk v. Congress look really good. There is no way that would be allowed in China and that is because of how both systems are designed. > The right way to fight back is by peaceful protests, voting corrupt officials out etc. Go try that in Hong Kong. If the most powerful man in a country is no threat to the politicians, a group of the smallest certainly aren't and will be lucky to get away just being ignored. Seriously, the US is better off if Musk can stare down Congress. For all you don't like him, he's better than a group of politicians that looks to the likes of Mitch McConnell for leadership.
- jhp123 2y ago
  > The US Congress is a disgrace to basic principles of competence, honesty and good governance. In historic or global terms, no. Congress is squeaky-clean compared to your average oligarch. > Better to have someone transient but competent who is powerful than a known-bad institution. "transient"? Once an oligarch puts themselves above the government, who is going to take away that power?

jvanderbot 2y ago

Wrong. There are 600,000 malaria deaths / year. Most children under 5. A malaria vaccine deployed in the field costs $3/dose, and can be driven down with mass purchases or working with e.g., UNICEF. Assuming 10:1 vaccines / lives saved, you just paid 18,000,000 to eliminate it. Try 100:1 (180M) and you still have a 80% of your investment left over. How many kids grow up healthy because of that? How many parents grow up grateful? If it's 10,000:1 is it a failure to "only" save 60,000 kids for your entire 2B investment? And malaria vaccines have an economic ROI of 100s:1, making them one of the most effective charitable investments for lower income countries. And that's just one of the global maladies that can be directly addressed in a meaningful way with proper investment. Usually, with a Billion-dollar investment, a self-sustaining program can be set up so you get 10x - 100x over the course of the program. You really don't understand how vital and helpful foreign aid is. There are a number of other high impact things you might want to look into, that produce meaningful changes in a data-driven way. - internet and accountability for rural schools in developing countries - Vaccines of any kind save tons of lives - food and relocation assistance for famine-striken areas - Early childhood education is a massive economic ROI, and reduces unwanted population growth through women empowerment - Antiviral treatment to prevent spread of HIV to children during childbirth - Neonatal care in areas without sufficient infra etc etc In some cases, 60-80% of children in developing countries who are affected by preventable diseases are treated by charitable organizations, often in cooperation with a developing local hospital system that is built in parallel until it is sustainable. The initial intervention is basically exclusively through foreign aid from major wealthy donors and governments.

roenxi 2y ago
Their parents can't afford to spend $3 on a child for a one-off vaccine. Frankly I don't think dying of malaria is actually the biggest problem with this story - it is the birth-life-death in abject poverty. If they don't die of malaria then they are going to live with nothing (and probably die of something else horrible I would suspect). The actual solution to this sort of problem is what China did - lots of sweatshop labour, slowly scaling up the business opportunities into higher value sectors to the point where they're starting to look quite competitive against European lifestyles. Charity doesn't cut it for getting big fractions of humanity from poverty into the middle class. Then they don't need some billionaire's charity to give them $3 for vaccines. They have incomes of a few thousand dollars and can afford their own medical treatment.

Invictus0 2y ago

Incredible HN comedy gold. YCombinator makes $500k investments into companies to revolutionize industries but $2B to charity "wouldn't make a difference"

roenxi 2y ago
Well, yeah. YC doesn't invest in charity, it invests in things that will have big impacts. YC's raison d'être is finding situations where their impact creates positive wealth-generating feedback loops. Charity is explicitly not about doing that. Without the wealth feedback loop part, small amounts of money don't do much.
MrMcCall 2y ago
"Their minds are confused by confusion." --Bob Marley Most people remain willfully ignorant of their spiritual potential to self-evolve, so sometimes they behave well and other times less so. We must eacho choose to wake from our unconsciousness and consciously embark upon the road to compassion, for there resides our peace and happiness, both individually and collectively.