4 ms·

The incentives for the ultra-rich are screwed up. I remember a few years ago Mark Zuckerberg announced that he was donating 99% to charity. The internet got v

The incentives for the ultra-rich are screwed up. I remember a few years ago Mark Zuckerberg announced that he was donating 99% to charity. The internet got very angry about it, based on flimsy reasoning: https://qz.com/564805/5-criticisms-of-billionaire-mega-philanthropy-debunked https://qz.com/564805/5-criticisms-of-billionaire-mega-phila... Bill Gates has saved millions of lives through his philanthropy, and the internet is full of malicious rumors about him. Other billionaires who do far less good, but keep a lower profile, get much less hate. A common meme on the internet is "if your intent was truly charitable, you wouldn't care whether anyone said thank you". But this is a false dichotomy. Many people find the idea of charity appealing to some degree, but most of us aren't die-hard saints either. When we see the good deeds of others get devalued or even punished, that makes us less enthusiastic about doing good ourselves. "Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome." Punishing do-gooders is one of the most anti-social things you can do. On the other hand, praising do-gooders is a very cheap way to incentivize people to do more good in the world. I believe that once you get to a certain level of wealth, you start caring more about your personal reputation than your material goods. Sadly, there is so much reflexive skepticism towards billionaire philanthropy at this point that it's not even clear to me whether doing philanthropy is reputationally net-positive.

Gud 1y ago
Bill Gates gets a lot of hate for good reason. His business practices killed off a lot of good products. BeOS, anyone?
- keeda 1y ago
  This article, and Google's and Bing's AI overviews for "how did microsoft kill off beos", disagree with that premise: https://lowendmac.com/myturn/02/0403.html https://lowendmac.com/myturn/02/0403.html (Edited to add, another more detailed article: https://macfolkloreradio.com/be/ https://macfolkloreradio.com/be/) People make this claim about a lot of software (Netscape being the poster child) but typically whenever I look into it, the nuanced answer turns out to be "Microsoft may have thrown it's weight around, but the product largely failed on it's own merits."
  - alwillis 1y ago
    Except for education, you had to buy a browser. You could go to a CompUSA and buy a copy of Netscape Navigator. Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer for free with Windows, essentially destroying Netscape’s business overnight.
    - keeda 1y ago
      Sure, and there was a huge antitrust trial about it too, and we all knew how it turned out. The trial surfaced a whole bunch of shady stuff, but that was more related to them abusing their monopoly position (i.e. "throwing their weight around"). Netscape died because: 1) Browsers were destined to be a commodity, given the first browsers (like Mosaic) were effectively free, and even then it was clear that a browser would be as critical a component of a consumer OS as, say, a file explorer or a calculator. 2) Netscape simply was an inferior product compared to IE and other browsers like Opera (which survived despite IE being free and Microsoft's shenanigans, and is a thing to this day.)
      - youngtaff 1y ago
        > Netscape simply was an inferior product compared to IE The book of the battle - Competing for the Future - makes it clear how much of a mess Netscape was in internally Essentially they had alternate code bases for every other version of the browser and we forever porting feature and bugs between the two (and often forgetting and so getting regressions)
- mvdtnz 1y ago
  You're right. On one hand he has saved millions of lives and nearly eradicated some diseases in developing countries. On the other hand we could have had another computer operating system. Really tough to balance.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
  For the sake of preventing perverse incentives, I would encourage you to just make this claim in discussions of BeOS or perhaps early Windows, and not when Bill's philanthropy comes up. Otherwise other billionaires will think: "If I get into philanthropy, people will take it as an opportunity to publicize un-flattering facts about me."
- ta1243 1y ago
  His business practices in the 90s and 00s were terrible. His actions since then have been far better. The hate he gets now tend to be from people attacking his more recent actions. "Trying to cure malaria - clearly mind control" sort of stuff.
  - adhamsalama 1y ago
    Well, his company does help Israel in its genocide against Palestinians.
    - liveoneggs 1y ago
      the gates foundation?
      - adhamsalama 1y ago
        Microsoft.
canucker2016 1y ago
In Bill Gates's post about changing his charitable giving goal to give most of it away in the next 20 years, he references Chuck Feeney as someone he admired. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Feeney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Feeney Until he was 75, he traveled only in coach, and carried reading materials in a plastic bag." He did not own a car or a house and wore a $10 Casio F-91W watch He gave away most of his fortune and required recipients not to reveal the source of the donation.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
  >He gave away most of his fortune and required recipients not to reveal the source of the donation. I suppose that's one way to avoid the bad press :-P
  - albumen 1y ago
    Wiki: "Beyond Mr. Feeney's reticence about blowing his own horn, 'it was also a way to leverage more donations—some other individual might contribute to get the naming rights.'" NYT article(1): ..when asked what had driven him into such deep secrecy: “I feel it’s my life,” Mr. Feeney said. “I’d be the last guy to tell a wealthy person what to do with their money. They’re entitled to do whatever they want.” quote from his kid: "...he sheltered us from people using the money to treat us differently,” Leslie Feeney Baily said. “It made us normal people.” when asked why he had chosen to reveal himself: “A lot of wealthy people, they don’t realize they have the alternatives of spending the money for good,” he said. “If they knew it gives so much satisfaction, I wouldn’t have to persuade them." (1): https://archive.ph/gLfLY https://archive.ph/gLfLY
viraptor 1y ago
> Bill Gates has saved millions of lives through his philanthropy, and the internet is full of malicious rumors about him. But that's not related to his philanthropy mostly. There's evil business stuff he actually did and there are some conspiracy freaks. Those would exist anyway. But I've never seen a significant number of people with criticisms because of the programs he enables.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
  The conspiracy freaks around vaccines wouldn't exist if it weren't for his philanthropy. I just don't like to see someone punished for good-faith efforts to do good.
bjourne 1y ago
Gates giving away his money is good, but it would be better for the billionaire class not to exist. Money is power is a zero sum game.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
  >Money is power is a zero sum game. Just the opposite. By engaging in positive-sum transactions, society as a whole becomes wealthier. That's how economic growth occurs. Not everything is accurately seen through this nihilistic, conspiratorial power lens.
  - bjourne 1y ago
    Nothing nihilistic or conspiratorial about it. Money gives you power over other people. You having more power over others means by definition that they have less power -> Zero sum.
- geodel 1y ago
  Huh, earth would be better if human as species don't exist.
isaacremuant 1y ago
This is a disingenuous post. Philanthropy is often used a strategy to lobby politicians and drive policy that benefits other investments while avoiding most taxes. Nobody voted people like Bill Gates to have such a massive influence over media and institutions via "donations". If you knew anything about NGOs and politics you wouldn't simply go for "They're asking for or donating money so they're obviously awesome, their intentions are great and it's a net positive". Calling skepticism reflective is like saying that if you think your company doesn't have your best interest at heart like it says you're being paranoid.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
  >Philanthropy is often used a strategy to lobby politicians and drive policy that benefits other investments while avoiding most taxes. Forbes estimates that Gates would be a trillionaire if it weren't for his philanthropy. Perhaps some philanthropists pursue the strategy you describe, but it's unreasonable to assume this is their strategy by default. >Nobody voted people like Bill Gates to have such a massive influence over media and institutions via "donations". In a free society, not everything people do needs to be authorized by the government. I believe that Gates has sincere concern about the well-being of people in the developing world, so it doesn't particularly bother me when he lobbies on their behalf. Insofar as cynicism is justified, it should be easy to provide concrete and compelling evidence that Gates has bad intentions in his philanthropy. So why isn't there any such evidence in your comment?

Gud 1y ago

Bill Gates gets a lot of hate for good reason. His business practices killed off a lot of good products. BeOS, anyone?

keeda 1y ago
This article, and Google's and Bing's AI overviews for "how did microsoft kill off beos", disagree with that premise: https://lowendmac.com/myturn/02/0403.html https://lowendmac.com/myturn/02/0403.html (Edited to add, another more detailed article: https://macfolkloreradio.com/be/ https://macfolkloreradio.com/be/) People make this claim about a lot of software (Netscape being the poster child) but typically whenever I look into it, the nuanced answer turns out to be "Microsoft may have thrown it's weight around, but the product largely failed on it's own merits."
- alwillis 1y ago
  Except for education, you had to buy a browser. You could go to a CompUSA and buy a copy of Netscape Navigator. Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer for free with Windows, essentially destroying Netscape’s business overnight.
  - keeda 1y ago
    Sure, and there was a huge antitrust trial about it too, and we all knew how it turned out. The trial surfaced a whole bunch of shady stuff, but that was more related to them abusing their monopoly position (i.e. "throwing their weight around"). Netscape died because: 1) Browsers were destined to be a commodity, given the first browsers (like Mosaic) were effectively free, and even then it was clear that a browser would be as critical a component of a consumer OS as, say, a file explorer or a calculator. 2) Netscape simply was an inferior product compared to IE and other browsers like Opera (which survived despite IE being free and Microsoft's shenanigans, and is a thing to this day.)
    - youngtaff 1y ago
      > Netscape simply was an inferior product compared to IE The book of the battle - Competing for the Future - makes it clear how much of a mess Netscape was in internally Essentially they had alternate code bases for every other version of the browser and we forever porting feature and bugs between the two (and often forgetting and so getting regressions)
mvdtnz 1y ago
You're right. On one hand he has saved millions of lives and nearly eradicated some diseases in developing countries. On the other hand we could have had another computer operating system. Really tough to balance.
0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
For the sake of preventing perverse incentives, I would encourage you to just make this claim in discussions of BeOS or perhaps early Windows, and not when Bill's philanthropy comes up. Otherwise other billionaires will think: "If I get into philanthropy, people will take it as an opportunity to publicize un-flattering facts about me."
ta1243 1y ago
His business practices in the 90s and 00s were terrible. His actions since then have been far better. The hate he gets now tend to be from people attacking his more recent actions. "Trying to cure malaria - clearly mind control" sort of stuff.
- adhamsalama 1y ago
  Well, his company does help Israel in its genocide against Palestinians.
  - liveoneggs 1y ago
    the gates foundation?
    - adhamsalama 1y ago
      Microsoft.

canucker2016 1y ago

In Bill Gates's post about changing his charitable giving goal to give most of it away in the next 20 years, he references Chuck Feeney as someone he admired. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Feeney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Feeney Until he was 75, he traveled only in coach, and carried reading materials in a plastic bag." He did not own a car or a house and wore a $10 Casio F-91W watch He gave away most of his fortune and required recipients not to reveal the source of the donation.

0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
>He gave away most of his fortune and required recipients not to reveal the source of the donation. I suppose that's one way to avoid the bad press :-P
- albumen 1y ago
  Wiki: "Beyond Mr. Feeney's reticence about blowing his own horn, 'it was also a way to leverage more donations—some other individual might contribute to get the naming rights.'" NYT article(1): ..when asked what had driven him into such deep secrecy: “I feel it’s my life,” Mr. Feeney said. “I’d be the last guy to tell a wealthy person what to do with their money. They’re entitled to do whatever they want.” quote from his kid: "...he sheltered us from people using the money to treat us differently,” Leslie Feeney Baily said. “It made us normal people.” when asked why he had chosen to reveal himself: “A lot of wealthy people, they don’t realize they have the alternatives of spending the money for good,” he said. “If they knew it gives so much satisfaction, I wouldn’t have to persuade them." (1): https://archive.ph/gLfLY https://archive.ph/gLfLY

viraptor 1y ago

> Bill Gates has saved millions of lives through his philanthropy, and the internet is full of malicious rumors about him. But that's not related to his philanthropy mostly. There's evil business stuff he actually did and there are some conspiracy freaks. Those would exist anyway. But I've never seen a significant number of people with criticisms because of the programs he enables.

0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
The conspiracy freaks around vaccines wouldn't exist if it weren't for his philanthropy. I just don't like to see someone punished for good-faith efforts to do good.

bjourne 1y ago

Gates giving away his money is good, but it would be better for the billionaire class not to exist. Money is power is a zero sum game.

0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
>Money is power is a zero sum game. Just the opposite. By engaging in positive-sum transactions, society as a whole becomes wealthier. That's how economic growth occurs. Not everything is accurately seen through this nihilistic, conspiratorial power lens.
- bjourne 1y ago
  Nothing nihilistic or conspiratorial about it. Money gives you power over other people. You having more power over others means by definition that they have less power -> Zero sum.
geodel 1y ago
Huh, earth would be better if human as species don't exist.

isaacremuant 1y ago

This is a disingenuous post. Philanthropy is often used a strategy to lobby politicians and drive policy that benefits other investments while avoiding most taxes. Nobody voted people like Bill Gates to have such a massive influence over media and institutions via "donations". If you knew anything about NGOs and politics you wouldn't simply go for "They're asking for or donating money so they're obviously awesome, their intentions are great and it's a net positive". Calling skepticism reflective is like saying that if you think your company doesn't have your best interest at heart like it says you're being paranoid.

0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
>Philanthropy is often used a strategy to lobby politicians and drive policy that benefits other investments while avoiding most taxes. Forbes estimates that Gates would be a trillionaire if it weren't for his philanthropy. Perhaps some philanthropists pursue the strategy you describe, but it's unreasonable to assume this is their strategy by default. >Nobody voted people like Bill Gates to have such a massive influence over media and institutions via "donations". In a free society, not everything people do needs to be authorized by the government. I believe that Gates has sincere concern about the well-being of people in the developing world, so it doesn't particularly bother me when he lobbies on their behalf. Insofar as cynicism is justified, it should be easy to provide concrete and compelling evidence that Gates has bad intentions in his philanthropy. So why isn't there any such evidence in your comment?