4 ms·
millionaires and billionaires who donate their wealth to philanthropic causes deserve to be upvoted and recognized.
by NatW 14y ago
millionaires and billionaires who donate their wealth to philanthropic causes deserve to be upvoted and recognized.
- aw3c2 14y agoI would always prefer the wealth coming from inside the system, not being first taken by individuals and then spread at their whim. Such wealth would much rather be a sustainable source. A well functioning society/government would know exactly how to spend it well. In many cases, to me, the good the rich do does not nearly weigh in for their wrongdoings.
- natrius 14y agoYour comment has been downvoted, but there isn't yet an explanation of why it is incorrect. I'll provide my perspective. 1) Zuckerberg didn't "take" wealth. He created it. 2) Governments don't have particular insight into the best ways to spend resources. We spent a couple of decades comparing market economies with command economies, and market economies won.
- jhuni 14y agoWhat wealth did Mark Zuckerberg create?
- S4M 14y agoOne could argue that Facebook helps spreading democracy in some countries, and thanks to Facebook companies can target customers more efficiently.
- jhuni 14y agoWhat countries did Facebook help spread democracy to?
- oscilloscope 14y agoA large social network called Facebook.
- MikeAmelung 14y agoStill $11 below IPO. So much wealth!
- jhuni 14y ago1) Myspace provided a large social network with free web hosting and some PHP doodads before Facebook did. Did Mark Zuckerberg create anything new? 2) Facebook is a weapon deployed against the integrity of human personality. Does facebook quality as wealth considering that it is a destructive force?
- oscilloscope 14y agoI found Facebook useful for finding my roommates and classmates during college. They took away the classmate finding feature, but then it became more accessible and my grandparents could use it. I just used it a moment ago to get my cousin's birthday. That's a lot of value to me. When I share something there, it has the broadest reach of real-world friends on any social network, but that's my personal experience. Facebook is not a weapon. It's a product, definitely, and a medium to some degree. A corporate and focused vision of the internet, sure. A weapon? No.
- jhuni 14y ago
- rms 14y agoA greater degree of connectedness among humans
- jhuni 14y agoFacebook didn't create that but it did allow for the elites to use a greater degree of surveillance against humans then ever before.
- vidarh 14y agoWhat is the "market" in this case? For smaller donations, lots organisations does compete for our sympathies, but larger donations seems to largely go to pet causes of the persons making the donations. I don't see market forces at work there.
- ok_craig 14y agoHis comment also seems to imply that the rich are guilty of wrongdoings simply by virtue of having a lot of money.
- dchichkov 14y ago>> Zuckerberg didn't "take" wealth. He created it. Well, Myspace was kinda destroyed in the process. So let's call it reshaping, refactoring and some creation.
- flyinRyan 14y agoAnd, of course, the fact that he was hired by the two guys who actually came up with this idea, stole the idea from them and purposely lead them along into believing he was working for them when in fact he was competing with them with their own idea. So yea, I'd probably stick with "took wealth".
- theorique 14y agoYour point 1 is basically correct. Just to be pedantic, I'd adjust that to he "created and led the creation of the first versions of a fast-growing system that attracted great investment and wealth", rather than "created" (which suggests out of thin air). Definitely agree with your point 2.
- DodgyEggplant 14y agoIt sounds OK, but Bill Gates case may prove that individuals can do with wealth better service than government. In a way, the government also "takes from the system", and a lot of what it takes is then spread unfairly.
- Tichy 14y agoWhere does your faith on government spending come from? Because I have exactly the opposite impression. The most extreme form of government spending is communism, and that didn't work out at all. The problem with governments is that they spend other people's money, so they have less incentives for being prudent with it.
- aw3c2 14y agoI specifically said "well functioning". I definitely did not meant a corrupt and anti-social government.
- loceng 14y agoIf it's over their tax writeoff benefits - sure.