7 ms·
What's more important is that he produced that much money. You can't give away what you haven't produced.
by Randgalt 14y ago
What's more important is that he produced that much money. You can't give away what you haven't produced.
- PavlovsCat 14y agoHow does one "produce" or "make" money? I was always under the impression it basically just gets shifted around.. yeah, you first have to attract a lot of mass before you can repel it again, but that ain't making mass.
- PavlovsCat 14y agoHere's a radical idea: instead of passive-aggressively determing this does "not add to the discussion" you might simply try to answer the question. After all, people (surely on here) say making money this and making money that all day long; and while needed, pointing out how dumb that is will not ever be "on-topic", so I attached the (trick) question to a comment that is sure to remain at the bottom of the discussion. If it rubs you the wrong way it's probably for a reason; good luck with that. I didn't imply Bill Gates never produced any value, any such crap is solely in your head as well.
- civilian 14y agoCreating wealth is not a zero-sum game. So your phrase: "I was always under the impression it basically just gets shifted around" is wrong. Basic economics, man. The extension of this is that if you've accumulated great wealth (through the market, rather than through dictatorship or government) then you have also generated great wealth for your business customers or clients. But that wealth will be more spread out.
- _delirium 14y agoThe fact that wealth is not a zero-sum game doesn't mean that your second claim follows: it is not the case that all transactions are positive-sum. Not all accumulation of wealth produces a multiplier; it's possible to make a fortune by siphoning off money with no net creation of wealth, or even by net destroying some.
- PavlovsCat 14y agoCreating wealth is not a zero-sum game. That's great; "making money" however is, seeing how there is a fixed amount in circulation.
- vy8vWJlco 14y agoEvery bank loan is new money in, at minimum, the form of an interest charge (but more often on some or all of the principal too). The principal+interest paid to the bank is more than the principal alone, even in the simplest case. In either case, however, the bank has "made" money (but not wealth or value) and devalued (inflated) the paper currency in circulation. (You, however, are expected to make value with the capacity to transact that has been loaned to you). In the case of almost everyone else however, I agree: people are largely competing for the pre-existing numbers. But banks get to make them up, and that function is independent of the printing of currency. The actual currency is just printed as needed to facilitate trade, satisfying debts, and hopefully the creation of wealth; hopefully the wealth created is enough to counter the wealth removed, because otherwise there's lots of vacuums running around sucking up value. Oddly, most modern countries accumulate interest-bearing public debt (inflation and interest), employing banks as lenders, instead of just printing the money (currency) to spend on worthwhile projects and to remove from circulation when they're done.
- jongalloway2 14y agoHow does that work? Back at the big bang, there were 0 dollars, euros, rupees, etc. Now there are many.
- pimentel 14y agoRead this Paul Graham's essay: http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html
- argimenes 14y agoNope. What's more important is that he spent the money on humanitarian causes, to try and better the world. He could have just bought islands for himself.
- gamblor956 14y agoAgreed, I'm reminded of another SV billionaire, who emphatically chose not to donate to any causes until shortly before his death...and even then, only to causes which would have personally benefited him.
- quesera 14y agoYou know nothing of which you speak.
- gamblor956 14y agoSteve Jobs believed that Apple products were better for people than charitable giving like food, clothing, shelter, or medical care. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-10-11/news/34365188_1_walter-isaacson-isaacson-s-steve-jobs-apple-products http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-10-11/news... "Despite accumulating an estimated $8.3 billion fortune...there is no public record of Mr. Jobs giving money to charity..." "in 1997, when Mr. Jobs returned to Apple, he closed the company’s philanthropic programs." http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/the-mystery-of-steve-jobss-public-giving/ http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/the-mystery-of-steve-... "And it wasn’t until after an unflattering media report about Jobs on the subject over the summer, that Apple in September initiated a “matching gifts” program, under which donations to philanthropies made by employees are matched by the company." http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-10-06/business/35277092_1_philanthropy-steve-jobs-jobs-and-apple http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-10-06/business/35277... This was just the first 3 results of the google search. There are hundreds of more sources to choose from.
- doktrin 14y agoCan you cite some evidence to the contrary? I'm tempted to say it's you who may be mis-informed.
- Klinky 14y agoBefore going too far down that road, it might also be a good idea to consider how he produced that much money. It's not entirely pretty.
- onedev 14y agoI sincerely don't think there is a "pretty way" to make ~$60b. You're going to have to be willing to be a hard ass and take some unethical routes.
- Xcelerate 14y agoI think that's an unfounded assumption.
- onedev 14y agoYou're right, but I don't think it's a ridiculous one to make.
- crdoconnor 14y agoName somebody who has made that much money ethically.
- philwelch 14y agoWarren Buffett?
- bjelkeman-again 14y agoI would argue that he is an outlier.
- philwelch 14y agoFortunately, all that was asked for was an existence proof.
- 14y ago
- Evbn 14y agoYour trolling will work better under a less telegraphic username. You can give away what you obtain, regardless of who produced it.
- hect0r 14y agoExactly. And let's not forget that Microsoft -- as a corporation -- as no responsibilities other than to make money for its shareholders and, as CEO, Bill Gates had likewise no responsibility beyond making money for his employers (i.e. shareholders). So talk about what Microsoft did or did not do is disingenuous since it is people, not corporations, that have moral or social responsibilities. Therefore, what Bill Gates has done is extremely praiseworthy as he has spent his own personal wealth and it is not diminished by whatever Microsoft may have done to give him that wealth.