5 ms·

$1.5 billion. Enough money to live like a king for the rest of your life. And for several generations beyond that. And yet willing to put up such a fight to pr

by chasing 12y ago

$1.5 billion. Enough money to live like a king for the rest of your life. And for several generations beyond that. And yet willing to put up such a fight to prevent other people -- poorer people -- from having an enjoyment entitled to them by law. I'm having a hard time framing this in such a way that doesn't make Khosla seem phenomenally greedy. I really don't understand.

jc123 12y ago
Power can corrupt and wealth is a form of power.
eps 12y ago
It's not greed. It's entitlement stemming from a general feeling of exclusivity and superiority.
sytelus 12y ago
$1.5B is lot but is not enough for what you described. If you really want to live like a king, you want to have multiple properties around the world that are awe inspiring, probably costing few 100 million dollars by itself. Then you would want to have well appointed custom made 777 or may be two. Then may be a couple of fighter jets and small planes. Then may be a huge yatch with hopefully a sub and a heli which usually runs around $200M or more. And remember most of you money you need to keep in investments anyway so you can't spend principal, only the dividends/interests/gains which typically would be under 10% of your networth. Then you need about permanent staff of 100 to maintain all these all the time which itself would cost few million dollars in pay check a month. The truly "vast" networth starts at above $10 billion. At that point you are making $100,000 every waking hour or more.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  This reminds me of a quote from the movie DISCLOSURE (which is otherwise forgettable, outside of horror movie worthy kiss from Donald Sutherland)- "Give a man a hundred million dollars and you make a frustrated billionaire."
onion2k 12y ago
If we're generous in our opinion of him, it's doubtful Khosla wanted to prevent the public from using the beach. What he probably wanted was to prevent the press getting exceptionally close to him and his family, from having founders 'accidentally' meeting him when he was at home, and so on. There is a thing called the 'principle of double effect' (thought up by Thomas Aquinas back in the 13th century; it's not a new thing) that's incredibly important to understanding the world around us - nothing we do has a single, isolated effect. Ever. There are always several causes for things, and many effects. Picking one and assuming that was the reason, or even just the most important reason, is wrong. In this case it's reasonable to think Khosla closed access to the beach for several reasons, and that had several effects, one of which was preventing public access which is why it ended up in court.
- michaelt 12y ago
  What he probably wanted was to prevent [...] founders 'accidentally' meeting him when he was at home, and so on. If a guy buys a house next door to a fire station, and he's woken up by fire engine sirens, I feel a bit bad for him. But he knew when he brought the house there was a fire station opposite. I think the same thing about Khosla's beach access - I feel bad if he's having problems, but he knew the beach access was there when he brought the property.
gambiting 12y ago
What do you not understand? If you lawfully bought land, and now people wanted to have public access to it, would you not at least try to defend it? It doesn't really matter how much money you have, and I don't really understand how it's about rich/poor people either - it's playing on emotions to say "rich person buys beach, poor people don't have access". It has nothing to do with how much money you have - a poor farmer would fight just as ferociously to stop people walking on his property, wouldn't they?
- TheCoelacanth 12y ago
  >If you lawfully bought land, and now people wanted to have public access to it Except it's the opposite. People had public access, then he bought it, then he tried to unlawfully take away public access. If he doesn't want people on his property, he shouldn't have bought property that has a preexisting public easement.

by chasing 12y ago

jc123 12y ago

Power can corrupt and wealth is a form of power.

eps 12y ago

It's not greed. It's entitlement stemming from a general feeling of exclusivity and superiority.

sytelus 12y ago

$1.5B is lot but is not enough for what you described. If you really want to live like a king, you want to have multiple properties around the world that are awe inspiring, probably costing few 100 million dollars by itself. Then you would want to have well appointed custom made 777 or may be two. Then may be a couple of fighter jets and small planes. Then may be a huge yatch with hopefully a sub and a heli which usually runs around $200M or more. And remember most of you money you need to keep in investments anyway so you can't spend principal, only the dividends/interests/gains which typically would be under 10% of your networth. Then you need about permanent staff of 100 to maintain all these all the time which itself would cost few million dollars in pay check a month. The truly "vast" networth starts at above $10 billion. At that point you are making $100,000 every waking hour or more.

waterlesscloud 12y ago
This reminds me of a quote from the movie DISCLOSURE (which is otherwise forgettable, outside of horror movie worthy kiss from Donald Sutherland)- "Give a man a hundred million dollars and you make a frustrated billionaire."

onion2k 12y ago

If we're generous in our opinion of him, it's doubtful Khosla wanted to prevent the public from using the beach. What he probably wanted was to prevent the press getting exceptionally close to him and his family, from having founders 'accidentally' meeting him when he was at home, and so on. There is a thing called the 'principle of double effect' (thought up by Thomas Aquinas back in the 13th century; it's not a new thing) that's incredibly important to understanding the world around us - nothing we do has a single, isolated effect. Ever. There are always several causes for things, and many effects. Picking one and assuming that was the reason, or even just the most important reason, is wrong. In this case it's reasonable to think Khosla closed access to the beach for several reasons, and that had several effects, one of which was preventing public access which is why it ended up in court.

michaelt 12y ago
What he probably wanted was to prevent [...] founders 'accidentally' meeting him when he was at home, and so on. If a guy buys a house next door to a fire station, and he's woken up by fire engine sirens, I feel a bit bad for him. But he knew when he brought the house there was a fire station opposite. I think the same thing about Khosla's beach access - I feel bad if he's having problems, but he knew the beach access was there when he brought the property.

gambiting 12y ago

What do you not understand? If you lawfully bought land, and now people wanted to have public access to it, would you not at least try to defend it? It doesn't really matter how much money you have, and I don't really understand how it's about rich/poor people either - it's playing on emotions to say "rich person buys beach, poor people don't have access". It has nothing to do with how much money you have - a poor farmer would fight just as ferociously to stop people walking on his property, wouldn't they?

TheCoelacanth 12y ago
>If you lawfully bought land, and now people wanted to have public access to it Except it's the opposite. People had public access, then he bought it, then he tried to unlawfully take away public access. If he doesn't want people on his property, he shouldn't have bought property that has a preexisting public easement.