Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zuckerbergs' New “Primary School”: Private but Free

csmonitor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 81 posts

Re: Zuckerbergs' New “Primary School”: Private but Free

#31

Post by forrestthewoods »

cptmeister wrote: post #5

That's great for the community, but in a larger sense we should question what the point is of amassing huge concentrated wealth and then giving a small part (or even a large part) back to make isolated positive impacts. Wouldn't it be better if it was impossible to amass that concentration of wealth in the first place? Then the token donations would not be necessary. This is not supposed to be a cynical post, but thi…

No it wouldn't be better. Wealth is not zero sum. Accumulation of wealth does not mean other people are denied wealth.

Re: Zuckerbergs' New “Primary School”: Private but Free

#32

Post by [deleted] »

cptmeister wrote: post #5

That's great for the community, but in a larger sense we should question what the point is of amassing huge concentrated wealth and then giving a small part (or even a large part) back to make isolated positive impacts. Wouldn't it be better if it was impossible to amass that concentration of wealth in the first place? Then the token donations would not be necessary. This is not supposed to be a cynical post, but thi…

[deleted]

Re: Zuckerbergs' New “Primary School”: Private but Free

#33

Post by josephagoss »

cptmeister wrote: post #5

That's great for the community, but in a larger sense we should question what the point is of amassing huge concentrated wealth and then giving a small part (or even a large part) back to make isolated positive impacts. Wouldn't it be better if it was impossible to amass that concentration of wealth in the first place? Then the token donations would not be necessary. This is not supposed to be a cynical post, but thi…

> Wouldn't it be better if it was impossible to amass that concentration of wealth in the first place?

Just curious, but that would deny many millionaires and billionaires the chance to change the world. For sure, SpaceX and Tesla probably would not exist [1].

I'm surprised that this sentiment is growing among many people that somehow they believe the Government is going to be better at experimenting and managing these types of far out projects rather than the free market.

SpaceX has probably the most advanced rockets in the world, far surpassing that of all other countries.

I am not sure I want the future of our species solely in the hands of politicians and not giving private enterprise a chance to rise up and have a shot.

If I misunderstood the gist of your post, I do apologise.

[1] I know they both have taken Government money, but both Tesla and SpaceX could not have been started by a Government politician or employee.

Re: Zuckerbergs' New “Primary School”: Private but Free

#34

Post by mgraczyk »

cptmeister wrote: post #5

That's great for the community, but in a larger sense we should question what the point is of amassing huge concentrated wealth and then giving a small part (or even a large part) back to make isolated positive impacts. Wouldn't it be better if it was impossible to amass that concentration of wealth in the first place? Then the token donations would not be necessary. This is not supposed to be a cynical post, but thi…

Where would the incentive be to try risky experimental business ventures? To invent new things? I think you underestimate the motivating power of economic opportunity.

It's wise to let those who are good at allocating resources be in charge of allocating resources. The best way to decide who is good at allocating resources is to create a system in which those who are good at allocating resources have opportunities to do so.

Re: Zuckerbergs' New “Primary School”: Private but Free

#35

Post by skwirl »

cptmeister wrote: post #5

That's great for the community, but in a larger sense we should question what the point is of amassing huge concentrated wealth and then giving a small part (or even a large part) back to make isolated positive impacts. Wouldn't it be better if it was impossible to amass that concentration of wealth in the first place? Then the token donations would not be necessary. This is not supposed to be a cynical post, but thi…

The wealth isn't "amassed," it is created. It hasn't been taken from anyone else. But I'm guessing you wouldn't ask "Wouldn't it be better if it was impossible to create that much wealth in the first place?"

Re: Zuckerbergs' New “Primary School”: Private but Free

#36

Post by noobermin »

josephagoss wrote: post #33
cptmeister wrote: post #5

That's great for the community, but in a larger sense we should question what the point is of amassing huge concentrated wealth and then giving a small part (or even a large part) back to make isolated positive impacts. Wouldn't it be better if it was impossible to amass that concentration of wealth in the first place? Then the token donations would not be necessary. This is not supposed to be a cynical post, but thi…

> Wouldn't it be better if it was impossible to amass that concentration of wealth in the first place? Just curious, but that would deny many millionaires and billionaires the chance to change the world. For sure, SpaceX and Tesla probably would not exist [1]. I'm surprised that this sentiment is growing among many people that somehow they believe the Government is going to be better at experimenting and managing the…

Let's see, going to the moon, the internet, the atomic bomb, the space shuttle...I think the government has proven to be effect in the past. Not that the free market hasn't been effective too, but one might make the mistake of serious selection bias to really believe that the government can't perform "far out projects" well, especially when the will to perform them doesn't exist in the free market yet.

Re: Zuckerbergs' New “Primary School”: Private but Free

#37

Post by tellthetruth1 »

cptmeister wrote: post #5

That's great for the community, but in a larger sense we should question what the point is of amassing huge concentrated wealth and then giving a small part (or even a large part) back to make isolated positive impacts. Wouldn't it be better if it was impossible to amass that concentration of wealth in the first place? Then the token donations would not be necessary. This is not supposed to be a cynical post, but thi…

They have done it before. It is called communism. Nobody can can amass any wealth. No one has any incentive to start a company. Everybody is an employee, of the government. Guess how that turned out?

I wonder why these days we still have people think that's a good idea? Is it a sign of lack of education, or lack of common sense, or lack of critical thinking skill?

Re: Zuckerbergs' New “Primary School”: Private but Free

#38

Post by gaelenh »

andreyf wrote: post #9

If this works, can it be used as an example for better public schools? Even if it's more expensive, one can argue that the increased productivity of well educated kids outweighs the cost of their education.

Their new school seems to follow the community school model. Community schools provide classes for parents, wrap around services, dental, medical, social workers, etc. They are fairly popular in urban school districts, though their efficacy hasn't really been proven (though nothing truly ever is in K-12 edu).

Re: Zuckerbergs' New “Primary School”: Private but Free

#40

Post by mentat »

noobermin wrote: post #36
josephagoss wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wouldn't it be better if it was impossible to amass that concentration of wealth in the first place? Just curious, but that would deny many millionaires and billionaires the chance to change the world. For sure, SpaceX and Tesla probably would not exist [1]. I'm surprised that this sentiment is growing among many people that somehow they believe the Government is going to be better at experimenting and managing the…

Let's see, going to the moon, the internet, the atomic bomb, the space shuttle...I think the government has proven to be effect in the past. Not that the free market hasn't been effective too, but one might make the mistake of serious selection bias to really believe that the government can't perform "far out projects" well, especially when the will to perform them doesn't exist in the free market yet.

The Internet wasn't the Internet before the Commercial Internet Exchange (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Internet_eXchange). I'm not sure how much credit the government can take for what it is now really. The space shuttle is no longer in service and failed with significant fatalities more than once. The atomic bomb is one of the most horrific technologies which exists. I'm not sure you're making your case with these.
Post reply on HN