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

Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 225 posts

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#41

Post by merpnderp »

RHSeeger wrote: post #23
HiLo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You take it as a given that the private sector is well-run and wise. Nobody is saying either solution is great. All it's saying is that: wouldn't it be better to have all this power be in the hands of the democratically chosen, versus billionaires who may or may not be making relevant investments? edit: Just downvotes, no response?

I take it as a given that, when a private individual uses their money, at least one person probably thought the way it was used was a good idea. I do not take it as a given that, when the government spends money, anyone thought how it was spent was a good idea (like spending 8 billion dollars to design a tank... yes, that's billions, with a "b" (also, I love that movie))

Well the parasitic corporate/government relationship thought it was a good idea. But few hosts care to listen to the votes of their parasites. And it wasn't really a tank, but some sort of useless hybrid designed to maximize the number of US casualties in any conflict with a modern army. I kid, that's just the side effect of maximizing the amount of graft which flowed into the companies involved and then back into the hands of the politicians involved.

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#42

Post by moistgorilla »

Retric wrote: post #25
Afforess wrote: post #2

There is no real explanation for why the pledge is "bad" except for the tired argument that the state is good and private foundations imitating the state are bad . There is no further clarification or explanation; We are supposed to accept this as some sort of given, without pretext or afterthought. Articles like this are bad .

Private charities have on average been terribly inefficient in the US. However, in terms of Conspicuous consumption ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption ) they are better than building ever larger boats.

do you have a source for that statement and does that source take into account the basically fraudulent "charities" that exist to pay their ceos

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#43

Post by HiLo »

Afforess wrote: post #27
HiLo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? It has much more than that?

Pretty sure it doesn't. Feel free to provide quotes / evidence if you disagree.

Does that discussion of his $100 million donation simply not count in your book? Did it not show up in your browser?

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#44

Post by jMyles »

HiLo wrote: post #9
jey wrote: post #3

This guy takes it as a given that the Government is well-run and wise. But what's the practical alternative for someone who instead thinks that the current political environment is toxic and insane?

You take it as a given that the private sector is well-run and wise. Nobody is saying either solution is great. All it's saying is that: wouldn't it be better to have all this power be in the hands of the democratically chosen, versus billionaires who may or may not be making relevant investments? edit: Just downvotes, no response?

I upvoted you, but disagree with your assessment.

> wouldn't it be better to have all this power be in the hands of the democratically chosen

In a word: no.

Although the state spends some money on things that aren't abhorrent - broken clock politics as it were - it also spends money killing, torturing, and imprisoning people.

So I think it's a very defensible moral stand to give the state as little money as possible.

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#45

Post by lloyddobbler »

guntars wrote: post #10
Afforess wrote: post #2

There is no real explanation for why the pledge is "bad" except for the tired argument that the state is good and private foundations imitating the state are bad . There is no further clarification or explanation; We are supposed to accept this as some sort of given, without pretext or afterthought. Articles like this are bad .

The explanation is that it's the government (or rather the people) that's subsidizing the charitable work of the billionaires via tax breaks, but giving up any say in how the money is used.

If the money always belonged to the state, and the state simply allows its constituents to keep some of the money they earn, your logic stands.

But if the money ever belonged to the individual, then the public cannot "subsidize" the individual keeping what he/she earned.

Put another way: if I walk up to someone on the street and forcibly take their money - and if that wasn't mine to begin with - most people would call that 'stealing' (or at least 'coercion' of some sort). If I chose to not forcibly take their money, and they then give that money to the homeless person on the corner, I'm not "subsidizing" the person whose money I didn't forcibly take.

It was theirs to begin with - not mine.

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#47

Post by jsprogrammer »

bmmayer1 wrote: post #26
HiLo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You take it as a given that the private sector is well-run and wise. Nobody is saying either solution is great. All it's saying is that: wouldn't it be better to have all this power be in the hands of the democratically chosen, versus billionaires who may or may not be making relevant investments? edit: Just downvotes, no response?

"wouldn't it be better to have all this power be in the hands of the democratically chosen" This assumes the money in question belongs to the state to begin with, and we're merely deciding how it is to be allocated. That is not the case. This is not the rich deciding what to do with the public money, it's the rich deciding what to do with their own money. I think we would all agree, regardless of level of income, we…

The money does belong to the state. Examine the front and back of any bill.

Where do you think Federal Reserve Notes come from?

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#48

Post by lloyddobbler »

jobu wrote: post #13
Afforess wrote: post #2

There is no real explanation for why the pledge is "bad" except for the tired argument that the state is good and private foundations imitating the state are bad . There is no further clarification or explanation; We are supposed to accept this as some sort of given, without pretext or afterthought. Articles like this are bad .

Agreed. The article boils down to this: Krämer: "It is all just a bad transfer of power from the state to billionaires." It's just a philosophical difference in opinion about who should decide what to do with the money - elected officials or billionaires.

It's just a philosophical difference in opinion about who should decide what to do with the billionaires' money - elected officials or billionaires.

Fixed that for you.

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#49

Post by mynameishere »

It depends on what you like. Many people are probably happy that organizations like the Ford Foundation will advocate globalist left-wing anti-Americanism forever. Bill and Warren and Mark's money will do the same as well, no matter their intentions. O'Sullivan's law.

There's no point in arguing about whether the state is better suited to handle the money. It would actually be better off cashed out, piled up, and burnt. Literally. A tiny deflationary event vs. eternal troublemaking.

Post reply on HN