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

101–110 of 225 posts

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

#101

Post by merpnderp »

radicalbyte wrote: post #11

The problem with the American system isn't the culture of direct donations from private individuals. The problem is that too few people have the means to give: it's the distribution of wealth. A culture where private people donate is really attractive. I know that I get a lot of joy when I help people out - I donate regularly to the causes I feel important (mainly Africa, as a Brit living in Netherlands I figure I ow…

In the US a lot of people who aren't billionaires or even millionaires donate a lot of money. And people donate a lot of time to their causes.

http://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-gi...

http://nccs.urban.org/nccs/statistics/Charitable-Giving-in-A...

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

#102

Post by cjbenedikt »

There are two trains of thought in the comment section: one that argues because the billionaire made the money himself (unless he/she inherited it) he/she should be entitled to distribute it and the other that he/she may be better positioned to do so than the state. You can argue that the billionaire was only able to make so much money because the country/state he/she lives in provided the necessary infrastructure and environment. Paid for by the tax payer. As Warren Buffett famously said:"Had I been less fortunate and be borne in another country I probably would have become lion fodder." Hence, he/she should pay his taxes as a payback to the taxpayer. You can also argue that the billionaire, because he/she is so successful, must be better in determining what to do with his/her money than the state. However, research suggests that many successful entrepreneurs had significant luck (as Buffett's quote suggests too). Take successful hedge fund managers for example. It also runs against the idea of Democracy. Because if you follow through with this line of thought you may well abolish any elections and leave it to the billionaires to decide who rules - which is almost the case in the US, isn't it?

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

#103

Post by HiLo »

6stringmerc wrote: post #75
merpnderp wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make it sound like Zuckerberg's donation in Newark happened in a vacuum. It happened in tight collaboration with the school system, who stated needs and approved every step of the process. It's not like Zuckerberg stepped in and said "you shall obey!!!" Course in this case it just turned out that not only could the democratically elected government of Newark magically waste all their tax revenue, they were excell…

I do find it rather disheartening that a tech inventor and a PhD in Biology are being looked to as legitimate critics and saviors of public education.

This is actually a pretty solid 1-line summary of the whole problem.

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

#104

Post by dragonwriter »

lloyddobbler wrote: post #45
guntars wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cal…

> But if the money ever belonged to the individual

Nothing belongs to (as distinct from being immediately, physically controlled by) anyone except in the sense that social convention grants them some, usually limited, exclusive control over it.

The typical avenue through which that social convention for both the right to control and its limitations is expressed in the modern world is the institution of the State via law (most obviously, property law, but the whole body of law, including tax and other civil and criminal law, addresses either the rights to control or its limitations.)

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

#105

Post by merpnderp »

6stringmerc wrote: post #75
merpnderp wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make it sound like Zuckerberg's donation in Newark happened in a vacuum. It happened in tight collaboration with the school system, who stated needs and approved every step of the process. It's not like Zuckerberg stepped in and said "you shall obey!!!" Course in this case it just turned out that not only could the democratically elected government of Newark magically waste all their tax revenue, they were excell…

I do find it rather disheartening that a tech inventor and a PhD in Biology are being looked to as legitimate critics and saviors of public education.

Makes sense as the PhD's and government "experts" in education gave us the unpopular and widely criticized No Child Left Behind and Common Core, which hasn't done anything to stem the flood of unprepared kids going to college and the work force.

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

#106

Post by HiLo »

saosebastiao wrote: post #96
HiLo wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compare the Federal Reserve to many of these subprime "technology driven" lending startups. Who is more professionally staffed? Compare the NSA to Palantir. Compare NASA to SpaceX. Compare the Treasury to Enron. Compare Bell Labs with WorldCom. Your argument isn't as strong as your Econ 101 textbook made it out to be.

Do silly and subjective comparisons of handpicked outliers come in Econ 102? What exactly did I say that has anything to do with Econ 101? It isn't even an economic argument.

>All that is necessary is for the private sector to be better run and wiser than the government.

Many economists would consider this to be a problem that falls under their realm of expertise.

Can you provide counterexamples? If you look, there is plenty of competency in both sectors.

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

#107

Post by vezzy-fnord »

anon4 wrote: post #81
lloyddobbler wrote: post #15

> I find the US initiative highly problematic. You can write donations off in your taxes to a large degree in the USA. So the rich make a choice: Would I rather donate or pay taxes? The donors are taking the place of the state. That's unacceptable. Or flip that around - is Krämer's implied solution not a case of the state taking the place of the individual? Put another way, if you founded a company, created thousands…

No single man should wield so much power. That's part of the foundation of modern democracy -- we don't want any single person having unchecked power to do as he or she wants. Krämer's solution is the state taking the place of the individual, as intended in the democratic model. Otherwise you have an effective monarchy, with the only difference that power isn't only inherited, but can be acquired via mercantile means…

I don't want the shape of my country to be decided by the whims of a super-rich elite.

But this is what inevitably happens in public choice as a state expands. Once you delegate all regulatory rights to a central exogenous body, it will be exploited by elites and a symbiotic relationship will form as the state develops special interests of its own.

Hence the need for extensive decentralization, and yes, individualism.

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

#108

Post by chrisabrams »

HiLo wrote: post #83
marknutter wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because the structure that enabled you to amass that amount of wealth is flawed, and disproportionately rewards "you" over the network that actually did much of the heavy lifting This thinking is so poisonous and destructive and pervasive that I'm starting to wonder if it is either due to some natural law of human nature or some grand conspiracy to destroy modern society. Businesses are not built on the charity of…

I could say the same about your black and white thinking using outdated Chicago/Neoclassic economic theories when applied to aggregate economies, but I digress. I didn't say they were built on the charity of the system, just that they were built using the system. You act like the first 50 employees of your stupid app company aren't taking a risk too. But they get 0.01%, while the founders get...? Fairly early on, you…

No one forced the employees to take 0.01%.

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

#109

Post by slavik81 »

HiLo wrote: post #97
slavik81 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality is that the details of how money is spent are in the hands of bureaucrats. I trust the guy who wants to use his own money to build a legacy for himself. He has more motivation to get results than a government bureaucrat making decisions about spending someone else's money.

This is entirely subjective. What about those who devote their lives to a cause and go into government? Your money is better than their passion? This line of logic would suggest mercenaries are always have more incentive than soldiers.

I know many people who work in government. They do their job and they take home their pay. Nothing more. If they became personally invested in the outcome of their work, they'd probably eventually quit, because they have little ability to actually make a difference.

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

#110

Post by ocfx »

thomnottom wrote: post #14
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 .

That's not what the article said at all - nor the German billionaire. He said that having a few very wealthy people decide what were the most important causes was bad compared to having the democratically elected government decide. You may disagree with that, but it is quite different from simply saying public good and private bad.

But we already have a few wealthy people deciding things for us, we live in an oligarchy. I trust the motives of Bill Gates more than Obama.
Post reply on HN