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

Post by pyvpx » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 5:55 PM UTC

kuschku wrote: post #98

mynameishere wrote: post #49

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 bu…

I’ll just let you know that without the money spent by the German government you wouldn’t have mp3, or AAC. You wouldn’t have most of modern technology, nor would you have Wendelstein 7-X. You wouldn’t have DHL or T-Mobile. Sure, they waste lots of money (BER, S21, Elbphilharmonie), but still they manage it better than the private sector ever could. The top politicians earn less than the managers of any company at th…

Post by soared » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 5:55 PM UTC

HiLo wrote: post #22

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…

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. Nobody is saying they shouldn't be richly rewarded, just that it's gotten fucking ridiculous.

Post by HiLo » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 5:57 PM UTC

soared wrote: post #123

HiLo wrote: post #22

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. Nobody is saying they shouldn't be richly rewarded, just that it's gotten fucking ridiculous.

The purpose of network effects are that no one does the heavy lifting besides the creator of the network. Facebook isn't work for its billions of users, its work for the people who made. The network does no heavy lifting at all...

Post by clock_tower » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 5:58 PM UTC

adaml_623 wrote: post #94

lloyddobbler wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If we talking about US dollars then yes the money comes from the state. The clue is in the name. Is there a quick shorthand way of referring to the notion that tax is theft?

Post by HiLo » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 5:59 PM UTC

chrisabrams wrote: post #108

HiLo wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%.