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

David Rockefeller has died

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 242 posts

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#191

Post by kingmanaz »

hkmurakami wrote: post #57
teslabox wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: > Rockefeller upheld the family’s philanthropic tradition, giving away more than $900 million during his lifetime. In 1940, he joined the board of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, established in 1901 by his grandfather, and a decade later succeeded his father as board chairman, serving for 25 years. Rich people don't give money away no-strings-attached, they channel it for their purpo…

In charitable work, we often say that you either give your time or your money. The younger tend to give their time; the older tend to give their money. Similarly, people have visions for how the world should be. The young and of-less-means tend to give their time, engaging in grassroots efforts or marches. The old and rich tend to give their money. Both use their resources to shape the world towards what they believe…

>Whether one believes this is morally right is one thing (whether the rich should have a louder voice though their resources), but I do think the intent of the rich is less sinister than we often frame it.

People by default seem to put their faith in a works-based salvation, and this may explain why so many religions also tend in that direction (Judaism, Catholicism, many-Protestant bodies, ad infinitum). The end-product of this mindset, especially in cases of magnificently wealthy benefactors or societies, is more often than not a meddling--and ultimately misanthropic--Pharisaism tending toward vainglory.

Lurking somewhere behind the Puritans' stocks and gallows, the Jacobin Club's guillotines, and the Abolitionists' fiery marches-to-the-sea was a prospering, yet militant, charity directed anywhere but inward. Likewise, the works-based religion of today's Soroses, Rothschilds, and Rockefellers, while on the surface resembling the myopically raceless utopia of Star Trek, will likely violently unravel as has most movements led by uncritical men convinced of their own ability to earn salvation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#192

Post by curun1r »

reckoner2 wrote: post #93
teslabox wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: > Rockefeller upheld the family’s philanthropic tradition, giving away more than $900 million during his lifetime. In 1940, he joined the board of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, established in 1901 by his grandfather, and a decade later succeeded his father as board chairman, serving for 25 years. Rich people don't give money away no-strings-attached, they channel it for their purpo…

I finished "Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller" a few nights ago. It's a mammoth of a book and I believe the undisputed most accurate and comprehensive look at his life. I think that what you've written here is incredibly misleading when talking about John D. Rockefeller's philanthropy in particular. It is wrong to imply the Rockefeller's secretly controlled strings in order to make profits from their donations.…

> And Rockefeller may only be eclipsed by Bill Gates as the greatest philanthropist ever.

This statement reeks of hero worship and seems myopic to me. For one, both of these billionaires became rich through what most view as morally dubious monopolistic practices that had a high degree of collateral damage. The amount that both men are giving back/gave is/was a percentage of what they took. And when that percentage is under 100%, they're taking more than they're giving. That is assuming a zero-sum game, which isn't always true. When someone creates new value, either by invention or work, they can take wealth out of the system and still leave the rest of the system in a net positive state. But I'm strongly of the opinion that both Gates and Rockefeller left the system in a significantly net-negative state, even with all their philanthropy. There's a reason the cohort that Rockefeller was a part of wasn't termed "Donor Barons" despite the legacy of significant charitable contributions from that massive wealth. I don't think it's out of line to include Gates in that group since the tactics he used to achieve his wealth are very similar.

This, to me, puts both of them significantly behind average people who create more value than they take and donate small sums to charity. The man who gives his one and only dollar to charity is far more philanthropic than the man who gives $99b of his $100b. The people who devote their lives to helping others are the ones we should respect, not the people giving billions while still holding billions in reserve for themselves.

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#193

Post by ericd »

hwillis wrote: post #96
Exofunctor wrote: post #33

I am, by most metrics, an ardent globalist; I advocate absolute free trade and absolute free movement. However, it's not very hard to recognize that many people's definition of globalism effectively includes such things as forced immigration, cultural erasure, and overburdening of welfare states, which are conducive to increased conflict rather than increased cooperation.

>forced immigration, cultural erasure, and overburdening of welfare states, which are conducive to increased conflict rather than increased cooperation. We have had all of those things for over a century in the US. You don't even have to be a citizen to be able to immigrate to any state in the union from any other state. "Cultural erasure" is even more nonsensical than "cultural appropriation". Overburdening of welfa…

The US has never had a welfare state remotely comparable to that of the western European majors. It's one of the reasons we're able to take in immigrants without caring historically, and the more recent increases in our welfare system, which I think are directionally a good thing, have the unfortunate side effect of making it necessary to be more careful about who you let in and how long before they can become a full citizen, with all the entitlements that come with it. The European countries also have much more uniform cultures than the US has ever had, and a vastly longer history and tradition. It's nowhere near as simple as "Who doesn't want more kebabs? Clearly, racists." Europe is not currently well set up structurally or culturally to take in large numbers of people of different cultures.

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#194

Post by Florin_Andrei »

kelnos wrote: post #177
gph wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're telling me I should support TPP, globalization efforts, and the subsequent concentration of economic and political power because you have a good feeling that humanity is heading in the right direction and we can invent some effective control on inequality because nothing is impossible the same way we invented the electronic computer?

Oh c'mon, principle of charity, please. That is not at all what the parent said or even implied. It is fact that humanity is heading in the right direction over the long term (based on tracking standard of living and the standard deviation of such). It is also fact that there are bumps and regressions along the way. We shouldn't support the TPP; it sucks (the only good thing Trump has done so far is pull out of it).…

> principle of charity, please

Exactly, thank you. The exchange felt like the opposite of it.

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#195

Post by kelnos »

johansch wrote: post #173
kelnos wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on tax law throughout his life, and his ability to find loopholes, that $900M was _on top of_ what he paid in tax. So unless you have evidence that he paid no or very low taxes, what you're saying just doesn't hold water. Not to mention that you're comparing the donations of a single person to the collective net worth of 200 people. More fair would be to compare that $900M to David Rockefeller's net worth,…

Anyone in the US is paying very low taxes compared to what "high-income" tax payers pay in e.g. Scandinavian countries like Sweden. The treshold for "high income" is (simplified) at about $80k per year. Stock option profits are taxed as income as well. (In Sweden we also have to pay social security fees on our stock option profits - the end result typically being at least a 62% taxation level on that income.).

Gotcha. I still don't see any evidence for what you're saying, though. What was David Rockefeller's income during the period he worked and gave money to charitable causes? If you want to look at it mathematically:

income * (tax rate + giving rate) = "total given"

Obviously you have two important variables there that determine what the total percent of income ends up being. I don't see any evidence that the parenthetical totals above are less or greater than each other when you consider your average European vs. Rockefeller, so you can't really say anything about how much he gave out of his income in comparison to your average European. Maybe it's more, maybe it's less, but you automatically assuming it's less is a bit disingenuous.

There's also the question of required vs. optional. If your average European had a tax rate similar to an American, would they then (on average) give the "savings" away as philanthropy? My guess would be it'd end up somewhere in the middle. Philanthropy is only philanthropy if it's voluntary and isn't forced by your government. That's pretty much its definition.

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#196

Post by vithlani »

teslabox wrote: post #181
melling wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Rich people don't give money away no-strings-attached, they channel it for their purposes" This is really just a troll comment where you put everyone in a group group under one umbrella. Now others will need to waste their timé feeding the troll. This really is not a constructive or educational way for people to spend their afternoon.

> This is really just a troll comment where you put everyone in a group group under one umbrella. There is criticism of the Gates Foundation too: http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Gates_Foundation_Critiq... David Rockefeller certainly did some good things with his influence. But he was also a globalist, which has had the effect of allowing 1st world companies to replace expensive workers through offshoring. Some p…

Exactly. But try and get a mainstream journalist to write this. Or heck, even research deeply into the tax structures.

A tiger does not change its stripes -- it is naive in the extreme to believe that somebody like Gates or Zuckerberg suddenly decided to give all this money away.

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#197

Post by Sabinus »

Did Rockefeller talk at all about how much his huge income was taxed? While I'm sure his philanthropic giving was researched and generous, I'm wondering what the benefits of those billions would have been if part of the Medicare program. Did he support the rich giving more to the state? It is the institution tasked with looking the citizens, after all.

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#198

Post by [deleted] »

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #165
gph wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're telling me I should support TPP, globalization efforts, and the subsequent concentration of economic and political power because you have a good feeling that humanity is heading in the right direction and we can invent some effective control on inequality because nothing is impossible the same way we invented the electronic computer?

It seems like the meaning of the word "globalization" has been hijacked. It really seems, in the minds of some people at least, to indicate a bundle of very negative outcomes - which in no way I would support. Shifting the center of this discussion would take too long. I'm not here to write a dissertation about the evolution of human society. I think I've hinted at how things could possibly unfold, if we make a consi…

[deleted]

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#199

Post by gph »

kelnos wrote: post #177
gph wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're telling me I should support TPP, globalization efforts, and the subsequent concentration of economic and political power because you have a good feeling that humanity is heading in the right direction and we can invent some effective control on inequality because nothing is impossible the same way we invented the electronic computer?

Oh c'mon, principle of charity, please. That is not at all what the parent said or even implied. It is fact that humanity is heading in the right direction over the long term (based on tracking standard of living and the standard deviation of such). It is also fact that there are bumps and regressions along the way. We shouldn't support the TPP; it sucks (the only good thing Trump has done so far is pull out of it).…

>We should support things that make sense and promote the reduction of income inequality. That need not be at odds with globalization, though many businesspeople tend to push it that way since it's cheaper and good for them.

Doesn't need to be at odds with globalization, and yet all the evidence so far seems to point that way. Society is a nebulous construct of many actors. Some will try to build a more equitable future, others will not. The others are undoubtedly those who can figure out how to rise to the top. They are the ones controlling globalization efforts.

The neo-liberal dream is just that, a dream. When push comes to shove most people aren't actually for equality, they just say they are.

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#200

Post by lqdc13 »

cholantesh wrote: post #138
lqdc13 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to point out that chiropractic medicine is not necessarily quackery. There are certainly some elements that may not always work, but there are also many things that do. The classes in the schools are certainly not a joke - they take real anatomy and real body mechanics, real radiology and real biochemistry - and the requirements for graduation are not trivial. Additionally, although scientific method has…

Chiropractic largely works because it has purged so much of its foundational ideas and is almost congruous to physiotherapy (albeit with more focus on manipulative therapy than exercise). >That's why some alternative medicine solutions sometimes work as well and even better than modern medicine. I can see some forms of alternative medicine being complementary (hence the name), such as meditation or yoga, but better?…

Well, the problem is that a lot of times there is no research into them and by the time there is research, the useful properties are extracted so that a better modern solution is available.

Basically, the only way to prove that it works is by showing that modern medicine adopted the approach after systematic evaluation and at that point it is part of modern medicine.

For example, Artemisinin wasn't known to be useful until 1979 but was a traditional Chinese medicine in plant form for a very long time.

Another example that still isn't fully accepted is cupping. Wikipedia page on it suggests that it is not useful beyond placebo. But here [1] is a recent study that says it's effective. Let's imagine that it is very effective for some kinds of pain. A modern medicine alternative might be to take some kind of painkiller that might damage the liver in large doses.

For sore throat, someone might take NiQuil. Some doctors would prescribe antibiotics just in case it's a bacterial or might have a bacterial follow-up. Alternative medicine solution is to grind up garlic and eat cabbage soup. Garlic h as Allicin which kills strep throat. This, I think, is less intrusive. But I don't know if anyone did a large-scale study where they compared the two common solutions head to head.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4814666/

Post reply on HN