David Rockefeller has died • Hacker News Board

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#201

Post by reckoner2 » Tue, Mar 21, 2017, 2:59 AM UTC

curun1r wrote: post #192

reckoner2 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

He's be no means a hero to me, but you do raise interesting points.

I'm really not sure if Rockefeller gave more than he took. That's a tough question to answer. Is a world without Standard Oil, but also without his incredibly vast and important array of philanthropic works a better one? I don't think I can make this argument. Many aspects of modern medicine, public sanitation, public health, and public education are all in debt to his charitable work. Did those not improve the world more than his anti-competitive business practices hurt it?

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#202

Post by mythrwy » Tue, Mar 21, 2017, 3:26 AM UTC

kingkawn wrote: post #81

iliketosleep wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's frightening is that he was actually proud of it - he really believed in it. I wonder how many other powerful families are working towards the "more integrated global political and economic structure", consolidating the power of the global elite. Good luck to everybody else... Edit to clarify: in an ideal world what he stands for is right. but we're not in an idea world. where there's power there's often corrup…

global elites or local elites, its still the same ol' pointless domination

Except local elites have less real power.

Corruption or "real motives" of a global elite aside, I look at it as the difference between monolithic code bases and well designed separation of concerns. One is less prone to catastrophic failure and easier to repair when failure does occur.

Joseph Tainter I think hits the troubles with centralization right on the head.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0R09YzyuCI

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#203

Post by mythrwy » Tue, Mar 21, 2017, 3:28 AM UTC

elastic_church wrote: post #65

iliketosleep wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's frightening is that he was actually proud of it - he really believed in it. I wonder how many other powerful families are working towards the "more integrated global political and economic structure", consolidating the power of the global elite. Good luck to everybody else... Edit to clarify: in an ideal world what he stands for is right. but we're not in an idea world. where there's power there's often corrup…

Oh no deeply liquid markets that span borders, the horror Lets bring back a Europe with 27 different bond and stock markets in 27 different volatile currencies

Sure. Lets tie everything together instead so it can all go down together.

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#204

Post by bzbarsky » Tue, Mar 21, 2017, 3:31 AM UTC

johansch wrote: post #32

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…

> Rockefeller upheld the family’s philanthropic tradition, giving away more than $900 million during his lifetime. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlodonnell/2014/07/11/the-roc... "That young man was John Davison Rockefeller in 1855, who in 25 years would become the wealthiest man of his time, and arguably the wealthiest in history, reigning over a monopoly that refined as much as 90 percent of America’s oil. His flag…

> $900M out of $10B is 9%.

The $10B is spread across 200 people.

His personal net worth at the time of his death was about $3.3 billion according to " rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rockefeller>. But it's hard to compare that to the $900 million number because that number adds dollars from different time periods, which are worth different amounts. This is especially important if any of it happened in the 60s or early 70s, given the subsequent high inflation.

Also, that $900 million number doesn't seem to include the bequests in his will.

And I suspect he did in fact pay taxes too.

Now, I agree that it's easier to give money away when you have so much you don't really need it for anything. So I'm not sure about giving out trophies for doing so.

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#205

Post by unityByFreedom » Tue, Mar 21, 2017, 3:35 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #154

unityByFreedom wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is it's their choice to run their country the way they want. I don't think anyone can say for certain whether certain social programs will be sustainable or not. The US has many social programs, social security, subsidies, etc. People have been saying for years that these are unsustainable. The national debt has been an issue since founding 250 years ago. Some feel it weakens us. Others feel it ensures we ma…

> My point is it's their choice to run their country the way they want. Right, which is why globalization tends to undermine welfare states. TPP, the EU, trade agreements, etc. All those reduce the ability of voters to "run their country the way they want."

I disagree. Voters can be supportive of free trade.

We already do it within the US. Items shipped out of state aren't taxed. It promotes trade and development.

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#206

Post by bzbarsky » Tue, Mar 21, 2017, 3:48 AM UTC

toyg wrote: post #145

johansch wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rockefeller upheld the family’s philanthropic tradition, giving away more than $900 million during his lifetime. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlodonnell/2014/07/11/the-roc... "That young man was John Davison Rockefeller in 1855, who in 25 years would become the wealthiest man of his time, and arguably the wealthiest in history, reigning over a monopoly that refined as much as 90 percent of America’s oil. His flag…

To be fair, in Europe we pay more exactly because we recognise that, if left to their own benevolence, the rich will never pay enough. (And, the guy donated in addition to paying his fair share of taxes, one would hope. At one point, pre-Reagan, US taxes on wealth were as high as in Europe, possibly even higher).

In Europe, you don't leave the rich to their own benevolence. It's much worse. By and large, European countries have laws forbidding the rich from donating too much of their money to charity, especially upon their deaths. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_heirship for a pretty bare-bones description of the setup. https://www.cesifo-group.de/ifoHome/facts/DICE/Public-Sector... has more details by country; see the "Restrictions on the freedom to dispose of one’s succession by will" section.

Under these laws, heirs have been able to claw back donations made before death (including many years before death), in addition to ones made in the will. Note that if you accept the premise of the forced heirship laws, this is an obvious consequence; otherwise people will just structure their finances to make most of the donations they want before they die.

Anyway, the upshot is that the European legal system takes great pains to make sure that currently wealthy families stay wealthy instead of managing to give the money away. It's just not talked about much, and I suspect many people don't really know about it.

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#207

Post by xd360 » Tue, Mar 21, 2017, 3:59 AM UTC

curun1r wrote: post #192

reckoner2 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

You really need to learn about Bill Gates before you judge him and publicly express your misguided views. Bill Gates has committed to give all of his wealth to philanthropy over his lifetime, leaving only $10 million for each of his 3 children after his demise. That means $30 million of his (current) $80 billion networth is all that will be left for his family whereas the rest goes to charity. That's philanthropy of over 99.999% personal wealth donation. I think by this he satisfies your 100% donation criteria.

You say that a person who gives 100% of his wealth to charity is bigger than one who gives 99%. The amount matters, not percentage. If Bill Gates had your mentality, then at which point do you think he should've given away 100% of his wealth? When he made $100 million or when he made $1 billion? Be reminded, if he had given up 100% of his wealth at those figures, he would never have had any significant money left to increase his wealth, so all those charities and research efforts of his that have received $30 billion+ of his wealth so far wouldn't have existed (the figure was $28 billion in 2013, don't know what it is now).

Bill Gates knows the value of creating value. He knows its better to teach fishing than to give fish. He invests money in research instead of just giving it away blindly because he knows that the outcome of that research will save/improve more lives than giving that money away directly. Again, he also knows that giving away all the money now isn't a better idea since as science progresses, better research will come along that'll need his funding, so he's keeping enough wealth to support those venture if and when they come along. If they don't come along during his lifetime, all of his wealth will anyway go to charity after his death (except $30 million for his children).

His business practices were cutthroat, but that was back when he was younger and not an active philanthropist. As a philanthropist, I think he's the greatest person of all time. Numbers matter, his billions have done more for mankind than misinformed people like you will ever care to admit. So go do some research before you bad mouth him ever again.

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#208

Post by hwillis » Tue, Mar 21, 2017, 6:00 AM UTC

ericd wrote: post #193

hwillis wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

You're conflating two completely different things with welfare. In the US they are the same- poor states get immense amounts of Federal assistance to help poor citizens. In Europe individual states may have welfare systems, but EU "welfare" is economic assistance to members eg Italy. It has nothing to do with refugees and immigrants and is just a base factor in the difficulty of holding together the difficulty of a state, and in that way the member states of the EU are FAR closer together in economic power than states in the US are. ie the EU would be much, much easier to run, but as it turns out it takes more than 25 years for a country to find its feet.

It is as simple as "who doesn't want kebabs", because the number of immigrants is stupid low. One in 300 does not cultural destruction make, unless your culture is "no brownies". These cultures have coexisted and coimmigrated for the better part of a thousand years. The ottomans aren't new. Europeans are used to muslims. Having a stronger and longer culture makes you MORE resilient to outside change, not less.

Edit: the us has ten times the number of immigrants in Mexicans alone. The effect they have had is well described as adding a few ethnic restaurants. Maybe a few places have chosen to put up bilingual signs. If you consider that "cultural Erasure", the BASE STATE of Europe is to have a half dozen languages being spoken in one place. Muslims are simply "the wrong kind", which is ridiculous as they are just the next country over and always have been. If anything has contributed to "cultural Erasure" it has been the US, which has helped impose a monoculture on every nation in Europe.

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#209

Post by curun1r » Tue, Mar 21, 2017, 6:04 AM UTC

xd360 wrote: post #207

curun1r wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

You really need to learn about Bill Gates before you judge him and publicly express your misguided views. Bill Gates has committed to give all of his wealth to philanthropy over his lifetime, leaving only $10 million for each of his 3 children after his demise. That means $30 million of his (current) $80 billion networth is all that will be left for his family whereas the rest goes to charity. That's philanthropy of…

> You really need to learn about Bill Gates before you judge him and publicly express your misguided views

I don't care about any of his philanthropic deeds. As far as I'm concerned, they're all "fruit of the poisoned tree." Without his misdeeds, he'd never be in position to be the philanthropist he's become. If you want to talk misguided, you seem to think that he can atone for his past misdeeds. You're wrong. He set back computing at least a decade, killed off several competitors that were genuinely making the computing landscape better and cost businesses billions that they didn't need to spend. As far as I'm concerned, every bit of good that he's doing now could have been done by the others who would have have the money that's now his. It's the broken window fallacy to assume otherwise.

Perhaps you should learn more about his bad behavior before you accuse others of being misguided.

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#210

Post by teslaberry » Tue, Mar 21, 2017, 6:08 AM UTC

teslabox wrote: post #26

kolanos wrote: post #4

"Some even believe we [Rockefeller family] are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- One World, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." - David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 4…

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…

501c3 were a set of laws lobbied for so that wealthy people coudl give away their money tax free without government taxation of their income or property , thus creating permanent tax haven trusts on domestic shores.

these tax havens dwarf anything offshore . they are now a systemically risky part of the economy , at least in so far as the private education industry is tax subsidized and regarded as 'public interest' even though there is nothign public whatsover about the fortunes of the ivy league educational institutions.

the 501c3 scheme is about burden shifting taxes to working people, off the shoulders of the ultra wealthy so that they may create tax free institutions for funneling their profits into their projects.

501c3 should be entirely eliminated and churces and other institutions should be required to pay property taxes of all types and be subject to corporate taxes , while income taxes themselves have gotten out of control.

for the ultra wealthy, tax simplification means they don't get to burden shift their taxes. it also means they, and everyone else in the workding classes would pay less taxes overall.

it also means a whole lot of institutions would go bankrupt and in the wake of their collapse, one would see what social activity would be supported by the 'natural' amount of social organzing and donation.

as it is-----the middle classes are being forced to support these instutions via the burden of their taxation. social security taxation itself a payroll tax is capped at 100k dollars of income. and this accounts for nearly a third of all taxes collected by the federal taxes. these taxes are not a form of pension, they are a form of working labor tax that raisies the cost of labor to employers while scalping a significant marginal fraction of food from the mouths of the working and even professional classes.