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

World's Richest Man: 'Charity Doesn't Solve Anything'

blogs.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 164 posts

Re: World's Richest Man: 'Charity Doesn't Solve Anything'

#31

Post by MrFlibble »

I have a friend who was well off and was very much against handouts for most people. He would go on about people needing to get a job, pull themselves up and how not finding work was a lazy man's excuse. Then he lost his job, house, car, dog and health in less than a year and even had to move back in with his parents.

Amazing how his opinions have changed now that he is the one who despite his best efforts is struggling to just barely get by. He still feels you should make your own way, but now realizes it can be much harder than it sounds.

The "go get a low paying job" safety net is not what it once was. People these days really need to get creative and find new ways to generate income.

Re: World's Richest Man: 'Charity Doesn't Solve Anything'

#33

Post by maxawaytoolong »

jakarta wrote: post #20

I don't place a lot of value on Carlos Slim's advice. His vast fortune has basically been a result of his ability to practice regulatory arbitrage and own a monopoly (and stifle competition) in Mexico, a country with a highly inefficient governance system. If the political system over there ever became really functional, his empire would be broken apart and much of his wealth would contract.

"... and own a monopoly"

Like Bill Gates and Microsoft, who were actually convicted as monopolists?

After working in aid in Africa, I have to say I agree more with the Mexican monopolist than the American one.

Re: World's Richest Man: 'Charity Doesn't Solve Anything'

#34

Post by narrator »

I think the perfect model is the one Mohammed Unis advocates: so called "social entrepreneurship". The business makes a profit but it has a set of shareholders who control all voting rights who are interested in having the business do things that are not only motivated by profit.

In a way, Google is a bit like this. Sergei and Larry setup the company in such a way that they have far more voting rights than the non-founders and thus use Google to pursue aims that are more social, for instance developing new energy technology or cars that drive themselves, etc.

Re: World's Richest Man: 'Charity Doesn't Solve Anything'

#35

Post by johnrob »

bryanh wrote: post #12

I agree, a job is much better than a handout. Regardless, infrastructure and education are two things that do help people create jobs and exit poverty. Charity != giving people money.

Charity does equal giving people money. If you're not giving people money, then you're making an investment.

Re: World's Richest Man: 'Charity Doesn't Solve Anything'

#36

Post by jshen »

maxawaytoolong wrote: post #33
jakarta wrote: post #20

I don't place a lot of value on Carlos Slim's advice. His vast fortune has basically been a result of his ability to practice regulatory arbitrage and own a monopoly (and stifle competition) in Mexico, a country with a highly inefficient governance system. If the political system over there ever became really functional, his empire would be broken apart and much of his wealth would contract.

"... and own a monopoly" Like Bill Gates and Microsoft, who were actually convicted as monopolists? After working in aid in Africa, I have to say I agree more with the Mexican monopolist than the American one.

except one could say that mexico represents Slim's philosophy and America (and most industrialized countries) more closely represent Buffet's/Gate's philosophies.

I think it's clear which philosophy has the better outcome for people in general.

Re: World's Richest Man: 'Charity Doesn't Solve Anything'

#37

Post by makmanalp »

jakarta wrote: post #20

I don't place a lot of value on Carlos Slim's advice. His vast fortune has basically been a result of his ability to practice regulatory arbitrage and own a monopoly (and stifle competition) in Mexico, a country with a highly inefficient governance system. If the political system over there ever became really functional, his empire would be broken apart and much of his wealth would contract.

This is ad hominem if I've ever seen it. Especially in corrupt societies, I feel like jobs would fare much better than donations by: 1) Increasing economic activity which is required for growth 2) Making sure the money goes to where it's supposed to, and used the way it's supposed to. (Remember the stolen OLPCs? Donations don't always make it to the destination if they're juicy targets.)

Re: World's Richest Man: 'Charity Doesn't Solve Anything'

#39

Post by duck »

jacoblyles wrote: post #28

It is pretty clear that the growth in living standards over the last 100 years has a lot more to owe to the accumulation of capital goods than the working of charity. It's true that charity can alleviate short-term suffering, but Mr. Slim's assertion has a lot of historical support to it. But charity probably does a lot more for the giver. I imagine giving $10 billion makes you feel about as good as making the $10 bi…

I imagine giving $10 billion makes you feel about as good as making the $10 billion in the first place.

I would hope it would make most people feel better... a lot better.

Re: World's Richest Man: 'Charity Doesn't Solve Anything'

#40

Post by makmanalp »

jshen wrote: post #36
maxawaytoolong wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"... and own a monopoly" Like Bill Gates and Microsoft, who were actually convicted as monopolists? After working in aid in Africa, I have to say I agree more with the Mexican monopolist than the American one.

except one could say that mexico represents Slim's philosophy and America (and most industrialized countries) more closely represent Buffet's/Gate's philosophies. I think it's clear which philosophy has the better outcome for people in general.

Wow, and this one is a false analogy. Just because one is from America and the other is from Mexico doesn't mean that they've been the sole affectors of their respective countries' welfares, or that the current (good or bad) state of their countries is a direct result of their actions.

What is this, fallacy friday?

Post reply on HN