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

41–50 of 164 posts

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

#41

Post by maxawaytoolong »

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.

one could say that, but I don't think anyone would would actually say that with a straight face.

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

#42

Post by pessimizer »

He's right, and it shouldn't. That's what governments and collective decision-making are for. Private individuals shouldn't be depended on to do anything but further their own interests, even in the charity sphere. They spend money for PR purposes, to strengthen personal connections, or simply because they enjoy the environment it puts them in. The major cause of misery in the world is the lust for power and influence over other people, and money epitomises that.

What people need is security in employment and compensation, and protection against unavoidable risk, like fire and sickness. Without exploiting the weakness and insecurity of workers, you can't really amass the kind of cash this guy has, so I'm not sure about the quality of the jobs he's creating if he can skim that much value off of the top. The profit margin on fairness is a lot lower than the profit margin on slave wages, monopoly, and legislative arbitrage.

That's not to say that he couldn't, though. If he created a lot of good jobs for people with fair wages, and charged fair prices, that's a massive good and can't be denied. He won't, though, because when things are done fairly, there's not a lot of profit to be made. Sorry, rant over:)

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

#43

Post by nonce91329713 »

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.

Historically many fortunes were built because of special privilege from the King.

Ignoring for a moment the anti-competitive claims against Microsoft, consider that that fortune already hinges on the special privilege of intellectual property law, which is backed in full force by the US justice system. Not all countries have this protection. Microsoft does not do anywhere near as well in countries without it. Does this protection ultimately help US citizens.....that point is up for debate, but it exists, and businesses exist to capitalize on it. Is it something that should be expected? For now, yes, but two hundred years from now, my guess is that intellectual property rights will have eroded, and we will view Gates's fortune as a fortune built using special privilege, just like oil fortunes were built before regulations against monopolies, and just like many shipping fortunes were built before that with special privilege from princes.

Special fortunes typically need something special in the first place. Carlos Slim is not that much different from Bill Gates. Bill Gates spent a little bit of time as a heroic startup guy, but he spent the majority of his career doing much the same stuff that Carlos Slim does. If copyright law changed, as many MP3 sharers wish it would, his fortune would deflate as much as Slim's.

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

#44

Post by jakarta »

makmanalp wrote: post #37
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.)

A number of countries experimented with shock treatment capitalism as a means of quickly bringing their economies up to speed.

Take Russia or Bolivia as examples of what can go wrong. In each case, they quickly freed up their economy and tried to privatize everything. The problem was, they had no real legal system in place to properly check that activity. Key national industries went into the hands of just a few wealthy people (see Russia's Oligarch's). In Bolivia, after shock treatment, there was a rise in unemployment, a fall in industrial output, and a fall in per capita GDP.

At my university (50k students) I started the first micro-credit organization and we've made over 100 loans to entrepreneurs in developing nations -- so I am not against capitalism or anything like that.

But I've studied economic development enough to know that you have to take a multi-pronged approach to promoting development. It's not just about going full-free market or full donations/state involvement. It's requires a mix.

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

#45

Post by jokermatt999 »

johnrob wrote: post #35
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.

Let's not get caught up in semantics here. You could just as easily consider giving people money in the name of charity an investment because you're investing in their better future. Can we taboo the words "charity" and "investment" and talk about what the actual acts are?

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

#46

Post by scythe »

I think you need to look more specifically at what exactly the Gates Foundation does if you want to answer the questiona at the end of the article. They're known for fighting disease, primarily; disease in third-world countries is a major barrier to industrial expansion into these countries. Further, charity has achieved at least one major victory: the eradication of smallpox, perhaps the greatest achievement in human history, so I'd say it's contributed at least a little -- and the Gates Foundation has some good precedent for their goals.

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

#47

Post by flatline »

cynest wrote: post #26
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.

That, and stopping widespread debilitating diseases.

It's a sort of chicken-and-egg question as to which must come first but generally, if infrastructure and education are there, public health will follow. On the other hand if most of the populace can't read or write, if there is a constant lack of resources and perpetual warfare, the people who you are healing will most likely end up in an early grave anyway. Employment will help with all of these things, since happily employed (and educated) people don't typically start rebellions, are capable of building lasting infrastructure and making use of outside aid.

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

#48

Post by ryanmickle »

zachster wrote: post #2

The "teach a man to fish" argument has been around for a few millennium. But saying that philanthropy ends in giving away fish seems to me like an excuse for people to abandon charity altogether. Isn't Kiva still a form of philanthropy, even though it's just a loan? Charity cannot be about cementing poverty by creating dependence, but can work if it's a reallocation of resources (outside the free market) that results…

One might argue that most job creation is hardly "teaching men to fish."

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

#49

Post by jakarta »

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.

That's the point. Bill Gates was convicted of being a monopolist and checks were put on what his company could and could not do. That does not happen in Mexico.

In more extreme cases, look at John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil. Rockefeller used to be the wealthiest person in the world (according to some, if you inflation adjust his money, he may have been the wealthiest person in the last 200 years). His company was broken into parts in order to promote competition. Same goes for the Bell Telecom companies in America, they were also all broken up. We have checks in place to curb the anti-competitive forces of certain companies.

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

#50

Post by Andrew_Quentin »

nonce91329713 wrote: post #43
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.

Historically many fortunes were built because of special privilege from the King. Ignoring for a moment the anti-competitive claims against Microsoft, consider that that fortune already hinges on the special privilege of intellectual property law, which is backed in full force by the US justice system. Not all countries have this protection. Microsoft does not do anywhere near as well in countries without it. Does th…

You mean it would be best that others could copy the ideas of inventors so that inventors die poor rather than breakthrough pioneers who have given this world the digital age, or at least have contributed towards it significantly, be rewarded appropriately?
Post reply on HN