51–60 of 164 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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.
The US decided to do some charity work and supply Haiti with rice after the earthquake. Now the rice market is collapsing in Haiti. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11472874
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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 huma…
I think that's the largest point: just giving out money to causes is typically a poor way to make a difference. However, if you intelligently spend that money (whether it be by empowering people through job creation or eradicating diseases) then you have a chance of making a lasting impact.
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 huma…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 weal…
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 huma…
With Bill Gates you at least know that there's an extremely intelligent person at the top, looking to solve real problems (assuming he's past the phase of donating Windows machines to schools). I think that's the largest point: just giving out money to causes is typically a poor way to make a difference. However, if you intelligently spend that money (whether it be by empowering people through job creation or eradica…
Why do you feel the need to throw that jab in there? Windows is the more prevalent computing platform in the world. Stepping aside from our nerd world for a second, you could argue he would be doing them a disservice trying to ship them Linux or something that wouldn't be compatible with the most popular software in the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Unfortunately, some people cant even afford fishing equipment. So a mix of both is very important. Why throw tonnes of money? Throw some jobs with that too.