World's Richest Man: 'Charity Doesn't Solve Anything' • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by bilbo0s » Fri, Oct 15, 2010, 11:25 PM UTC

sprout wrote: post #65

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.

Wow, that's a load of non-sequiturs. Monopoly is a side effect of the massive corruption plaguing Mexico. Microsoft doesn't even come close. As for aid in Africa, that's a specific charity you worked with in Africa. There are people who do good work there. Dismissing aid because people are bad at it is like dismissing software development because people are bad at it. One way or another it's necessary.

Just to round it out...

There is also the logical fallacy known as "Appeal to Authority" in @maxawaytoolong's comment.

But we should not be logic nazis I suppose.

My own opinion is that both Slim and Gates can be right at the same time. Lots of businesses provide for lots of people...but not all.

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

#82

Post by bilbo0s » Fri, Oct 15, 2010, 11:28 PM UTC

makmanalp wrote: post #40

jshen wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I was thinking it was fallacy friday too.

I think when people debate things like Charity, they take leave of logic.

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

#83

Post by napierzaza » Sat, Oct 16, 2010, 12:54 AM UTC

volski wrote: post #77

jakarta wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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. John D. Rockefeller actually ended up being a lot richer because the courts broke up Standard Oil[1]. He went…

I agree with your statement, while at the same time it was the monopoly that got him to the position he was in. It's hard not to make money once you're at that point. I don't think he could have gotten that rich if actual competition existed and he was investing in hundreds of companies. He didn't do any manoeuvring to get his stakes in all those separate companies, unless you count back room deals.

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

#84

Post by duck » Sat, Oct 16, 2010, 12:57 AM UTC

JeffL wrote: post #52

duck wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why? Anyone who has or inherits $10 billion can give it away. It takes nearly no skill. Only a very, very few people in the history of history can make $10 billion.

Well, I pretty sure that after a certain amount you become somewhat numb by gaining anymore. With giving you would get a sense of doing good for those you might need it more than you.

My comment wasn't really about the actual amount, but rather just in general the happiest people are the ones that give more than receive.

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

#85

Post by brc » Sat, Oct 16, 2010, 1:00 AM UTC

CamperBob wrote: post #68

awakeasleep wrote: post #18

I think about this in regards to Mr. Gates. He amassed such a huge fortune by building walls around his software, limiting people's potential in a way. Was it necessary? Did proprietary software need to happen to spur innovation? What about his uncompetitive practices? I end up wondering what the balance of 'good' would be in the world if instead of taking everything he could, he had allowed others to grow and shared…

Did proprietary software need to happen to spur innovation? To the extent that the Wintel monopoly resulted in lower hardware costs, it's hard to see any intellectually honest Linux or BSD user arguing otherwise. You would not be able to buy 3+ GFLOPS systems with gigabytes of RAM and terabytes of mass storage for less than $1000 without the kind of mass standardization that, history suggests, can emerge only from mo…

I find it hard to argue that, without Bill Gates, we wouldn't have ended up with a monopoly of some type in hardware/OS. Certainly Microsoft won the race, but it's not like every other player on the scene at the time wasn't trying to do the same thing.

Every single PC maker/OS developer knew that winning the bulk of the market was the key to success. Thus, they were all following similar strategies. I just think it's unlikely, if there was no Gates, that we wouldn't have all ended up on the same platform anyway, and some other company would have had a monopoly.

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

#86

Post by blahblahblah » Sat, Oct 16, 2010, 1:01 AM UTC

sbaqai wrote: post #30

Charity is most needed for problems that have no other natural source of funding. If the government/private sector can solve certain problems, then charities are perhaps not the best vehicle for solving those particular problems. Buffett and Gates specifically focus on the former. Trying to reduce extreme poverty, provide healthcare, and educational opportunities. They also believe every life is of equal value. So th…

Another important point regarding disease, in general, and especially malaria is that disease often leaves survivors with permanent physical disabilities and/or neurological deficits. I think a lot of people in the U.S. and Europe have this mistaken notion that malaria is like a bad case of influenza, mononucleosis, pneumonia, or some other common disease that we are familiar with. We think that the person gets really sick and feels awful and it could even be life-threatening, but that as long as you survive it, you fully recover. That simply isn't true.

Malaria primarily affects children and many survivors have severe permanent disabilities because of it (seizure disorders, deficits caused by stroke, psychiatric problems, etc.). And malaria is just one of many serious diseases in the developing world (tuberculosis, schistosomiasis, dengue fever, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, etc.). If you acquire a severe disability before you're even old enough to enter the workforce, how does creating jobs help you? Creating jobs alone is insufficient to address the problems of Africa. You have to concomitantly address the heavy burden of disease if you are to have any chance of solving the economic woes of Africa.

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

#87

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 16, 2010, 1:02 AM UTC

CamperBob wrote: post #68

awakeasleep wrote: post #18

I think about this in regards to Mr. Gates. He amassed such a huge fortune by building walls around his software, limiting people's potential in a way. Was it necessary? Did proprietary software need to happen to spur innovation? What about his uncompetitive practices? I end up wondering what the balance of 'good' would be in the world if instead of taking everything he could, he had allowed others to grow and shared…

Did proprietary software need to happen to spur innovation? To the extent that the Wintel monopoly resulted in lower hardware costs, it's hard to see any intellectually honest Linux or BSD user arguing otherwise. You would not be able to buy 3+ GFLOPS systems with gigabytes of RAM and terabytes of mass storage for less than $1000 without the kind of mass standardization that, history suggests, can emerge only from mo…

[deleted]

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

#88

Post by yters » Sat, Oct 16, 2010, 1:42 AM UTC

sprout wrote: post #65

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.

Wow, that's a load of non-sequiturs. Monopoly is a side effect of the massive corruption plaguing Mexico. Microsoft doesn't even come close. As for aid in Africa, that's a specific charity you worked with in Africa. There are people who do good work there. Dismissing aid because people are bad at it is like dismissing software development because people are bad at it. One way or another it's necessary.

I went to a missionary conference once where an African princess came in and talked to us. Exactly the place where you'd expect a plea for more aid, right?

Well, not really. She said we needed to mind our own business and let Africa take care of itself.

Then a Bono video from his opulent mansion came on with some sort of campaign to end world poverty or something.

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

#89

Post by ESchmidtSeesYou » Sat, Oct 16, 2010, 1:44 AM UTC

Microsoft brazenly, fiercely ignored antitrust law. There's endless evidence in court on their attempts to illegally block the adoption of Java and Netscape Navigator. They were found guilty in U.S. v. Microsoft. And every web developer knows how much damage IE6 did to the progress of the internet. Gates' fortune is unquestionably tainted.

That said, the majority of economists would probably more or less agree with Slim. Buffett, Gates, and Slim could amass wealth faster than pretty much anyone else on earth. Just leaving the money invested in the global economy is not a priori worse than giving it all to charity. Compound growth is obviously self-sustaining growth. The HOPE is that charity can do the same.

Giving away tens of billions of dollars is an ENORMOUS informational problem. Good luck allocating it all even the least bit efficiently. The real answer is that no one can possibly know what the best use of all that money is.

What would I do with the money? Probably put it all in a Vanguard Total Market fund, or the closest fund imitating the true world economy.

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

#90

Post by yters » Sat, Oct 16, 2010, 1:45 AM UTC

scythe wrote: post #46

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…

Now this is purely hearsay, but I've heard it said the creator of the smallpox vaccine regretted what he'd done because the amount of polio it produced greatly outnumbered the lives it saved.

It was on the internet so it must be true!