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

121–130 of 164 posts

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

#121

Post by Tutorialzine »

lionhearted wrote: post #96

I disagree with him, but there's merit in what he says. Let me give you an example. I had coffee in an NGO-operated cafe in Siem Riep, Cambodia. All profits went to running a small school for 10 kids. I did the quick math on a napkin, and realized they were doing far worse as an NGO/charity than they would be to help people as a for-profit business. Observe: With a 20% net profit after all expenses (which I think the…

I agree with you, but here is something to keep in mind:

It could be that the fact they donate all their profits to teaching children, might be sole reason why this cafe is profitable in the first place.

If this was run as a regular business, people would not have such an incentive go there. The same goes for a non-profit which has a goal that is not plainly visible.

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

#122

Post by rapind »

kloncks wrote: post #78

I'll agree with the common sentiment that Carlos Slim's general advice is worthless. But, I think he's on to something here. From the article: It is the 21st century billionaire version of the old adage, “give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime I think all he's saying is that one can't throw money at problems and expect them to be fixed. That's an opinion I'll agree with.…

That's a very interesting point. In your clothing example, charity was a crutch that hampered the progression of local businesses.

I could see many other forms of aid having the same effect. Creating a reliance that's completely out of the control of the region. If it evaporates at any point they're stuck in a much worse situation.

I think we could go about this a little more intelligently though. Outside funds could be used to train and evolve local business, giving them the tools required to succeed on their own once the aid disappears. If we went into the situation thinking; We only have X dollars, not a constant stream, so how can we use this money in a way to produce a long term positive outcome in the region?

I guess the problem then becomes finding a non-corrupt entity who knows best how to go about it.

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

#123

Post by araneae »

brudgers wrote: post #113
araneae wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article mentioned that he donated to the Gates foundation, which in fact uses capitalist principles to help third world countries.

Here are the Gates Foundation guiding principles: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/Pages/guiding-principle... I don't see anything capitalist in them. Nor in "All Lives have equal value."

Probably because you don't get many donations by espousing capitalism in your guiding principles.

But mush of their work uses capitalist principles, which you can see if you look at some of their programs: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/global-development/Pages/over...

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

#124

Post by smokeyj »

jakarta wrote: post #49
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.

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…

True monopolies are often the side effect of regulation, telecom not being an exception. Big companies lobby for regulation to create a steeper barrier to entry for start-ups, effectively mitigating competition.

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

#125

Post by randomtask »

lionhearted wrote: post #96

I disagree with him, but there's merit in what he says. Let me give you an example. I had coffee in an NGO-operated cafe in Siem Riep, Cambodia. All profits went to running a small school for 10 kids. I did the quick math on a napkin, and realized they were doing far worse as an NGO/charity than they would be to help people as a for-profit business. Observe: With a 20% net profit after all expenses (which I think the…

> I did the quick math on a napkin, and realized they were doing far worse as an NGO/charity than they would be to help people as a for-profit business.

You're making the assumption that creating jobs is better than providing access to education. This may be true in the short term, but probably not in the long term if access to education in that area is a problem. I would say that given that investment in education takes years to pay off anyway it is probably a good plan to invest sooner rather than later. However without knowing more about the specific case it's impossible to say either way.

I'm purely speculating on a hypothetical situation here, but from the point of view of the NGO it may make more sense to invest in education. Creating 120 jobs is no doubt a good thing, but if what is needed most in the area is a school, then investing in more jobs is not doing the greatest good. Creating jobs where the workforce is uneducated is not going to improve the standard of living greatly in that area over an extended period of time. Providing the means for the next generation to obtain better jobs or have the education necessary to start their own businesses might. Maybe the NGO is playing the long game?

Also if they make a success of this model, running a cafe to fund a school, and prove that they can make it work then it will probably be easier for them to get access to funds to replicate that success elsewhere. This could easily have longer term benefits than creating a small amount of jobs. Not to mention that this model doesn't have to be replicated by that NGO.

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

#126

Post by huherto »

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.

"Monopoly is a side effect of the massive corruption plaguing Mexico" Hold it. Please don`t make broad accusations. If you have any specific information about Telmex say so, but do not generalize. That badly hurts our reputation and it has been said many times that people just take it as true. Mexico has corruption levels that are consistent with outher countries with similar development levels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

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

#127

Post by pessimizer »

orangecat wrote: post #108
pessimizer wrote: post #42

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 influenc…

Private individuals shouldn't be depended on to do anything but further their own interests Except for politicians, they'll be noble. 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. Utterly unfounded. Counterexamples that come immediately to mi…

Politicians shouldn't be depended on to do anything but further their own interests. That's why we introduced democracy, in order to get their interests as closely aligned to the public interest as possible. Nobles are a different story altogether.

>Utterly unfounded. Counterexamples that come immediately to mind are Steve Jobs and Larry Page and Sergey Brin.

I'm not sure how your personal idols refute my ideas of fairness.

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

#128

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#129

Post by huherto »

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.

You are attacking the person. Not his arguments.

Most people assume that just because he became so rich in a developing country he must have done it thru corruption. Carlos Slim is an engineer, he teached algebra and linear programming at the national university. Before buying telmex he was already very successfull in many areas( real state, industrial, financial, comercial and mining). Many people say that he was so rich because president Salinas helped him, but Salinas left 16 years ago and his businesses have flourshed in many areas and in many countries. Why can`t Mexico have somebody as talented as Warren Buffet?

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

#130

Post by huherto »

asolove wrote: post #7
pchristensen wrote: post #4

Not a huge fan of Slim based on what I've heard, but I mostly agree with him on this. Makes me wonder though, what he's doing holding on to tens of billions in wealth if he could be building businesses and creating jobs for the poor instead. It makes it sound like "Business is better than charity, but I'd rather just be rich"

Are his billions in cash, or is his net value based on stock holdings, private investments, etc.?

I would assume his net value is mostly invested in public and private companies.
Post reply on HN