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

141–150 of 164 posts

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

#141

Post by r0s »

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 an interesting point, could it extend to 'employment' too?

What I mean is, how do you set up employment that is self sustaining without wealth invested from outside? Is an industry that exists solely to support itself a house of cards, ready to collapse at the first sign of instability?

It almost looks like any investment is also "throwing money at the problem".

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

#142

Post by pessimizer »

orangecat wrote: post #132
pessimizer wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fa…

I'm not sure how your personal idols refute my ideas of fairness. I'm claiming they got rich by means of voluntary exchange with customers, rather than exploiting people. Do you disagree?

I disagree that the two are mutually exclusive, yes.

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

#143

Post by stuntgoat »

Vinod Kholsa seems to agree in that regard. He is investing in profitable ventures that have great potential to solve large problems. According to a NYT article, he wants to show that for-profit businesses can be more effective at achieving goals than most non-profit organizations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/business/global/06khosla.h...

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

#144

Post by damoncali »

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.

Where is being a monopolist a crime?

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

#145

Post by Tycho »

lzw wrote: post #136
napierzaza wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A monopoly is someone who owns an entire market. In the history of america, the only monopolies that have existed were government granted ones, like the US Postal Service. The government passed a law prohibiting the offering of first class mail. At the time they did this, there was a thriving and growing and diverse mail delivery system made up of thousands of small businesses and private contractors. Standard Oil wa…

What di you make of the DeBeers 10 year diamond monopoly? If all the supposed monopolies out there, this seems the hardest to debunk. I read one economist say they were really a cartel with government protection, but he didn't cite any evidence. DeBeers seem to have controlled the trade through their own shrewdness. Only point I can think against it is there's nothing to stop people reselling diamond rings so it's wrong to say they control the market.

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

#146

Post by jakarta »

lzw wrote: post #136
napierzaza wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A monopoly is someone who owns an entire market. In the history of america, the only monopolies that have existed were government granted ones, like the US Postal Service. The government passed a law prohibiting the offering of first class mail. At the time they did this, there was a thriving and growing and diverse mail delivery system made up of thousands of small businesses and private contractors. Standard Oil wa…

You do a great job at ignoring the facts.

Standard Oil was able to use anti-competitive forces against competitors. They specifically were able to extract better rates for the transportation of oil with the railroad companies which helped give them a more competitive cost structure than peers. Because of the high cost of capital required at the time, many peers were driven out of business and were forced to sell to Rockefeller.

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

#147

Post by cromulent »

lzw wrote: post #136
napierzaza wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A monopoly is someone who owns an entire market. In the history of america, the only monopolies that have existed were government granted ones, like the US Postal Service. The government passed a law prohibiting the offering of first class mail. At the time they did this, there was a thriving and growing and diverse mail delivery system made up of thousands of small businesses and private contractors. Standard Oil wa…

Wikipedia has a pretty good definition:

In economics, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

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

#148

Post by cromulent »

eru wrote: post #101
jakarta wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As a counterexample, Poland did not do too bad. Or did it?

For a country that was severely screwed by everyone 60-odd years ago, and crawled out from under the iron curtain less than 20 years ago, they are doing quite well, I think. Polish people have a lot of heart.

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

#149

Post by csomar »

lzw wrote: post #134
csomar wrote: post #133

As someone who is from a third-world country and self-educated, I can't stress enough on providing access to education. We can create 5,000 jobs today. Simple workers with $10/hour pay. 100 years later and the country won't move. The workers don't understand the power of education, they won't teach well their children and in a third-world country, it's very unlikely they'll get a decent one. I don't mean by education…

The education you're talking about doesn't exist in first world countries either. The education, from elementary school to college, is focused on "teaching" people to be good: citizens (that is, compliant with government demands), consumers, and employees. The highest virtue in schools in first world countries are athletics and popularity. The lowest virtues are learning. If you create jobs in an area, then people ha…

I have to agree to some extent, though. But let's get back to my point: If I have a child, will I care about his education as if I was "non-educated"?

The difference is huge, I'll buy my son books, magazines, Internet access, good education to learn languages and math, the opportunity to travel... not because I'm a rich dad (may be I won't), but because I think this will evolve his mind and improve his education.

Will a 9-5(blue/white) color worker do that? It's not a question of money but a mentality. That's what I'm talking about. Change people minds and they'll create jobs for themselves.

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

#150

Post by lzw »

jakarta wrote: post #146
lzw wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A monopoly is someone who owns an entire market. In the history of america, the only monopolies that have existed were government granted ones, like the US Postal Service. The government passed a law prohibiting the offering of first class mail. At the time they did this, there was a thriving and growing and diverse mail delivery system made up of thousands of small businesses and private contractors. Standard Oil wa…

You do a great job at ignoring the facts. Standard Oil was able to use anti-competitive forces against competitors. They specifically were able to extract better rates for the transportation of oil with the railroad companies which helped give them a more competitive cost structure than peers. Because of the high cost of capital required at the time, many peers were driven out of business and were forced to sell to R…

I love how ideological nonsense that bears no releationship to historical facts is considered "facts" and by not goose stepping along with your fascist ideology you feel justified in calling me ignorant. When its painfully obvious that all you are able to contribute to the conversation is a poor repetition of your vague memories of the propaganda you were told about the situation, when in reality, vertical integration, including the purchasing of transportation systems gave standard oil a competitive advantage. This is known as competition, and is not "anti-competitive". In fact, if you use the phrase "anti-competitive" seriously, you should lose the right to post on this website because you reveal yourself to be an unthinking socialist, and if you ever managed to start a company, you would surely fuck it up by following your ideology over reality.
Post reply on HN