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

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

#151

Post by lzw » Sun, Oct 17, 2010, 8:49 AM UTC

Tycho wrote: post #145

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…

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 wr…

The only way a cartel can work is via government enforcement. Cartels can try to fix prices, but as soon as they do, if the price is above the free-market price, members of the cartel will try to gain marketshare by selling under the table at a lower price. Cartels are not sustainable in a free market for this reason.

I can't comment on DeBeers because I do not know enough of the history of the situation. I will say, though, that diamonds are essentially worthless, and it is primarily by brilliant propaganda / advertising that people continue to buy them.

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

#152

Post by lzw » Sun, Oct 17, 2010, 8:53 AM UTC

cromulent wrote: post #147

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…

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.

This is not a definition, this is an expression of the leftist ideological position. I have seen many situations on Wikipedia where factually correct edits are reversed because they disagree with the ideology of the wikipedia editors who have stature.

It is kinda like hacker news where a useful comment like mine is voted down to zero, while someone calling me names and repeating ignorant comments that are consistent with the groupthink of the left, get modded up.

It is not that their name calling and ideological regurgitation are superior to my argument... it is that people vote based on ideology, often when they are profoundly ignorant of the reality.

I suggest that you not use Wikipedia as a source for definitions, as that one is particularly heinous. In common usage one could use the term "monopoly" to describe entities with strong pricing power, but common usage is not usage in economics, yet the wikipedia definition starts "in economics".

Any "Economist" who defines a monopoly as a company that does not have ownership of the entire market, is an ideologue pretending to be an economist.

In economics, they use this term correctly.

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

#153

Post by lzw » Sun, Oct 17, 2010, 8:57 AM UTC

csomar wrote: post #149

lzw wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Wil…

I've seen no evidence or reason to believe that those who care about their kids will not value education for them. And I have seen evidence that uneducated people do value education. My presumption would be that they value it more.

On the other hand, I find that very few people are willign to create jobs for themselves. Most people are workers. Most people are mainstream and conventional thinkers. I have a sample group of people in the %98 of intelligence and education in the country, and still more than %99 of them are uninterested in striking out on their own... they don't have any desire to be entrepreneurial. Of course, they did go thru the US educational system which pretty much is all about conformism and groupthink, in my opinion.

Give parents the financial resources, via a job, and they will get their kids education.

But how many liberal arts majors do you know? Or other people who went to college, and can't get a job using their degree?

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

#154

Post by csomar » Sun, Oct 17, 2010, 11:33 AM UTC

lzw wrote: post #153

csomar wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Wil…

I've seen no evidence or reason to believe that those who care about their kids will not value education for them. And I have seen evidence that uneducated people do value education. My presumption would be that they value it more. On the other hand, I find that very few people are willign to create jobs for themselves. Most people are workers. Most people are mainstream and conventional thinkers. I have a sample gro…

FYI, I don't live in the USA. So my situation here is kind of quite different.

>> And I have seen evidence that uneducated people do value education. My presumption would be that they value it more.

Yes, they do. But they have little knowledge in the right education, don't they? All they know is that they should take their children to schools and colleges and that there children get good grades.

>> Give parents the financial resources, via a job, and they will get their kids education.

Now that's exactly what happened in Tunisia. We have now a load of degrees takers in any field, but do they know how to write properly in English or French? No, they were focusing on grades and success. Parents did spend lot of money on their education, but most of them are failing now and there is a "retour à la source", where children are taking their parents jobs to guarantee a living.

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

#155

Post by cromulent » Sun, Oct 17, 2010, 3:45 PM UTC

lzw wrote: post #152

cromulent wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is not a definition, this is an expression of the leftist ideological position. I have seen many situations on Wikipedia where factually correct edits are reversed because they disagree with the ideology of the wikipedia editors who have stature. It is kinda like hacker news where a useful comment like mine is voted down to zero, while someone calling me names and repeating ignorant comments that are consistent…

According to my economics textbooks, when you say "ownership of the entire market" you are talking about a pure monopoly, which is different to a monopoly. You don't need the entire market to have monopolistic power.

So, I would disagree with your definitions, and your assertion that "in economics, they use this term correctly".

I would also suggest that your assertions seem somewhat ideological. Many people agree that trusts are bad for capitalism in that they restrict competition, and are not evidence of socialism.

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

#156

Post by eru » Sun, Oct 17, 2010, 4:41 PM UTC

cromulent wrote: post #148

eru wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes. They did big-bang reforms, or more gradual shedding of socialism?

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

#157

Post by cromulent » Sun, Oct 17, 2010, 5:01 PM UTC

eru wrote: post #156

cromulent wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes. They did big-bang reforms, or more gradual shedding of socialism?

Shock therapy. There was certainly some pains along the way, but they seem to be doing very well now, given their starting point.

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

#158

Post by igrekel » Sun, Oct 17, 2010, 9:57 PM UTC

lzw wrote: post #153

csomar wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Wil…

I've seen no evidence or reason to believe that those who care about their kids will not value education for them. And I have seen evidence that uneducated people do value education. My presumption would be that they value it more. On the other hand, I find that very few people are willign to create jobs for themselves. Most people are workers. Most people are mainstream and conventional thinkers. I have a sample gro…

You complain about educated people just wanting a job instead of striking it on their own and in the same post scoff liberal majors because they can't get a job out of college. What is the point?

In many cases education requires far more resources than a large part of the population is able or willing to afford. Also even if uneducated people may seem to value education more, their relationship to it is significantly different.

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

#159

Post by jshen » Mon, Oct 18, 2010, 4:38 AM UTC

lzw wrote: post #139

jshen wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mexico has virtually no safety net, a fraction of redistribution of wealth for social good such as infrastructure and education, etc Using taxes for laying a foundation that provides greater opportunity for society in general is very similar to doing it with charity. Not doing it is very similar to saying, "leave it to the private sector"

It is "very similar" in the way that buying a meal at mcdonalds is "very similar" to being mugged. In one case you do it voluntarily and the people involved are incentivized to do it efficiently.... and in the other case you do it at gun point and the person involved has no incentive to spend the money efficiently.

i disagree with the premise that the only motivation people have is personal greed.

I disagree with the depiction of taxation is a mugging, even libertarians want government when push comes to shove. Afghanistan is what it's like with no real government, and no one is for that. Even libertarians want the government to put a gun to your head to enforce contract law!

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

#160

Post by crpatino » Mon, Oct 18, 2010, 7:41 PM UTC

brudgers wrote: post #112

Efficient use of capital doesn't entail a jobs program for a billion of the worlds poor or providing them with education and healthcare for nothing in return. The goal of capital is to create capital. Diverting capital for the purpose of job creation is charity (when done by individuals) or welfare (when done by governments). Sims approach helps some of the unemployed, but few of the unemployable people in the world.

I sorely regret that your contribution has not received more attention!

Slim's underlying assumption is that only those people that are suitable to held a job are worth caring about, for as long they remain suitable to held such job.

I agree that social entrepreneuring and accessible seed capital investment is part of the solution, as well as employment stimulus programs. However, we cannot ignore that fact that the global tendency in the dominant incarnation of capitalism is to replace labor and expertise with capital, automation and standard processes. Pure capital generating abstract machines cannot be a solution to our labor problems.

Even more so, we need to address the fact that there is people in this world who will never be able to have a job again: the elderly, the disabled, the dispossesed. No matter how much economic growth there is in the world, they will never have direct access to that.