Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

online.wsj.com

81–90 of 206 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#81
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Counter-intuitive truth.

It isn't even that counter-intuitive. The approach for the longest time was to give aid through food and other basic necessities. Teaching a person how to fish rather than giving him fish clearly produces better results in the long term.

This is the "dirty little secret" about the sudden rise in African fortunes in the last decade or so (it is the fastest ascension of the middle class for Africa in... well, ever).

And, I know correlation != causation, but it's interesting nonetheless to note that this has happened under unprecedented investment by China in the continent, while investment rates actually shrank in the West (particularly in Europe, which probably is attributable to the financial crisis). This ascension is a marked improvement compared to, say, the efforts of Colonialism (the so-called "scramble for Africa"), Apartheid, and guilt-ridden charity.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#82
post #79
post #70

How much liquid wealth does Mark actually have? Isn't the vast majority of it purely theoretical based on Facebook equity purchases?

This is a public pledge on his part that he'll give away the majority of his wealth over time, not right this moment. At the moment, I'm not sure the guy owns much of anything besides Facebook stock. Last I read, he rents a little house and drives a paid-off Nissan coupe.

Simple living high thinking. I bet many people in his position would have already mortgaged a mansion and ultra-luxury car.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it a really shameful comment. It seems like unbelievably wishful thinking to claim that high-tech startups are the most important thing everyone should be doing when the going rate for saving lives from tuberculosis or malaria is in the hundreds of dollars per (e.g. http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities ). I'd like to hear why that is not real value. No doubt most First World businesses produce techn…

> I find it a really shameful comment. You can still debate the merits civilly - and that makes it more likely to actually change someone's opinion than just expressing outrage. > It seems like unbelievably wishful thinking to claim that high-tech startups are the most important thing everyone should be doing when the going rate for saving lives from tuberculosis or malaria is in the hundreds of dollars per There's n…

As for the condemnation? Why not just, y'know, state your point of view without the moral condemnation? I don't think it adds much to the discussion. By the way, I'm more in agreement with you than the OP, though I think it's a bit more nuanced than you make it out to be.

Well, mostly because my comments read more dramatically when I take the opportunity to cast a good antagonist for them.

Having electric cars that are more efficient and cleaner than existing cars would be great, and it would save a lot of energy and labor, but the amount of money and effort spent on attaining that goal is far greater than what (e.g.) Tesla is spending individually; it's the net total of many years of research and many years yet to come of implementation and manufacturing. (That is, it's not like Elon Musk is singlehandedly bringing us to an era of ubiquitous electric vehicles.) It strains my credibility to imagine that the same money and man-hours, if they were allocated with equal passion toward education, disease, or the elimination of poverty, would not turn a much greater ROI over a few decades than more efficient cars.

Our current situation is such that thanks to culture, incentives, and human nature, ninety-nine percent of educated, able people with the ability and drive to work very hard, decide to work at some personally profitable business or industry. I am not inclined to take the remaining one percent and criticize them for plucking what seems like extremely low-hanging fruit from the other tree.

The choir is my favorite place for preaching so I'm glad you agree!

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#84
If I had billions I would certainly pay great attention to where I would put that money to work in order to create most goodness and wealth out of it. I would be wary of many charities as groups can get as confused from big money as individuals do.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#85
post #82
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a public pledge on his part that he'll give away the majority of his wealth over time, not right this moment. At the moment, I'm not sure the guy owns much of anything besides Facebook stock. Last I read, he rents a little house and drives a paid-off Nissan coupe.

Simple living high thinking. I bet many people in his position would have already mortgaged a mansion and ultra-luxury car.

I agree. In fact, I know many broke people who have already mortgaged a mansion and ultra-luxury car.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#87
post #74

Fantastic. I wonder if all these very public proclamations are going to shift people's attitude towards taxes? Most people think of the government as wasteful, inefficient, incompetent, and corrupt to more or less degrees, and I know I'd prefer to see money allocated by smart people like Gates, Buffet, Zuckerberg than by politicians who need to keep constituents happy and win votes. I committed a while back to giving…

I don't like estate taxes. Governments are typically terrible financial stewards and bad examples of financial responsibility. Give the government one billion and it will find a way to spend two. But I also don't like the idea of a permanent aristocratic class where generation after generation are born into opulence because your great grandfather created a great company. The movement towards philanthropy is a great a…

I'd argue one of the points of estate taxes (which are heavily favored by Buffet, Gates, et. al) is to encourage you to will your fortunes to philanthropy - so it doesn't end up in the hands of the government.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#88
post #9

After someone asked Warren Buffet why he wanted to give away all of his fortune, he replied: "I want to leave enough money to my children that they can do anything, but no so much that they will do nothing".

Lawrence: Well you don't need a million dollars to do nothing, man. Just take a look at my cousin, he's broke, don't do shit.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#89
post #9

After someone asked Warren Buffet why he wanted to give away all of his fortune, he replied: "I want to leave enough money to my children that they can do anything, but no so much that they will do nothing".

It's a great idea when your children are young, but they are in their fifties now...

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#90
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like estate taxes. Governments are typically terrible financial stewards and bad examples of financial responsibility. Give the government one billion and it will find a way to spend two. But I also don't like the idea of a permanent aristocratic class where generation after generation are born into opulence because your great grandfather created a great company. The movement towards philanthropy is a great a…

I'd argue one of the points of estate taxes (which are heavily favored by Buffet, Gates, et. al) is to encourage you to will your fortunes to philanthropy - so it doesn't end up in the hands of the government.

Great point! High estate taxes gives an incentive to the wealthy not to pay estate taxes.

The original intent of my argument was that I don't like the idea of handing over half your estate to the government. I suppose the proponents of the high estate tax wanted avoidance of the tax via philanthropy as an intended side effect.

Thanks, I never looked at it that way.

Post reply on HN