Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 206 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#181

Post by trevelyan »

nickpinkston wrote: post #137
ramanujan wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sometimes it takes the government Hmmm. Not disagreeing that some things funded by government grants have been worthwhile, but almost every scientific discovery before the WW2 period was funded independently of the government -- including big ticket areas involving fundamental research like automobiles, railroads, and aviation.

Well, most railroad expansion was due to a govt act giving tons of land rights and other highly valuable privileges to anyone laying track in the territories - the TransContinental railroad was laid this way. However, quite true on the rest.

Only after the crash of 1857. Prior to that American railroad networks were quite decentralized and much more competitive (not only with themselves, but also with canal systems). Most were financed by local entrepreneurs and often by the British and American companies that sold track on credit.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#182

Post by ohyes »

lionhearted wrote: post #63

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…

Good for you giving away a significant portion of income.

Firstly,

"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 feel like you are treating these conditions as being mutually exclusive, and they do not need to be. I want money allocated by intelligent people who need to keep constituents happy. And I want them to have smart constituents, so that they are actually held accountable making bad allocations. This is because I want a large number of problems to be taken care of expediently.

Secondly,

Rich != Smart.

I don't see how it is that being rich makes Gates, Buffet, Zuckerberg better at allocating resources. Sure, they have some business savvy, but there is a certain amount of luck involved as well (as with any statistical out-lier). This doesn't account for others who made their money through inheritance, and are dumb (really dumb).

The point is not that 'the evil rich are against us,' the point is that they benefit exponentially from government protections compared to a normal person and should provide funds accordingly. I don't see how any of these people would be able to hold onto (or even establish) their wealth without the protections (and utilities, and services) afforded by the government (and if they were, it would simply be some sort of Monarchy).

(ex. The rich don't just benefit from their own use of public roads, they benefit from their employees and customers use as well. How do the rich obtain intelligent, educated labor without required public education? How do they plan to hold onto wealth as they accumulate it without the enforcement of various property laws?)

Charity is good, don't give me wrong. But the rich are hardly victims of the government.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#183

Post by MikeCapone »

ohyes wrote: post #182
lionhearted wrote: post #63

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…

Good for you giving away a significant portion of income. Firstly, "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 feel like you are treating these conditions as being mutually exclusive, and they do not need to be. I want money allocated by intelligent people who need to keep constituents happy. And I w…

> The point is not that 'the evil rich are against us,' the point is that they benefit exponentially from government protections compared to a normal person and should provide funds accordingly.

I think most people would agree with this, but let's remember that taxes are pretty much always based on percentages, which mean that they do scale. 30% of a billion isn't the same as 30% of 50k.

I think this seems to be too often forgotten in the "the wealthy don't pay more taxes than me!" argument.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#184

Post by grandalf »

hugh3 wrote: post #142
lemming wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I'd like to see him start a company that would invent a mobile phone battery that lasts for a month and can power an RC aircraft to fly all the way around the world. Instead of, say, eradicating malaria? You're kidding, right?

grandalf has a fair (if self-interested) point. He's not gonna contract malaria and neither am I. But I'd kinda like a phone battery that lasts a month.

Not just self-interested. I think such a battery would result in greater malaria eradication than direct efforts.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#185

Post by jimmyk »

ohyes wrote: post #182
lionhearted wrote: post #63

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…

Good for you giving away a significant portion of income. Firstly, "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 feel like you are treating these conditions as being mutually exclusive, and they do not need to be. I want money allocated by intelligent people who need to keep constituents happy. And I w…

>(ex. The rich don't just benefit from their own use of public roads, they benefit from their employees and customers use as well. How do the rich obtain intelligent, educated labor without required public education? How do they plan to hold onto wealth as they accumulate it without the enforcement of various property laws?)

I think this argument is flawed for a couple of reasons. One: that someone offers me something that benefits me does not and should not legally compel me to compensate them in return. Take open source software as an example. It has enabled many companies to make money, but they cannot be compelled to compensate the author. And yet that seems to be the argument. The government does things that benefit people, so they should be compelled to pay the government in return. Well, sorry, I appreciate what you've done but I didn't ask you to do it or make you do it so I'll donate to you if I feel like it, not if you feel like it.

Two: all of the benefits you've listed are individual things which individually cost money. Yes, the rich benefit from their employees being able to drive to work. But they pay their employees and their employees in turn pay taxes and fees on gas and other driving related things to pay for the roads. They benefit from an educated workforce and a police force, but those things are paid for through property taxes and other things. The system is made up of a variety of specific things. To lump them all together and say "You couldn't have accumulated your wealth without the system, so you owe the system a whole bunch of your wealth" seems to me to be somewhat dishonest. Sure, they benefit from the system, but specific parts of the system have costs, and I don't think the government's inability to figure out what those costs are and how to collect them justifies just taking a whole bunch of money from the people who look like they benefit from it and can afford it.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#186

Post by redrobot5050 »

stretchwithme wrote: post #119
adambyrtek wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because "rich" and "innovators" isn't really the same thing, and there was even less overlap in the past.

well, I prefer people be demonized for their crimes, not for what they have.

"Ten men in our country could buy the whole world and ten million can't buy enough to eat." --Will Rogers

People demonize the wealthy because they see people acting selfishly and it creating, or at least ignoring, the basic injustices of the world. If I had fallen down, would you not ask me if I was okay? Would you not offer to help me up?

Transforming Facebook from a website to a profitable business is a great business accomplishment. Transforming the wealth acquired in such an endeavor into educations, scholarships, and other decency-of-life improvements is simply a great accomplishment.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#187

Post by gjm11 »

burgerbrain wrote: post #170
gjm11 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as well no one's proposing to do away with the concept of hightech startups, then.

Valuing those who give to charity more than those who start businesses is like eating your only chicken then wondering why you don't have any more eggs.

The people being talked about here are ones who have both started businesses (or at least run them very successfully) and given to charity.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#188

Post by hugh3 »

grandalf wrote: post #184
hugh3 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

grandalf has a fair (if self-interested) point. He's not gonna contract malaria and neither am I. But I'd kinda like a phone battery that lasts a month.

Not just self-interested. I think such a battery would result in greater malaria eradication than direct efforts.

I think such a battery would result in greater malaria eradication than direct efforts.

I might accept "greater good". There's no way I'll accept "greater malaria eradication".

The Gates Foundation is working on malaria eradication because it's one of those things where you really do get great returns by just attacking the problem head on. Batteries have nothing to do with malaria.

The other thing about super-batteries is that there's no shortage of sensible profit-chasing money pouring into it. If Sony, Samsung, Ford, Toyota, General Electric and Rolls Royce are all already pouring billions of dollars into it, there's not much point in Bill Gates throwing a couple of billion onto the pile. But apart from the Gates Foundation hardly anyone with deep pockets is targeting malaria.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#189

Post by ohyes »

jimmyk wrote: post #185
ohyes wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good for you giving away a significant portion of income. Firstly, "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 feel like you are treating these conditions as being mutually exclusive, and they do not need to be. I want money allocated by intelligent people who need to keep constituents happy. And I w…

>(ex. The rich don't just benefit from their own use of public roads, they benefit from their employees and customers use as well. How do the rich obtain intelligent, educated labor without required public education? How do they plan to hold onto wealth as they accumulate it without the enforcement of various property laws?) I think this argument is flawed for a couple of reasons. One: that someone offers me somethin…

1.) It is called a social contract. You have given up some of your own sovereignty to the government so that it can maintain order. By entering into this contract, you are ensured your civil rights. Social contracts are implicit.

This is much different than a legal contract, and makes very little sense in context of your analogy.

2. Why is point two confusing?

I benefit from public education by having been put through school.

An employer benefits from public education by having been put through public school, and also from having employees (like me) who have been put through school.

It is a problem if he pays proportional to the amount of money that he makes, rather than the amount of utility that he receives from the service. Therefore, his taxes and my taxes should not be the same, because he receives a greater total utility.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune

#190

Post by redrobot5050 »

aik wrote: post #72
noonespecial wrote: post #64

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.

The real issue for the longest time was subsidy. We gave aid to African dairy farmers...but we subsidized American Diary so much that it was cheaper for Africans to buy our milk, and neglect their own domestic production.
Post reply on HN