Jobs vs. Gates: Who's the Star? (2006)
1–10 of 18 posts
Re: Jobs vs. Gates: Who's the Star? (2006)
#2The view of this writer brings up something that sickens me about philanthropy and that's doing it just to get the recognition and attention of rather than giving because you actually want to help someone.
Re: Jobs vs. Gates: Who's the Star? (2006)
#3I don't know if Jobs is well known outside of the computer industry, while OTOH everybody knows Bill Gates. If BG plays his cards right, he'll likely be not only widely-known and remembered, but he'll be remembered in a very positive light as well.
Re: Jobs vs. Gates: Who's the Star? (2006)
#4Leander Kahney seems to think there's something unethical about building products, managing an organization, and benefiting from it. The resentful epithets he throws around (cutthroat capitalist, vengeful nerd, selfish business goals, greedy capitalist, obscene fortune) are shallow tropes and stereotypes. No one has any duty to participate in the ridiculous rock-star, celebutard culture Kahney endorses. The greatest responsibility that "…comes with great wealth and power…" is restraint. Whether Jobs shows that restraint through anonymous giving or recalcitrant hoarding doesn't matter to me, his work speaks for itself. I'm sure he can endure the shame of not meeting Kahney's childishly conventional ideals.
Re: Jobs vs. Gates: Who's the Star? (2006)
#5The view of this writer brings up something that sickens me about philanthropy and that's doing it just to get the recognition and attention of rather than giving because you actually want to help someone.
I'm not sure if that's what you mean, but if you think BG would give most of his fortune just to get recognition and attention... I think that's really unfair with him.
Re: Jobs vs. Gates: Who's the Star? (2006)
#6The view of this writer brings up something that sickens me about philanthropy and that's doing it just to get the recognition and attention of rather than giving because you actually want to help someone.
I'm not sure if that's what you mean, but if you think BG would give most of his fortune just to get recognition and attention... I think that's really unfair with him.
I'm speaking in general.
Re: Jobs vs. Gates: Who's the Star? (2006)
#7Being a "star" has almost nothing to do with being a good person. It's persona. Jobs has a very compelling life story. He approaches his work with the relentless perfectionism and devotion of an artist. He understands the value of theatrics and suspense. He's reclusive and arrogant but also charming. He's simply a more interesting character than Bill Gates who was a rich kid that went to Harvard and got even richer. I admire what he's doing with his money now but it doesn't change the fact that he's a boring character.
Re: Jobs vs. Gates: Who's the Star? (2006)
#8The view of this writer brings up something that sickens me about philanthropy and that's doing it just to get the recognition and attention of rather than giving because you actually want to help someone.
Gates' early philanthropic donations were primarily to higher-ed institutions. Somewhere along the line he learned that that's among the most regressive, least effective forms of charity, and shifted his focus to the truly poor and needy. That convinced me that he was truly interested in helping others and not just looking for recognition, attention, or improving the MS brand.
Re: Jobs vs. Gates: Who's the Star? (2006)
#9The view of this writer brings up something that sickens me about philanthropy and that's doing it just to get the recognition and attention of rather than giving because you actually want to help someone.
What evidence do you have about how common this is?
Re: Jobs vs. Gates: Who's the Star? (2006)
#10The view of this writer brings up something that sickens me about philanthropy and that's doing it just to get the recognition and attention of rather than giving because you actually want to help someone.
What sickens me is that it's also the other way around.
If you are a billionaire and give money away in private, you'll be publicly criticized for not giving anything to charities. You're guilty unless proven innocent, so to speak.
Or take somebody like Warren Buffet. For years people had criticized him for ignoring charities, while he was of the opinion that he could put the money to better use by investing it wisely. A few years back he decided to join forces with Gates and signed almost all of his money away to charity. And suddenly, of course, the media flips and applauds his generosity.
The strategy of keeping all the money during your career and giving it away in a lump sum in the end may be a close to optimal solution (because you give away everything you're going to think very carefully about how to make the biggest impact. Otherwise you'll pick a few charities at the end of every year for PR reasons and for tax benefits; that's not going to be optimal.)
To criticize a billionaire when he wastes obscene amounts of money (yachts/private planes) I can understand (although I think they earned those luxuries). To criticize people for investing the money they've made, when there's no reason to assume they're not going to give the same money to charity in the future, well, that's just petty.