I think the critics are mostly, maybe at a subconscious level annoyed by the unfairness of Zuckerberg first having a fortunate upbringing / IQ, then making $45bn before turning 30 and then doing saint like stuff. So they try to knock him down which I guess is understandable, and rationalise it in various not totally logical ways which I guess is human nature.
Why Zuckerberg’s Critics Are Wrong
21–30 of 70 posts
Re: Why Zuckerberg’s Critics Are Wrong
#22I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that "philanthrocapitalism" is a term used to obfuscate the issue of billionaires setting up tax havens in the guise of philanthropy. The term implies that philanthropy can be or is a mode of capitalism, whereas in reality it's the opposite because philanthropy deals with altruistic allocation of resources rather than profit-seeking allocation of resources. Let's not use thi…
Is it at all clear that Zuckerberg is getting any tax benefit from moving his shares? I believe the "foundation", which is not a non-profit, will still pay taxes when it sells FB shares. If the LLC donates to a non-profit then it will get a tax benefit.
IANAL, so please someone who is actually informed feel free to correct me. A lot of what I've seen written is completely un-nuanced and probably wrong.
Re: Why Zuckerberg’s Critics Are Wrong
#23The harsh criticism feels unwarranted to me as well. It honestly feels to me like a little bit of misplaced self insecurity. I kind of get it, but considering that there is no evidence of ill will, I get the sense that people are reacting to something other than what's actually happening here (like their dislike for Zuckerberg's fortunes, how he got it, Facebook privacy issues, etc.) To put this into context, if a yo…
>if a young mother dedicates 99% of her life (but not billions because she doesn't have it) into charity That is the point. He is not dedicating 99% of his life, he is moving money around. If an average person gives 5% of his income to charity he is losing power and losing opportunities. He is sacrificing his well being and that of his immediate family for charity. If someone with as much money as Zuckerberg or Gates…
[deleted]
Re: Why Zuckerberg’s Critics Are Wrong
#24The harsh criticism feels unwarranted to me as well. It honestly feels to me like a little bit of misplaced self insecurity. I kind of get it, but considering that there is no evidence of ill will, I get the sense that people are reacting to something other than what's actually happening here (like their dislike for Zuckerberg's fortunes, how he got it, Facebook privacy issues, etc.) To put this into context, if a yo…
>if a young mother dedicates 99% of her life (but not billions because she doesn't have it) into charity That is the point. He is not dedicating 99% of his life, he is moving money around. If an average person gives 5% of his income to charity he is losing power and losing opportunities. He is sacrificing his well being and that of his immediate family for charity. If someone with as much money as Zuckerberg or Gates…
Still. Results.
Re: Why Zuckerberg’s Critics Are Wrong
#25[deleted]
"the most productive individual in society" I think this is the crux of the issue. Is Zuckerberg amongst the most productive individuals in the society? As another example, was Steve Jobs so much more productive than his competitors. Can Warren Buffet be considered productive at all, for that matter (we wouldn't have a shortage of insurance companies, sugar water selling companies, furniture and apparel companies if…
I originally wanted to reply to a reply to your comment, but it was deleted.
The reply said that he disagrees with your logic, as we as society decided that capital accumulation is productivity.
My comment to that was:
> > We have defined productivity with capital accumulation in society.
> We have not.
> People get capital for being lucky, and from privileged backgrounds. Zuckerberg is not an exception, nor are most of us here on HN.
> You don’t get rich because you are doing the best work. In fact, the most productive researchers usually end up on minimal grants having to save money, and never actually make much money themselves.
> The money ends up with the people who have luck, connections, are at the right place at the right time.
> This is why society has decided to publicly fund research based on productivity with tax money, as obviously the free market is unable to do so.
> The free market isn’t funding Wendelstein 7-X, nor the LHC. The free market isn’t funding the E-ELT. The free market isn’t giving any of the involved researchers billions.
> The people who invented the computer died poor, but a person who just happened to do what MySpace did before, at the right place, right time, happened to become billionaire.
> No, capital accumulation is not even correlated to productivity.
Re: Why Zuckerberg’s Critics Are Wrong
#26The harsh criticism feels unwarranted to me as well. It honestly feels to me like a little bit of misplaced self insecurity. I kind of get it, but considering that there is no evidence of ill will, I get the sense that people are reacting to something other than what's actually happening here (like their dislike for Zuckerberg's fortunes, how he got it, Facebook privacy issues, etc.) To put this into context, if a yo…
The 'charitable work' feels to me like it's primarily an exercise of power. An amount that an individual shouldn't have in the first place. And this particular individual doesn't have a particularly good track record.
1) For example, 'investing' in education may boost the private education system at the further detriment of the public one - long term this could be worse for accessibility of the poor to good education. Zuckerberg does not have a track record of wanting to help public education in a way that includes stake holders like ... parents. Controlling an education system also allows indoctrinating people in convenient ways. I'd rather the public decides which propaganda our young generation's minds get poisoned with rather than a billionaire with uncertain motivations.
2) For example, bringing the 1 billion poorest on the internet may involve giving them some sort of crippled Facebook+wikipedia-only access for free. This would create a great funnel to Facebook, in the name of charity, of course as a tax-deductible charitable donation, and would effectively make it harder for these people to access the real internet that can actually help solve problems for them. Because it's tough to compete with free. Zuckerberg may end up destroying local companies trying to provide access to the internet. Just like direct food donations can undermine the local food production industry.
A young mother dedicating 99% of their life to charity is unlikely to have the potential for far-reaching negative consequences. And as you described that scenario, she is less likely to have motives about accumulating power, less likely to have a negative track record of mis-using power or misrepresenting intentions.
Re: Why Zuckerberg’s Critics Are Wrong
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
>if a young mother dedicates 99% of her life (but not billions because she doesn't have it) into charity That is the point. He is not dedicating 99% of his life, he is moving money around. If an average person gives 5% of his income to charity he is losing power and losing opportunities. He is sacrificing his well being and that of his immediate family for charity. If someone with as much money as Zuckerberg or Gates…
Still. Results.
Show them.
Re: Why Zuckerberg’s Critics Are Wrong
#28[deleted]
"the most productive individual in society" I think this is the crux of the issue. Is Zuckerberg amongst the most productive individuals in the society? As another example, was Steve Jobs so much more productive than his competitors. Can Warren Buffet be considered productive at all, for that matter (we wouldn't have a shortage of insurance companies, sugar water selling companies, furniture and apparel companies if…
>>Is that reason enough to award him so much more control over the future of society as opposed to the guy who invented Orkut, for example?
Capitalism says yes, and it's the best mechanism we've come up with so far.
Re: Why Zuckerberg’s Critics Are Wrong
#29Actual title: In Defense of Philanthrocapitalism, by James Surowiecki
The page has the same title as this story currently, so at least the clickbaity title is coming from the source and not OP.
Re: Why Zuckerberg’s Critics Are Wrong
#30I think the critics are mostly, maybe at a subconscious level annoyed by the unfairness of Zuckerberg first having a fortunate upbringing / IQ, then making $45bn before turning 30 and then doing saint like stuff. So they try to knock him down which I guess is understandable, and rationalise it in various not totally logical ways which I guess is human nature.
The complaints are largely that he is talking about doing benevolent dictatorial stuff in the future, not that he is *doing saint like stuff now".