Live data from Hacker News

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

blogs.wsj.com

71–80 of 164 posts

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

#71
post #20

I don't place a lot of value on Carlos Slim's advice. His vast fortune has basically been a result of his ability to practice regulatory arbitrage and own a monopoly (and stifle competition) in Mexico, a country with a highly inefficient governance system. If the political system over there ever became really functional, his empire would be broken apart and much of his wealth would contract.

... So What?

"The only way to fight poverty is with employment"

"Trillions of dollars have been given to charity in the last 50 years, and they don’t solve anything"

"There is a saying that we should leave a better country to our children. But it’s more important to leave better children to our country"

That's what he said. It may be really wrong, stupid, or right. What matters is "is he right?".

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

#72
post #38

The US decided to do some charity work and supply Haiti with rice after the earthquake. Now the rice market is collapsing in Haiti. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11472874

Wait a second... my reading of the story is not that we're giving rice to Haiti for free, but that the rice we're selling to Haiti is cheap because we're subsidizing US farmers.

I just don't want us confusing charity to Haiti (which apparently isn't happening from the US government yet) and subsidizing US farmers who can then underbid foreign farmers. Two very different stories.

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

#73
post #20

I don't place a lot of value on Carlos Slim's advice. His vast fortune has basically been a result of his ability to practice regulatory arbitrage and own a monopoly (and stifle competition) in Mexico, a country with a highly inefficient governance system. If the political system over there ever became really functional, his empire would be broken apart and much of his wealth would contract.

Even though Telmex (his landline company) was acquired from the state, and therefore was a monopoly from the start, Slim faced a monopoly by Iusacell on the wireless phone industry, which he managed to break and manage to get Telcel (his wireless company) to become a monopoly basically by making people want to switch.

Slim's story includes several investments on different industries, including specialty shops (Sanborn's) which he has managed to completely turn around from near-bankrupcy to huge commercial success.

I am not making a claim that his wealth from Telmex didn't contribute to his success, but implying he just managed to get where he is because Mexico's regulatory bodies are useless is a huge understatement to his ability in an industry where several key players (Like AT&T, Nextel, Telefonica Movistar, and others have failed).

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

#74
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Charity does equal giving people money. If you're not giving people money, then you're making an investment.

Let's not get caught up in semantics here. You could just as easily consider giving people money in the name of charity an investment because you're investing in their better future. Can we taboo the words "charity" and "investment" and talk about what the actual acts are?

Semantics matter if they affect expectations. For me (at least), charity means giving money away and hoping for the best. Investment means getting involved with something, and making sure the money invested is properly used. The term "investment" implies a greater level of involvement.

Giving money away as "charity" can be an excuse for not actually getting involved.

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

#75
I would love to jump in and criticize the guy for his comments, but we all live in a welfare state. How many success stories have you heard of people on Welfare that came up with an idea, successfully turned it into a business and are now living happily ever after? I presume not many.

My point here is that most people are not Bill Gates, Steve jobs, Warren Buffet or Mr. Slim. Simply put most people if given money do not spend it wisely and often find themselves in similar situations within short periods of time because they feel entitled to something being given to them.

Now this is not to say that there are exceptions to that rule, I truly believe there are. I think the bill and Melinda Gates foundation has done tremendous work, as have other organizations like the scoff Tiger Woods organization. But these examples focus on the betterment of communities and are not the benevolent "Robin Hood" type charities which indeed exist to this day (some with very little practical accomplishment) While one commenter was right that the Rockefeller's donated VERY significant amounts of their money to charity I think they have an important oversight. the Rockefellers ruled the world through their "charity" essentially having every company and political pundit in their back pocket. What Gates and Buffet do with their charitable contributions are significantly more benevolent than most figures of the past. Though again there are some exceptions (Corneilus Vanderbilt comes to mind) to that rule as well.

Then again we all have opinions, and that is just mine. :)

So without dragging this on too much what i am meaning to say is maybe we're all right. And by Mr. Slim donating fair amounts to the Gates foundation he may even be saying he agrees, in the end the truth is that even the most intelligent and business savvy people in the world have radically different views on this, its my opinion that we need both of those views and types of people for society's continued evolution

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

#76

I have a friend who was well off and was very much against handouts for most people. He would go on about people needing to get a job, pull themselves up and how not finding work was a lazy man's excuse. Then he lost his job, house, car, dog and health in less than a year and even had to move back in with his parents. Amazing how his opinions have changed now that he is the one who despite his best efforts is struggl…

It's a tough issue. I rarely oblige anybody asking me for money on the streets. If they ask for food, I don't mind buying them a meal, but just giving out money doesn't sit well with me. If I could give somebody $50 or $100 and know that it would be used to make their life better, I'd do it without hesitation. Might be an interesting field for a non-profit organization?

I'm with you on the food thing, being hungry truly sucks. There's a cafe I frequent that gives me a discount and I have bought many a hungry person a meal there. A nice addition is since the staff are friends the person is treated like a normal customer (though one guy kept hitting on one of the waitresses to the point of it not being funny anymore).

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

#77
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"... and own a monopoly" Like Bill Gates and Microsoft, who were actually convicted as monopolists? After working in aid in Africa, I have to say I agree more with the Mexican monopolist than the American one.

That's the point. Bill Gates was convicted of being a monopolist and checks were put on what his company could and could not do. That does not happen in Mexico. In more extreme cases, look at John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil. Rockefeller used to be the wealthiest person in the world (according to some, if you inflation adjust his money, he may have been the wealthiest person in the last 200 years). His company was…

In more extreme cases, look at John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil. Rockefeller used to be the wealthiest person in the world (according to some, if you inflation adjust his money, he may have been the wealthiest person in the last 200 years). His company was broken into parts in order to promote competition.

John D. Rockefeller actually ended up being a lot richer because the courts broke up Standard Oil[1]. He went from having a controlling stake in the most powerful company in oil, to having a controlling stake in most of the powerful companies in the whole oil industry (ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell). I just wanted to clarify that point because the order in which your statement was crafted kind of made it seem like the courts broke up his wealth when they actually expanded it.

1.Rockefeller, who had rarely sold shares, held over 25% of Standard’s stock at the time of the breakup. He, as well as all stockholders, received proportionate shares in each of the 34 companies...The companies’ combined net worth rose fivefold and Rockefeller’s personal wealth jumped to $900,000,000.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller

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

#78
I'll agree with the common sentiment that Carlos Slim's general advice is worthless.

But, I think he's on to something here. From the article:

It is the 21st century billionaire version of the old adage, “give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime

I think all he's saying is that one can't throw money at problems and expect them to be fixed. That's an opinion I'll agree with.

If we want to spend money and give to charities, that's valid...but if we're really looking for long-term fixes (see: ending poverty, world hunger, etc) then that's not the way to go about it. We'd need to really create a system behind the charities; when you give money, that should go into investing for the future and creating future solutions to fix problems, rather than simply repairing something in the now and here.

Look at natural disasters. A typhoon occurs and the world pitches in and sends hundreds of millions to the troubled country. That's fine. But what we tend to forget a month after the hurricane is that the reason the countries got hit so hard might just be because of poor infrastructure or inadequate technology or systems. Those things still stay in place long after the world sends money; if they tragically get hit again, nothing has changed and the world will (yet again) be expected to simply send more money.

My favorite example of "throwing money at a problem" is something that happened a few years ago:

Some clothing company (Gap, I think, but I'm not 100% sure) had a huge surplus one year that they decided to give away to some village/s in an impoverished South Asian country. All they did was take their extra clothes [money] and throw it at the problem of horrible poverty in the place.

What ended up happening? It was an amazing two year fix. The clothes were so much (in quantity) that they lasted for a few years before running out. During that time, the fact that Gap sent all these free clothes made the entire industry that used to make clothes for these parts go out of business. At the end of the two years, they were in a position that's worse off than what they were a few years back. No local clothes makers; no free Gap.

"Charity doesn't solve anything" might be a bit strong. But he's on to something. Throwing money at a problem doesn't fix anything in the long-term; the way to do it is to invest in the future, not throw money at the present.

Just my (albeit a bit long) $0.02

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

#79

I think about this in regards to Mr. Gates. He amassed such a huge fortune by building walls around his software, limiting people's potential in a way. Was it necessary? Did proprietary software need to happen to spur innovation? What about his uncompetitive practices? I end up wondering what the balance of 'good' would be in the world if instead of taking everything he could, he had allowed others to grow and shared…

Did proprietary software need to happen to spur innovation? To the extent that the Wintel monopoly resulted in lower hardware costs, it's hard to see any intellectually honest Linux or BSD user arguing otherwise. You would not be able to buy 3+ GFLOPS systems with gigabytes of RAM and terabytes of mass storage for less than $1000 without the kind of mass standardization that, history suggests, can emerge only from mo…

You think we would have worse computer hardware now (for the price) if Microsoft had been less successful? Why do you think that? I don't believe that without MS/Intel we'd have only a bunch of Apple-model hardware manufacturers.

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

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did proprietary software need to happen to spur innovation? To the extent that the Wintel monopoly resulted in lower hardware costs, it's hard to see any intellectually honest Linux or BSD user arguing otherwise. You would not be able to buy 3+ GFLOPS systems with gigabytes of RAM and terabytes of mass storage for less than $1000 without the kind of mass standardization that, history suggests, can emerge only from mo…

You think we would have worse computer hardware now (for the price) if Microsoft had been less successful? Why do you think that? I don't believe that without MS/Intel we'd have only a bunch of Apple-model hardware manufacturers.

Tough to say. I don't see any reason why we wouldn't have ended up with a market fragmented between Apple, Commodore, Atari, IBM, TI, Sinclair, Radio Shack, and twenty other companies all selling essentially similar hardware with mutually quirky chipsets and incompatible OSes.

That's certainly an accurate portrayal of the state of things in the era before MS-DOS. What would be some arguments to the contrary?

Post reply on HN