patrick.net

mrobmoore says

You can't have capitalism without the capital.

And capital sits idle when there is no demand.

Kevin says

They seem like people who are trying to do something good. I don't understand why morons need to shit on that. There's nothing wrong with wanting to cure malaria.

If it is possible to manage any non-profit business in a semi-efficient way, these guys are right for the job.

However, there is finite resources in this world. The profit/loss feedback mechanism within a free market has proven to be the most efficient way to allocate our worlds resources, by far.

Charities are almost always wasteful, and often self-indulgent power trips for those who are powerful enough to start them.

That is why people shit on gates and buffet.

thomaswong.1986 says

you can hire VCs to do that as well.. either way your fueling growth into the
economy
instead of creating dead wealth... true capitalist know how to do
this.

Im not worried about my soul in the afterlife. Bill Gates and Warren
are...

So now it is not enough to tax rich people, the rest of us get to tell them how to spend their after tax income too?? He could roll up all his money and smoke 100 dollar bills for all I care.

A true capitalist enjoys his wealth as he/she sees fit. They already made their fortunes and are spending it the way they want. That is all that matters in a free country.

mrobmoore says

Charities are almost always wasteful, and often self-indulgent power trips
for those who are powerful enough to start them.

That is why people shit on gates and buffet.

So, your argument is that because some charities are unreputable, Gates and Buffett shouldn't give their money away? Pretty weak.

If you have something showing that the Gates Foundation is wasteful, then we can talk.

mrobmoore says

That is why people shit on gates and buffet.

And no, people shit on Gates and Buffett for many reasons--mostly political, IMO--but giving their money to charity can't be the main reason.

mrobmoore says

However, there is finite resources in this world. The profit/loss feedback mechanism within a free market has proven to be the most efficient way to allocate our worlds resources, by far.

Says the guy who grows up without having to worry about dying from malaria or starving to death. Or being killed in a civil war. Or being mutilated by a military dictatorship.

These guys have forgotten more about making money and being successful than you'll ever know. The gates foundation is addressing problems that capitalism has completely failed at for over 70 years.

BTW, mrobmoore is me guys. As you can see from my 6 comments, I don't use it to flame or influence discussions-- simply had myself logged in from that account on my cell.

Anyways...

tatupu70 says

mrobmoore says

That is why people shit on gates and buffet.

And no, people shit on Gates and Buffett for many reasons--mostly political, IMO--but giving their money to charity can't be the main reason.

Of course. I was answering a question regarding specifically why people shit on their charity aspirations.

tatupu70 says

So, your argument is that because some charities are unreputable, Gates and Buffett shouldn't give their money away? Pretty weak.

I made no comment about reputation. I am specifically saying it is near impossible to run an efficient organization without a profit/loss feedback system. Therefore, charities, almost by definition, reduce the size of our world's economic output and lower the worldwide standard of living.

Kevin says

Says the guy who grows up without having to worry about dying from malaria or starving to death. Or being killed in a civil war. Or being mutilated by a military dictatorship.

What does this have to do with the discussion?

Kevin says

These guys have forgotten more about making money and being successful than you'll ever know.

Probably, yes. Your point?

Kevin says

The gates foundation is addressing problems that capitalism has completely failed at for over 70 years.

You confuse the terms free-market with capitalism. They are very different concepts.

The poor 3rd world chaps you refer to in your first paragraph have very little access to a free-market economic system. The most well-off populations of the world have greater access to economic free-markets.

The free-market literally saves lives.

Has it occurred to you that we benefit from the free market here BECAUSE we exploit the non free market in poor countries?

All that matters here is results. If a free market only benefits 20% of the population, it isn't working well enough. That's where people like gates come in.

CBOEtrader says

I am specifically saying it is near impossible to run an efficient organization
without a profit/loss feedback system. Therefore, charities, almost by
definition, reduce the size of our world's economic output and lower the
worldwide standard of living.

Yes and no. Charities should be subject to the same feedback loop as businesses--if they waste donations and are poorly run, then people will stop giving. Directly analagous to people voting with their pocketbook. It's not a pure profit/loss in the strictest sense, but it is free market at work.

If information flow is poor, then that feedback loop might break down, but that's a problem with all free markets.

Kevin says

Has it occurred to you that we benefit from the free market here BECAUSE we exploit the non free market in poor countries?

You talk about the free market as if its some sort of political boogey man. Again, do you have a point? No system has ever been a purely free market, and the world will always have problems.

"If a free market only benefits 20% of the population, it isn't working well enough." Straw man. The free market part of our economy does help the masses.

In defense of the Gates Foundation, if they succeed in eradicating polio, it will be a great victory for humanity. Unfortunately they did encounter a setback recently.

Sometimes charitable foundations and governments can succeed where the market would not. Medical research towards cheaper solutions (e.g. vaccines) and campaigns to eradicate diseases (guinea worm) can bring huge benefit, but aren't usually profitable. Also the British NHS does a better job for less money than the American system, which will actually get even more expensive (and worse) with Obamacare. Look at the history of New York: the free market brought profitable ferry service across the East River and the Hudson River, then government brought bridges and tunnels, which helped the whole region.

Government is a tool to do together, things we can't do better individually. National defense is most likely one of those things. Road building may be another. Perhaps researching cures for rare diseases is yet another.

curious2 says

Look at the history of New York: the free market brought profitable ferry service across the East River and the Hudson River, then government brought bridges and tunnels, which helped the whole region.

1) What about the wasteful administrative costs and roads to nowhere that governments have built? 2) How much value would have been foregone to let the free market find its own solution to this opportunity?

Even in your cherry picked government example, I'd bet #2 is less costly to society that #1.

CBOEtrader says

1) What about the wasteful administrative costs and roads to nowhere that governments have built? 2) How much value would have been foregone to let the free market find its own solution to this opportunity?

#1 is a significant cost, particularly where federal subsidies are involved, but at least at the local level bridges seem to be among the things that governments do well. Even at the federal level, #1 didn't become such a problem until comparatively recently. The SF Bay Bridge might never have happened without the support of President Hoover; most people said it wasn't feasible, but as an engineer he insisted it was, and the bridge toll paid for the whole project.