Jump to content

Maybe he was a member of this board?????


petey2720
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Kind of sad, accumulating wealth and living in fake poverty. Nothing to admire IMO.

 

Seriously? You'd admire him more if he'd spent it on himself instead of saving and growing it for charity?

 

It also says that he visited the hospital regularly, visiting and listening to the patients.  Palantir, who do you admire, the Kardashians and Kanye West!  ;D  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of sad, accumulating wealth and living in fake poverty. Nothing to admire IMO.

 

Prior to heading to the retirement home, he and his wife lived in Magnolia, one of the nicest neighborhoods in Seattle, so I don't know what your "fake poverty" references. Further, unless you believe material goods wholly define happiness, I imagine he generated plenty of happiness knowing what his gifts would yield for their beneficiaries after his passing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of sad, accumulating wealth and living in fake poverty. Nothing to admire IMO.

 

Seriously? You'd admire him more if he'd spent it on himself instead of saving and growing it for charity?

 

It also says that he visited the hospital regularly, visiting and listening to the patients.  Palantir, who do you admire, the Kardashians and Kanye West!  ;D  Cheers!

 

He was probably also married to the same woman for like 50 years. All that money and one woman...for shame.  ;D  :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like a great man.

It would have been nice to know how much he inherited originally but a great story to read.

Nazism taleb would probably criticize this man (he criticized Buffett for living frugally and amassing great wealth), sounds like a great man to me though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This man was honorable and I respect him but I think he could have enjoyed his money a bit more. He was blessed to have amassed such wealth and there is nothing wrong with enjoying it. If you're lucky enough in this world to have that wealth you should enjoy some of it. I'm not saying that he should buy expensive cars and big homes but he could still buy a car to get around town and wear clothes that are not ripped. God bless him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This man was honorable and I respect him but I think he could have enjoyed his money a bit more. He was blessed to have amassed such wealth and there is nothing wrong with enjoying it. If you're lucky enough in this world to have that wealth you should enjoy some of it. I'm not saying that he should buy expensive cars and big homes but he could still buy a car to get around town and wear clothes that are not ripped. God bless him.

He doesn't look like a bum in photo that is published in the linked article, and why does he need a car and perfect clothes? Does a car have to provide any additional utility if you can get around without problems using public transport? Do clothes without a hole keep you noticeable warmer? Just because those items would make you happy doesn't mean that it would mean anything for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reminds me of this story:

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/27/news/mn-23916

 

... And their stories, while rare enough to make the headlines, are similar enough to sound familiar.

 

There was Emma Howe of Minneapolis, who left $1 tips but bequeathed $31 million to the poor and disadvantaged.

 

And Anne Schieber of New York, a former IRS auditor who wore the same frayed black dress every day, but built a $22-million fortune.

 

And Gladys Holm, a Chicago secretary who never made more than $15,000 a year, accumulated $18 million and gave it all to a children's hospital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This man was honorable and I respect him but I think he could have enjoyed his money a bit more. He was blessed to have amassed such wealth and there is nothing wrong with enjoying it. If you're lucky enough in this world to have that wealth you should enjoy some of it. I'm not saying that he should buy expensive cars and big homes but he could still buy a car to get around town and wear clothes that are not ripped. God bless him.

 

He may not have felt entitled that way.  Perhaps he felt like Buffett, that he was wired a certain way that gave him an advantage, and that he was just a steward of the capital...not the entitled.  Personally, I can relate to him quite well and can understand why he did the things he did...the frugality, using public transportation, hiding the wealth, not spending extravagantly, and then donating the bulk of it.  You come into this world alone and with nothing, and you go out the same way.  The man understood that!  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While giving away your money seems like to be on higher moral ground than spending it on a lavish lifestyle, things have never been muddier, for me anyway. And by the way, I don't believe that lavish spending makes anyone happier. Once you have a nice place to live, a car or two and can do the activities that you enjoy, you have pretty much spent enough. You won't attract true friends by showing off, the circle of friends may actually shrink and you will just be lonely in your castle or 2nd Ferrari.

 

When you invest and make money there are only two places where it could come from:

 

1- You buy a security from someone at a low price because that person panics, wants to sell or whatever other reason. You then sell it a little while later at a profit and it now trades at fair value. In that case, money just went from one well off individual to another. Same if you short sell or sell something overvalued or buy high to sell higher.

 

2- You buy a security and its price increases over time because the company's profits are growing. Eventually, you decide to sell for whatever reason and make a profit. That money you made, is the result of the hard work and ingenuity of the people who work for that corporation.

 

Of course, #1 and #2 could act as a combination but, unless I miss something that is where my gains mostly if not entirely come from. In essence if you are a good investor, you are just wise but, create zero value for society.

 

So if I spend my life investing (current plan) and give the majority of what I have earned to charity since I will not spend most of it, is that good? That money that I am accumulating like a squirrel accumulates nuts, could it not be better used by someone else or society now vs in 10, 20 or 50 years?

 

Of course if I am a good investor, the rate of return will make the pile bigger overtime and may look like a fine endeavour but, again looking at point #1 and #2, it is someone else money that I am hoarding or society's money. That money could have been spent on some goods and make someone work right way. That is even if it was spent on some lavish spending. It could also have been reinvested in some new technology helping the human condition earlier which is now not possible since I am holding that capital.

 

It may sound like doing Robin Hood's work but, sometimes I wonder.

 

What happens if humanity gets wiped out tomorrow? Was this a worthwhile endeavour?

 

Cardboard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cardboard, no reason why you can't do both.  Help those that you can now, while whatever is left at the end that your family can't consume can go to help others as well. 

 

That's what I'm trying to do...I can compound capital quite well, but I have this urge and desire to help those that I can now as well...be it with a cup of coffee or referral for a job, toys for the toy bank or food for the food bank, sitting on a board of a non-profit or being an angel investor for a great entrepreneur...you CAN do it all, as well as leave a fortune at the end. 

 

I might not live as long as Buffett or I might get hit by a bus tomorrow...so how can I just sit on a pile of capital and not do anything now!  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After looking at the article again it looks l like he gave a very small percentage of net worth while alive (536k) and 187 million after he passed.

He gave away less than 1 percent while alive?

Ill play devil's advocate and ask the board if that was a wise thing to do?

Why not give at least half in your old age to see the benefits?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...