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

[hyten1]

i think some of you are missing the point

 

sure there are many people who will do what they do no matter how much or little they will get paid. (but there are some that will be swayed by money, its not because they are greedy, sometimes its necessity of life)

 

are you guys really saying capital/resource allocation is of no importance?

 

why don't we just burn the 50bil or whatever and call it a day?

 

hy

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

 

are you guys really saying capital/resource allocation is of no importance?

 

why don't we just burn the 50bil or whatever and call it a day?

 

 

Actually, if you burn the 50 bil it will make the remaining capital more valuable.  Thus, no destruction of value.

[hyten1]

if burning 50bil wiil have such a positive impact, why don't we just burn all the money. we should call up all the foundations/research center of the world and tell them "lets burn all your money, whatever you are working on or problem you are trying to solve will take care of itself, since money doesn't buy you time, or resource or equipment or talent or influence etc.".

 

man bill gates sure is wasting his time, i know there are people who think he is (he should spend his time in biz since he was so good at it)

 

i guess i am a little confused by what some of you are saying? i guess you guys are saying capitalism will take care of itself, greed and self interest will allocate resources we don't need bill gates or someone like him to do it?

 

we all know capitalism solved many of the worlds problem, "but not all".

 

 

 

 

are you guys really saying capital/resource allocation is of no importance?

 

why don't we just burn the 50bil or whatever and call it a day?

 

 

Actually, if you burn the 50 bil it will make the remaining capital more valuable.  Thus, no destruction of value.

[ERICOPOLY]

if burning 50bil wiil have such a positive impact, why don't we just burn all the money. we should call up all the foundations/research center of the world and tell them "lets burn all your money, whatever you are working on or problem you are trying to solve will take care of itself, since money doesn't buy you time, or resource or equipment or talent or influence etc.".

 

man bill gates sure is wasting his time, i know there are people who think he is (he should spend his time in biz since he was so good at it)

 

i guess i am a little confused by what some of you are saying? i guess you guys are saying capitalism will take care of itself, greed and self interest will allocate resources we don't need bill gates or someone like him to do it?

 

we all know capitalism solved many of the worlds problem, "but not all".

 

 

 

 

are you guys really saying capital/resource allocation is of no importance?

 

why don't we just burn the 50bil or whatever and call it a day?

 

 

Actually, if you burn the 50 bil it will make the remaining capital more valuable.  Thus, no destruction of value.

 

 

Well perhaps we decide the "Buffett Tax" is a misallocation of millionaire wealth because the millionaires get rich slower due to this tax, thereby reducing the amount they can later give to benefit the poor.  Instead, we encourage all of the millionaires to shelter their passive dividend income within insurance companies at the 14.5% rate and defer all their capital gains.

 

Then the millionaires have more to give to the Gates Foundation.

 

And let Bufffett's secretary pick up the tax bill due here in the US.  Oh wait... did I just point out that Buffett has contributed to his secretary's tax dilemma?  Oops.

 

It would be interesting to figure out how much his Berkshire stake would be worth if he paid income tax every year on 3% of it (simulating a 3% dividend payout).  Maybe a lot of us are (somewhat) generous like him and don't realize it because our generosity goes to the US Treasury instead. 

 

[Kiltacular]

One way to spread your wealth is to tip big (especially in situations where you will not engage with the recipient again).  If you get good service, a large tip is both earned and encourages pro-social behavior.  Plus, a lot of jobs depend on good tips -- see the opening scene of the movie Reservoir Dogs (a great flick...but parts are extremely violent for those who would want to know).

 

For charity, because our large taxes today do much of what charity used to do, I like to generally support merit based situations that give a boost to people that already show aptitude.  If you look at what Pabrai is doing at his foundation -- boosting up poor but extremely smart and hardworking young adults -- you can imagine that that's where your cancer cure might come from (if even indirectly).

 

For the super rich, it does seem like giving a lot of money to universities and children's hospitals sure isn't a bad way to spread the wealth. 

[hyten1]

eric, i hear ya, i don't like/agree will the screw up tax code either. (the selfish person in me says I want they say setup as buffett)

 

at the end of the day by in large everyone is selfish (even buffett), there are degrees of course. (you can argue donating 50bil is selfish). the truly generous is someone who's lively hood is in doubt and yet decide to donate what little they have (i guess you can argue that is stupidity or generosity)

 

i don't think money will turn an artist into the next great scientist. but money will allow the great scientist to do many things that he/she wasn't able to without the cash.

 

sure capitalism is a great capital/resource allocator, but not always.

[bookie71]

What sets the Free world apart from the rest of the world?  It is that we can chose what we want to do with our earnings and investments.  If I want to buy lots of "stuff", I can.  If I want to give to charities, church or whatever, I can.

It sounds like the gentleman pretty much did what he wanted, he and his wife traveled each year, etc.

To each his own, and may he or she not have to worry about what I or you think.

 

[JBird]

Incentives determine behavior.  Yes.

 

That's why artists are not working on Wall Street.  They are incentivized by what they love doing, and it obviously isn't about making money, it's about making art.

 

You never disappoint. I think you're right, but I'm not certain.

 

Indulge me. Let's say there's a situation where nobody is changing jobs. Let's say that the most beneficial advancement we can make as a society is to cure cancer. Would you agree that committing money towards cancer research helps further the goal of curing cancer? Would you agree that committing money instead towards art projects will not help further the goal of curing cancer? If so, is it true then that society is better off when the money goes towards cancer research instead of art projects?

[ERICOPOLY]

Incentives determine behavior.  Yes.

 

That's why artists are not working on Wall Street.  They are incentivized by what they love doing, and it obviously isn't about making money, it's about making art.

 

You never disappoint. I think you're right, but I'm not certain.

 

Indulge me. Let's say there's a situation where nobody is changing jobs. Let's say that the most beneficial advancement we can make as a society is to cure cancer. Would you agree that committing money towards cancer research helps further the goal of curing cancer? Would you agree that committing money instead towards art projects will not help further the goal of curing cancer? If so, is it true then that society is better off when the money goes towards cancer research instead of art projects?

 

Would you settle for Art Therapy for Cancer?

 

http://www.ehow.com/about_5409457_art-therapy-cancer.html

 

[JBird]

Hahaha damn you

[ERICOPOLY]

There is a word for the strict capital allocation argument  :)

 

Philistine:

 

a person who is unreceptive to or hostile towards culture, the arts, etc; a smug boorish person

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philistine?s=t

[JBird]

I'm not hostile to the arts. To be fair, it admits it's a complementary therapy to medical treatment. "As a complementary therapy to medical treatment, art therapy has shown to reduce negative effects of cancer diagnosis and treatment."

 

[ERICOPOLY]

I'm not hostile to the arts. To be fair, it admits it's a complementary therapy to medical treatment. "As a complementary therapy to medical treatment, art therapy has shown to reduce negative effects of cancer diagnosis and treatment."

 

Just to be clear, I wasn't inferring you.  I was picking on Buffett's theory of artists being a waste of capital, or misallocation of resources.

 

(that is, if he really believes that -- I know he enjoys a Nebraska football game, and boy is that ever a good allocation of resources with the stadium and all that could instead be a research facility.  And those football players should be in lab coats.)

[Guest Dazel]

 

Ericopoly,

 

What do you think the repercussions globally would be if you cured cancer?

 

 

[hyten1]

well it depends on how you define as "good capital allocation". obviously entertainment/social/arts aspect of society are important. people need to unwind/relax etc.

 

i don't know if WEB really think art is a waste of time, i personally don't think he does. also web's every word is etch in stone for all to see/dissect. we all know people change, words and be twisted and sometimes you just need to explain yourself better (imagine everything we say is etch in stone and you don't get to explain yourself or are able to have a dynamic dialog about the topic). i think the art example WEB use is just an example.

 

then again its possible that WEB think art is a waste of time.

 

hy

 

There is a word for the strict capital allocation argument  :)

 

Philistine:

 

a person who is unreceptive to or hostile towards culture, the arts, etc; a smug boorish person

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philistine?s=t

[RichardGibbons]

Just to be clear, I wasn't inferring you.  I was picking on Buffett's theory of artists being a waste of capital, or misallocation of resources.

 

This is a gross misinterpretation of what he meant.  He meant that because he controls great amounts of wealth, he's capable of allocating resources in ways that are stupid and not beneficial to society.  He could have said "Dig holes, then fill them in", as Orwell said in 1984, and it would have had the same meaning.

 

He was not saying anything about the merit of art to society.

 

It's typically a mistake to assume that Buffett is saying something idiotic, when a reasonable alternative explanation exists.  (i.e. I agree that if he meant to imply that artists should become surgeons, it would be idiotic.  But he didn't meant that.)

[ERICOPOLY]

Just to be clear, I wasn't inferring you.  I was picking on Buffett's theory of artists being a waste of capital, or misallocation of resources.

 

This is a gross misinterpretation of what he meant.  He meant that because he controls great amounts of wealth, he's capable of allocating resources in ways that are stupid and not beneficial to society.  He could have said "Dig holes, then fill them in", as Orwell said in 1984, and it would have had the same meaning.

 

He was not saying anything about the merit of art to society.

 

It's typically a mistake to assume that Buffett is saying something idiotic, when a reasonable alternative explanation exists.  (i.e. I agree that if he meant to imply that artists should become surgeons, it would be idiotic.  But he didn't meant that.)

 

The part of my message you deleted was:

 

that is, if he really believes that

 

It's typically a mistake to edit the caveat out of another's post and then advise them about reasonable alternatives.  How ironic, in a sense, that is.

[ERICOPOLY]

 

Ericopoly,

 

What do you think the repercussions globally would be if you cured cancer?

 

 

Life expectancy would improve by 3 years.

 

The real problem isn't cancer -- it's that our cells divide 20 times and then die (I think it's 20, could be wrong on the number).

 

EDIT:  quick google search suggests 52 times

[Uccmal]

 

Ericopoly,

 

What do you think the repercussions globally would be if you cured cancer?

 

 

Life expectancy would improve by 3 years.

 

The real problem isn't cancer -- it's that our cells divide 20 times and then die (I think it's 20, could be wrong on the number).

 

EDIT:  quick google search suggests 52 times

 

Just about diddly squat.  Matters to the individuals, but not in aggregate.  In fact the effect may be a mass negative on employment. 

[Uccmal]

One way to spread your wealth is to tip big (especially in situations where you will not engage with the recipient again).  If you get good service, a large tip is both earned and encourages pro-social behavior.  Plus, a lot of jobs depend on good tips -- see the opening scene of the movie Reservoir Dogs (a great flick...but parts are extremely violent for those who would want to know).

 

 

I think tipping should be banned in favour of higher wages for people in the "tipping" industries. 

 

No tip restaurants have a record of better service... look it up.  I am not talking about low end places.

[yadayada]

Not sure if it has been said, but secondary markets benefit society indirectly, because it makes the primary market bigger. Without the secondary market, the primary market wouldn't be nearly as big? It basicly provides liquidity and more motivation to take a risk. Since you can more easily flip it if you want to cash out.

[Cardboard]

I find this whole discussion very interesting. It is clear by now that no one has the perfect path to doing good. Improvements can always be made

 

What I admire from this man is that he obviously sacrificed some spending and time and ended up giving more to charity. I also find very interesting that this is a man who inherited and found a way to try to help. Remember how Buffett thinks about kids who inherit?

 

Sacrifice is at the core of what all of us here do on this board. If you do not sacrifice (at least at the beginning), you will never have a dime to invest. And if you blow it all once you have it, then you are back to square 1. Look around you, look at the people who constantly bitch about not having money. They always want this and that and always have their credit cards loaded up. Compare with peers earning the same thing and the difference is often striking. Envy and jealousy dominates their thinking. They never ask themselves: what could I do to improve my situation? This person has done great, is there something that I can learn from them? Unfortunately, it is always others who are responsible for their situation. These people will never help anyone else with their savings and display selfishness at such a level that they will never volunteer either. They are victims if you listen to them, but I would argue that the vast majority had their chance in society.

 

Now, that sacrifice may just be greed or the desire to accumulate. It can be an habit that sticks around from the earlier part of saving. It could be also a hobby, but if it is spent eventually on things that do good then it has to be good. 

 

IMO, the U.S. and other developed countries will largely take care of themselves including cancer research, hospital and even artists! When I think of charity, my priorities are towards the ones who truly don't have a chance in life: can't get 3 meals a day, no chance to go to school, handicapped, etc. IMO, this where you can do the most good and where capitalism is less likely to spend a dollar. I also want as little of my hard earned funds to go to the whiners that I described above and feel entitled to receive that new PS4!

 

Think about countries where infant mortality is still a really high number or where adults still mostly die in their 40's or 50's. Or if you want to think closer to home, think about the kid that has losers for parents and will likely end up in the same mold if something isn't done. You are less likely to receive honorary degrees and have your name on some building if you do that but, if you are to deviate money away from a developed society or the regular capitalist system, then IMO that is where it needs to go.

 

Cardboard

[rkbabang]

I find this whole discussion very interesting. It is clear by now that no one has the perfect path to doing good. Improvements can always be made

 

What I admire from this man is that he obviously sacrificed some spending and time and ended up giving more to charity. I also find very interesting that this is a man who inherited and found a way to try to help. Remember how Buffett thinks about kids who inherit?

 

Sacrifice is at the core of what all of us here do on this board. If you do not sacrifice (at least at the beginning), you will never have a dime to invest. And if you blow it all once you have it, then you are back to square 1. Look around you, look at the people who constantly bitch about not having money. They always want this and that and always have their credit cards loaded up. Compare with peers earning the same thing and the difference is often striking. Envy and jealousy dominates their thinking. They never ask themselves: what could I do to improve my situation? This person has done great, is there something that I can learn from them? Unfortunately, it is always others who are responsible for their situation. These people will never help anyone else with their savings and display selfishness at such a level that they will never volunteer either. They are victims if you listen to them, but I would argue that the vast majority had their chance in society.

 

Now, that sacrifice may just be greed or the desire to accumulate. It can be an habit that sticks around from the earlier part of saving. It could be also a hobby, but if it is spent eventually on things that do good then it has to be good. 

 

IMO, the U.S. and other developed countries will largely take care of themselves including cancer research, hospital and even artists! When I think of charity, my priorities are towards the ones who truly don't have a chance in life: can't get 3 meals a day, no chance to go to school, handicapped, etc. IMO, this where you can do the most good and where capitalism is less likely to spend a dollar. I also want as little of my hard earned funds to go to the whiners that I described above and feel entitled to receive that new PS4!

 

Think about countries where infant mortality is still a really high number or where adults still mostly die in their 40's or 50's. Or if you want to think closer to home, think about the kid that has losers for parents and will likely end up in the same mold if something isn't done. You are less likely to receive honorary degrees and have your name on some building if you do that but, if you are to deviate money away from a developed society or the regular capitalist system, then IMO that is where it needs to go.

 

Cardboard

 

+1 +100

 

Finding a good charity is not an easy thing to do and if you go and actually meet some of the people that they are helping it can be an eye opener.  I won't go too much into detail, because I don't like to talk about what I do in this area, but lets just say that most people in the US that are considered in "poverty" have bigger TVs than I do and more video games than my kids do.  I have been concentrating on Haiti (The person I give the money to, goes there personally to distribute food) where I believe I get the most bang for my buck and help people who actually need it.  I have no desire to enable people to more easily live with the consequences of their bad decisions.  Unfortunately my tax dollars are doing that already.

[ERICOPOLY]

One way to spread your wealth is to tip big (especially in situations where you will not engage with the recipient again).  If you get good service, a large tip is both earned and encourages pro-social behavior.  Plus, a lot of jobs depend on good tips -- see the opening scene of the movie Reservoir Dogs (a great flick...but parts are extremely violent for those who would want to know).

 

 

I think tipping should be banned in favour of higher wages for people in the "tipping" industries. 

 

No tip restaurants have a record of better service... look it up.  I am not talking about low end places.

 

I wonder if a psychologist could study the brain waves of big tippers -- perhaps tipping makes them feel superior/powerful (over the servant) and they derive extra reward from it -- being "the boss" for a moment at the end of the meal.  I wonder if it leads to greater pleasure (for some people) and thus brings more enjoyment to the dining out experience.

 

Personally, I find tipping awkward but I have to take part in it because that's the way the system is set up in this country.

[Kiltacular]

One way to spread your wealth is to tip big (especially in situations where you will not engage with the recipient again).  If you get good service, a large tip is both earned and encourages pro-social behavior.  Plus, a lot of jobs depend on good tips -- see the opening scene of the movie Reservoir Dogs (a great flick...but parts are extremely violent for those who would want to know).

 

 

I think tipping should be banned in favour of higher wages for people in the "tipping" industries. 

 

No tip restaurants have a record of better service... look it up.  I am not talking about low end places.

 

I wonder if a psychologist could study the brain waves of big tippers -- perhaps tipping makes them feel superior/powerful (over the servant) and they derive extra reward from it -- being "the boss" for a moment at the end of the meal.  I wonder if it leads to greater pleasure (for some people) and thus brings more enjoyment to the dining out experience.

 

Personally, I find tipping awkward but I have to take part in it because that's the way the system is set up in this country.

 

I happen to agree with both of you.  It would nice if tipping was banned but if you ask people who rely on them, they would hate for that to be an excuse not to leave a tip.

 

I also feel that tipping can be awkward and that's why I mentioned that in situations where you will not engage with the recipient again you can get rid of most of the awkwardness and the idea that you are trying to influence. 

 

I suspect that tipping may have become common in order to buy influence in the case of repeat encounters -- that does make it uncomfortable.