McNealy to the rich: "Forget charity, start businesses"

This is pretty stupid, but if we really want to reach McNealy's goal of BILLIONAIRES CREATE ULTIMATE STIMULUS dumbassery - the best thing to do with that money would probably be to find a whole bunch of poor people, give them hundreds or thougsands of dollars each, and tell them to spend it, which, being poor, they almost all would. Of course we'd have to presume that the money then filters up through the rest of the economy in some sense using traditional multiplier effects rather than immediately going right into the surplus coffers of a corporate entity and not moving, but it's probably likely.

This fits all of his criteria - the money would be dispatched unto the FREE MARKET and be used to consume desired goods and services, creating value for both the buyer and seller, as well as a healthy resulting multiplier effect.

Of course, this guy's an idiot and subscribes more to a "if you build it they will come!" Sayesian perspective and would rather Bill Gates go out and create some business for which he sees no demand in order to "create jobs" because that's like totally more free-markety , so good luck with that one.

 

You think that the money they spend on health related care, charities, etc. is "largely wasted"?

 

How profitable is curing polio. Margins can't be that great on selling cheap medicine.

 

I know, you assert that, but one the of things maddening about arguing with libertarians that any time you show a problem with their logic or where their proposals have been tried with disastrous results in the real world by prominent folks who call themselves "libertarians" such as the Kochs or the Paul's, they claim that was not really "libertarianism".



Libertarians are for economic purposes are believers in extreme market fundamentalism, though they disagree with traditional conservatives (some of them) on militarism and certainly civil liberties and personal behavior.

 

Yes, considering the size of the problem. Buffet himself in a TV interview I saw acknowledged how what they do is pretty small compared to what the US government could do wrt to their charitable efforts if the US would decide to attack the problems.

I stated how Buffet and Gates could better do to end world and US poverty, lack of health care etc in my first post.

Frankly is it very surprising that Gates and Buffet are fairly pleased overall with the status quo? Nonetheless it is good that unlike their fellow top 10 US billionaires they at least are not lobbying to decrease what the US government spends to address the problems they focus on with their charities.

 

tinfoil hat alert. repeat. tinfoil hat alert. Get Alex Jones up in here ASAP.

 

It is relatively small in that sense—not because it's wasted, but because Gates and Buffett just don't have much money at all compared to the US government.

 

This is just stroke material for libertarians.

 

This definitely does happen, so I think you should have these people define the word libertarianism when you start "arguing". But this is no different than when you "argue" with someone who calls themselves a liberal or conservative - to assert that all liberals or conservatives must whole-heartedly endorse the positions of, say, Barack Obama or John McCain, would be foolish at best. Such it is with libertarianism.

For example, if I were to point to Obama's use of drones to denounce all of liberalism, that would be pretty damn intellectually lazy, wouldn't it?

Oh, damn! Extreme? Fundamentalism? Very frightening. I'm sure that your "arguments" with libertarians, and everyone else for that matter, are very productive when you use such language. So, good job. You'll win 'em over yet, I'm sure of it.

Though I don't think you were being serious here, I'll just say that there's nothing anti-charity about libertarianism, and there would be no actual libertarian position on whether or not it was "better" to use that money to donate or give to MBAs. (You might be confusing libertarians with Randroids.)

Whether or not it is better (better as in there's now a higher average standard of living in the world, I guess?) is a purely economic question.

 

"Libertarian", like "liberal," "conservative," and "republican" mean something very different outside the US. When I think of libertarians, I think of individualist anarchists and mutualists, not the advocates for oligarchy that so many in the US are. If the Libertarian Party was more inclusive of those who don't worship at the Temple of the Invisible Hand it would be much easier for many to vote for.

 

The Libertarian Party is kind of a joke to most I know. It seems to be a place for failed Republicans who have nowhere else to go.

I've never known a mutualist libertarian or one that supports oligarchy (srsly?), but there are many who would call themselves individualist anarchists who greatly admire the work of someone like Benjamin Tucker though they may not agree with some of his economics.

 

Because VC's are not interested in employing people or making successful businesses. They are interested in making big money. They aren't interested in a business being profitable. They won't ever invest a $100k into a business that might be worth $50 million one day. Never. That's a bad deal to them.

First of all, $100k is too small of an amount. And so is $50 million. They are looking to make 100's of millions. They are looking for 3 year exit strategies. I have seen companies that were profitable have their VC funding pulled because they were not doubling revenue year over year.

If there was a fund to invest $100k in to 10,000 businesses - that's one billion dollars - into small businesses that had good plans to be profitable but never mega-upside corporations, you'd still end up with 1,000 businesses with a value of north of 10million dollars after 5 years. That would be 10 billion in value generated from 1 billion in investment.

The gov't really needs to put more effort in this area.

 

http://globalresearch.ca/doomsday-seed-vault-in-the-arctic-2/23503
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14805419/...eller-foundations-target-africa/#.UjoP4xbtibA
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news...on_fund_golden_rices_regulatory_approval.html

 

So now we have you saying the Libertarian Party as a joke. This is what I mean about about any time you attack libertarianism by referring to anything real world, the response is that this is not really "libertarian".

If you are just talking about civil liberties including personal activities like what you eat drink or who you sleep with, your right to as much privacy as possible, freedom from frequent wars etc. then I guess you could call me a "libertarian socialist" and there are those who use that term.

I would not use that term because of the widely accepted meaning of the term "libertarian" in at least the United States.

See my thread of Robert Reich and the myth of the free market and tell me that you do not oppose his position and have much more faith in the markets than he espoused.

 

I've been saying that for years though not much on here because I don't post in the D&D too much. I was never a big fan of it, but gave up all hope in it in 2008.

 

When people like the Koch brothers are considered beacons of "economic freedom" and good libertarians, then yes, a lot of people who identify as libertarian are often shills for some of the worst strains of unregulated capitalism.

I have plenty common cause with a lot of libertarian ideas (foreign policy especially) and I would describe my own politics as "anti-prohibitionist" for lack of a better word, whether it's alcohol, drugs, gun ownership or reproduction rights, but I'm really turned off to the blind faith in the market. I swim in a world of merciless capitalism to feed myself (advertising) and have no problem with a free market...I just think that regulation is important to avoid cronyism and abuse.

Permitting monopolies, insider trading, corporate tax laws that are essentially tax evasion, and having a hardline, Ayn Rand inspired outlook on the welfare state and availability of healthcare makes for a terribly unjust and unhealthy society. Respect for the commons is an important component of any society worth living in and affects everyone's quality of life.

The "all government is bad" manifesto empowers and preserves status quo for the wealthiest individuals and companies, who have no incentive to innovate or improve their quality of service (look at how bad ISPs and mobile phone service is in the US) at the expense of smaller players that have a harder time competing. To me, it is a very dysfunctional flavor of capitalism.

I'd be impressed, for example, if libertarians talked about fundraising to establish a not-for-profit co-op to help build a transit system of vans (shared taxis like much of the world) in the poorest and underserved parts of cities to help people afford useful transportation (and provide meaningful jobs to the communities served). And enlisting lawyers to fight local governments to deregulate laws that make such an endeavor impossible.

That sort of thing will never be proposed by the LP or the Cato Institute, even though in my mind, it's a properly libertarian idea.

Or take the much beloved Milton Friedman, quoted and admired from every pro-business politician from Thatcher to Pinochet to Ginrich, who proposed a Negative Income Tax back in the 60s.

There's a great libertarian alternative to welfare and tax cheats, but it would be derided as a communist plot if anyone ever dared to mention it.