
Pete Peterson on Giving Away $1 Billion - imgabe
http://www.newsweek.com/id/200075/?gt1=43002
======
stuff4ben
If you, like me, were wondering what the Peter G. Peterson Foundation
supports, look here: <http://www.pgpf.org/about/faq/>

I would have appreciated more information from the article on what the 1
Billion dollars was going to be used for.

~~~
jimbokun
That's probably the single best summary of the fundamentals of U.S. fiscal
problems I've seen. I will keep this in mind to point people to when questions
about government debt come up.

If you need to sum up the U.S. debt crisis in a single sentence, I would go
with:

"This staggering amount breaks down to a $483,000 burden on every American
household, or a $184,000 burden on every man, woman, child and newborn in this
country."

It really sucks that each of my kids is already $184,000 in the hole, through
no fault of their own.

~~~
invisible
Except for the extraordinary fact that a single person can accumulate 1billion
(which is probably at least 184x more than most of us will have).

The scale of debt should be applied equally to the scale of wealth, if we're
going to go that route.

Staggering figure nonetheless...

~~~
TriinT
_"Except for the extraordinary fact that a single person can accumulate 1
billion"_

Are you jealous? Bill Gates accumulated a whole lot more. So did Buffett.
What's extraordinary about 1 billion? The guy is not even among the world's
top 100 richest.

 _"The scale of debt should be applied equally to the scale of wealth"_

Should? Why? The rich can move their assets to another country at any time of
their choosing. Just because America's blindness led to a huge debt, I don't
see why the rich should pay for it... after all the Iraq War, the government's
stupidity, the energy inneficiency, the over-consumption and lack of savings
are not to be blamed on one billionaire alone, but on the entire American
people.

It's time for people to realize that the post-WW2 superpower status was an
anomaly, not a birthright. The next generation of Americans won't enjoy the
same standard of living as their parents did. Learn to live with it.

~~~
invisible
I am jealous of that kind of wealth, yep. Even a million dollars can stretch
around half of a lifetime of food, rent, water, electricity, and leisure.

I was speaking in terms of that site that claims how much each individual
person "is in debt" for the government. It doesn't take into account that
certain people profited more while that debt was incurred. So yeah, people
that earn more while the country is gaining debt should theoretically owe more
when it's put in those terms.

It's actually more logical that the rich are to blame since they have done
very well for themselves during a period in which very bad decisions were
made. Some of those decision were made by political agendas, to which the rich
have some level of control. (And some were not, I do realize.)

~~~
TriinT
For starters, I speculate that Peterson's 1 billion are mostly marked to
Blackstone's stock. I doubt he has 1 billion in dollar bills under his
mattress. Moreover, the guy is going to donate most of it. Sure, he's going to
spend it in what seems to be a rather shady area, but nonetheless...

I am not American. I came from a "socialist" country in Europe. I am tired to
this blame-the-rich meme, the envy, the spiritual mediocrity associated with
"socialism". If people do well in life, they should be able to keep most of
their money. I personally think all billionaires should do philantropy, but I
am don't think they should pay higher taxes. I believe one should have the
right to decide how to distribute one's wealth, not allow the government to
subsidize its propaganda machine with other people's money. Moreover, wealthy
people doing philantropy are most likely better equipped than the government
to distribute their wealth in an efficient manner. Do you honestly believe
that the people working in the government are there to serve the American
people?

~~~
invisible
Yet again: I was referring to something else (which concerned a site that
claimed an individual's DEBT as incurred by the government), NOT TAXES.

You're confusing the two topics: Peterson the man, and Peterson the non-
profit. See this: <http://www.pgpf.org/about/faq/> under "Our Nation's Debt."
Question #2 in that states, "or a $184,000 burden on every man, woman, child
and newborn in this country." I was simply stating that a child that has
earned $0 should not be grouped similarly to a man that's earned
$1,000,000,000.

------
chrismealy
Pete Peterson is a Wall Streeter who's spending millions trying to convince
people that Social Security is in crisis (it's not) and that we should
privatize it. Giving a billion dollars to promote the prosperity of future
Wall Streeters ain't charity.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/iousa-failed-
scare-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/iousa-failed-scare-
flick_b_147650.html)

~~~
mattobrien
Amen.

Anyone who talks about future deficits and doesn't talk about healthcare costs
isn't serious. Social Security will be more or less fine with some combination
of tax increases and/or benefit reduction (i.e. raising retirement age). But
this New Yorker piece makes clear that healthcare costs are skyrocketing - not
because of Medicare or private insurance, but because doctors are going out of
control, without any noticeable increase in quality of care:
[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande)

But there's nothing in it for Wall Street if we constrain healthcare costs, so
Peterson will go back to shilling for Social Security privatization.

~~~
akikuchi
Please read the article before commenting on what it does or does not talk
about: "the tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded entitlements and
promises, ... the metastasizing health-care costs, our energy gluttony. These
structural deficits are unsustainable."

Also, I would be wary of any analysis of a situation as complex as US health
care that lays blame 100pct on "out of control doctors."

------
ryanwaggoner
Wow...that's awesome, and I'm especially excited about the mission of his
foundation. That said, this really bugged me:

 _Kurt Vonnegut once told a story about seeing Joseph Heller at a wealthy
hedge-fund manager's party at a beach house in the Hamptons. Casting his eye
around the luxurious setting, Vonnegut said, "Joe, doesn't it bother you that
this guy makes more in a day than you ever made from Catch-22?" "No, not
really," Heller said. "I have something that he doesn't have: I know the
meaning of enough."_

I hate stuff like that. Heller wasn't giving up 90% of his possessions and
living in a shack eating beans and rice, which would be "enough" for many
people in the world. It's all relative, ultimately. Just because someone with
wealth chooses to live what you consider to be an opulent lifestyle doesn't
mean they don't know what enough is. Billionaires have such a staggering
amount of wealth that they can give 95% of it away and still live an
incredibly comfortable and extravagant lifestyle. I like to think about Gates
and Buffett here, both of whom will ultimately probably give away over $100
billion, but who both live very comfortable lifestyles, Gates much more so
than Buffett, but even Buffett flies around in a private jet.

/rant

~~~
pbz
Would it make you happier if they would give it all up and become homeless?

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Nope...it would make me happy if people stopped judging the extravagance of
other people's lifestyles according to their own arbitrary guidelines.

~~~
madebylaw
By what guidelines do you judge people?

~~~
ryanwaggoner
I try not to. If you want to donate all you have to the poor and be homeless,
awesome. If you want to earn a billion dollars and throw lavish parties every
single day and burn through it all, go for it. Who am I to say that either way
is better? It's your money and your life; do what you want.

------
madair
This is phony. He won't say what his money is going for, because that would be
a big embarrassment. People who are not libertarians should look closely at
what he supports and rue the day that he gave $1 Billion toward making the
poor poorer.

<http://www.pgpf.org/issues/>

------
siculars
best quote from the article:

"Our representatives, unlike our Founding Fathers, see politics as a career.
As a result, they are focused not on the next generation, but on the next
election."

------
dschobel
Some incisive social criticism but short on details, even philosophical ones,
about what's going to make his foundation any different from the thousands
which exist today.

------
edw519
"...my mind was still sharp and my energy was good...My schedule had too many
blank spots. I was liberated. I was free. But I was joyless."

Another way to get back some joy would be to share _yourself_ along with your
money. Many people here aren't really interested in your money (well, some of
us anyway), but I bet almost everyone is interested in you. How did you do it?
What do you believe? What advice would you give? Probably most of all, what do
you do to stay sharp at 81? Inquiring hackers want to know.

~~~
mattobrien
He was one of the top guys at Blackstone. They are a private equity group.
Their stock has gone down 80% since they IPOed. He was lucky that he cashed
out when he did. Getting rich buying companies with borrowed money, and then
unloading them on somebody else was the ultimate bubble business. Now that the
credit bubble has burst, existing private equity has died. They're left with
companies with enormous debt burdens that no one wants - think Sam Zeller and
the Chicago Tribune company. I don't think Blackstone has sold a company since
2007. I'm not sure there are any lessons to extrapolate from this.

~~~
Dilpil
Lesson: Where there are losers, there are winners.

------
cma
Here's an interesting debate between Dean Baker and Diane Rogers of the
Concord Coalition (funded by Peterson):
[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5055039736979442205...](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5055039736979442205&ei=l5slSvuiLaHWrALqh8iBCQ&q=dean+baker&hl=en&client=firefox-a)

Baker has some pretty good criticism.

------
k0mplex
A bit more detail on HOW he's going to deal with said fiscal issues would have
been welcome.

------
cpr
Funny how it's mostly people who are wealthy who are calling for higher taxes.
It won't really hurt them.

Guilt, anyone?

~~~
ibsulon
"A: Pete has put his money where his mouth is. If the necessary reforms are
adapted to address this problem, Pete will certainly see his own taxes raised.
A proponent of fiscal discipline for decades and co-founder of the nonpartisan
Concord Coalition in 1992, he believes the wealthy should pay higher taxes and
forego government-subsidized benefits they don't need."

From what I've seen, the self-made billionaires don't mind the extra tax.
Buffet doesn't, Gates doesn't. It's the millionaires, those still trying to
put together their nest egg, they are the ones who are worried about taxes.

~~~
cma
I'm sure he is pretty agnostic about the future of the tax code after he, as a
hedge fund manager, already avoided even the level of taxes you or I would
pay:

<http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/pm120/>

The ordinary arguments for capital gains taxes don't apply when it isn't even
your capital.

