
Chinese philanthropist donates all his fortune - MikeCapone
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/chinese-philanthropist-donates-it-all/article1650447/
======
slantyyz
I think this quote is a nice wake-up call to any potential heir who thinks
he/she is entitled to a large inheritance:

 _“If my children are competent, they don’t need my money,” Mr. Yu explained.
“If they’re not, leaving them a lot of money is only doing them harm.”_

~~~
tarkin2
Bit of a logical play, the dilemmic fallacy to be precise, but, alternatively:

If they're competent, leaving them a lot of money won't do them any harm. If
they're not, they need his money.

[edit] here's the classical example of this change in perspective:
<http://divisbyzero.com/2008/11/30/euathlus-and-protagoras/>

~~~
sorbus
But if they're competent, they don't need the money, because they'll be able
to work up to the point where they have as much as he did - according to the
article, he started off as a "poor street hawker," so his belief that his
children could do the same is certainly logical. They probably also have the
advantage of his connections, better education, and so forth, meaning that
they should be even more capable than he was. Also, if they're competent,
lacking money might be good for their moral character, and encourage them to
eventually do the same if they gather a lot of money, doing more good for
society.

If they're not competent, it's better to give the money to the foundation he
started, so that it can help as many people as possible, instead of being
squandered. Sure, his children might need it more, but they wouldn't be able
to do as much with it which would be useful to society, which is what he is
trying to do.

~~~
tarkin2
Yeah, I'm not arguing against those points, per se. The dilemmic fallacy is
simply a way to show the dilemma is subject to perspective, and therefore not
as steely as it may seem.

------
gonefishin
> In a society where capitalism is just 30 years old

Chinese capitalism is many things, but one thing it's not is young.

------
MikeCapone
The article states that this makes him the first Chinese citizen to donate
more than $1 billion to charity.

~~~
electromagnetic
I believe this is a notable feat due to the ever present communist state that
usually steps in on big companies in the Chinese mainland.

Hong Kong is still trailing many western cities in terms of GDP per capita
(not by too far mind you), however I rarely hear of this happening in western
cities. Surely in richer countries this should be happening far more
frequently, but it doesn't.

------
Dylanfm
This brings something from Philip Greenspun's site to mind:
<http://philip.greenspun.com/materialism/early-retirement/> "The standard
tools that rich families use to preserve their wealth down through the
centuries include the following: ... * charitable foundations and
organizations that are supposed to work for the public benefit, but in fact
provide jobs and luxurious vacations ("board meetings") for members of your
family for decades to come..."

Although, I do think this guy is doing this for good, his family will still at
least have employment from it. It says his sons are on the organisation's
board, for example.

------
jiganti
I wonder how much influence, if any, Gates/Buffett and their recent push for
the wealthiest Americans to give 50% away before death had on him. With
Americans potentially giving away more, it makes the rest of the world look
worse by contrast.

------
cwtann
This idea was planted via inception?

------
exit
philanthropic donations are only ever patronizing. it shouldn't be possible to
accumulate that much wealth to begin with.

~~~
philk
_philanthropic donations are only ever patronizing_

You're wrong. The Gates Foundation has pledged $10 billion to vaccine research
and I can't think of how that could be considered "patronizing".

 _it shouldn't be possible to accumulate that much wealth to begin with._

I disagree. The most productive people in society should be rewarded
accordingly, and encouraged to keep producing. If you put a cap on rewards
you'll put a cap on productivity.

~~~
Locke1689
Actually, a "wealth cap" is not such a ridiculous idea. Essentially, it's
simply a progressive income tax with a tax bracket at 100%. If the bracket is
high enough, e.g. $200 million, then it doesn't act as a disincentive and
helps to balance the imperfectness of the market.

Many would cite John Rawls here, but I have my own criticisms and my
philosophical debates (I am a philosophy minor) can run into weeks of time.
Instead, I'm going to simply make the argument that wealth over $200 million
is meaningless to a single person. That is, from a practical perspective, that
is more money than one could ever spend. The only positive use that could come
from that amount of money is heavy watched investment and philanthropy. It is
not easy to see that $1 billion is enough to move the world. Why should that
responsibility fall into a single citizen's hands? In the best circumstances,
the citizen hires a flotilla of people to manage that wealth (e.g., Gates and
Buffet) and they spend it wisely and do great good. I don't see the
fundamental reason why the government couldn't just do the exact same thing.
By awarding the money of a government to a single person (Gates and Buffet
each had, at the height of their wealth, more money than most of the
governments in the world), this simply ensures an entrenched oligarchy of the
rich (and therefore powerful) unless they decide to give it away.

Many would argue that this is "their" money so they deserve it. I think this
argument is mostly bollocks, though. Bill Gates had over $100 billion at one
point. Let's say that a skilled professional makes ~$1 million (gross) over
the same time period. That's a 100,000x multiplier. Did Gates really do
100,000x more work? Did he really have 100,000x more insight? I think he just
got lucky. He was at the right time at the right place with a good idea. From
there he built a company. But the trick is that it's a lot easier to make a
lot of money when you already have a whole lot of money.

Anyway, I'm gonna end this here, even though I'm not completely satisfied with
my argument because this is becoming ridiculous.

P.S. This is not for those who believe that the government can do nothing
right. I'm not sure that it's even worth arguing with those people.
Theoretically, there's no satisfying proof that that's the case and
practically the only evidence I see is that when those same people set the
government up to fall, it falls hard.

~~~
jodrellblank
_That is, from a practical perspective, that is more money than one could ever
spend._

There are lots of things which cost more than a billion dollars which makes
this statement false. Not individual items, of course, but buying a billion
dollar railway is both possible and spending.

I don't think philanthropy (as in, charity) goes far enough. It isn't thinking
big enough. Imagine what Buffet could do if he spent his fortune on a
Manhatten Project for room temperature superconductors? He could nearly start
a lunar colony for that money.

The fundamental reason the government can't do the same thing is because they
would be voted out for 'wasting' money on speculative ivory tower wankery.

Anyway, so what if Bill Gates got lucky, this just sounds like sour grapes. Is
he not allowed to get more lucky than you approve of? Whether he 'deserves' it
is neither here nor there - it's a non question, like does he deserve two feet
or to live past 30.

 _P.S. This is not for those who believe that the government can do nothing
right_

I'll just note that here in England, our recent government scandal is on what
MPs had been taking from taxpayer money for their expenses. It included one MP
expensing £1600 (>$2000) on an ornamental floating duck house.

They do a lot right, but just giving them money because they will magically
spend it better than any normal person is not something I can go along with.

~~~
mattm
I'll get downvoted for this, but what the heck.

Comedian Louis CK on Bill Gates: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95fNgx8aCS8>

"You know what you could do with 85 billion dollars? You could buy every
baseball team and have them all wear dresses for only like 3 billion. How do
you not do that? I would do that everyday. One day I would go out and buy all
the pants in the world and just burn them. Start over with making pants.
They're all gone."

