
Steve Jobs: Beauty justifies wealth  - jamesbritt
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/steve-jobs?fsrc=rss
======
Adrock
So he hasn't given money to charity, yet. He has contributed a ridiculous
amount to the world by way of Apple, NeXT, and Pixar. He has created tens of
thousands of jobs and brought communicative and creative power to millions of
people. Who knows what he's going to do with his money? He's dedicated his
life to building things for other people, so what makes anyone think he won't
do something that benefits others with his money?

~~~
lukesandberg
I think the major point of the article was that jobs is getting something of a
free pass amongst his billionaire peers. I think the last line sums it up
pretty well:

"[O]ur intuitions about economic desert and fair distribution
are...complicated."

Fair distribution is the real issue. There is a great quote from Warren Buffet
on the matter:

"My wealth has come from a combination of living in America, some lucky genes,
and compound interest. Both my children and I won what I call the ovarian
lottery. (For starters, the odds against my 1930 birth taking place in the
U.S. were at least 30 to 1. My being male and white also removed huge
obstacles that a majority of Americans then faced.) My luck was accentuated by
my living in a market system that sometimes produces distorted results, though
overall it serves our country well. I’ve worked in an economy that rewards
someone who saves the lives of others on a battlefield with a medal, rewards a
great teacher with thank-you notes from parents, but rewards those who can
detect the mispricing of securities with sums reaching into the billions. In
short, fate’s distribution of long straws is wildly capricious."
(<http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett>)

Basically capitalism aims to drive capital (and thus wealth) towards those
members of society who are the most productive. However capitalism has a very
limited sense of productivity and thus it may discount some things that matter
a lot in human society. So distortions will exist and one could reasonably
assume that any one at steve jobs or warren buffets level is the lucky
recipient of riding some kind of capitalistic distortion to the top. It's is
up to society and culture to decide what is ultimately fair and as the OP said
it's complicated...

~~~
Adrock
Peers? He ends by comparing Jobs to oil executives. Oil companies are
ridiculously subsidized by the US government in many ways, the most egregious
being the use of the military to secure major pipelines at the cost of
trillions of dollars and many lives. Those subsidies end up not-so-indirectly
as the compensation for said executives. Apple is a company that takes raw
materials and ideas and manufactures some of the most desirable products in
the world. If everyone wants to give him their money of their own free will,
what's the problem? Oil companies don't give you a choice. Even before
purchasing a single drop of gas, each American has literally given them tens
of thousands of dollars by way of taxes and the deficit. They are vilified for
a reason. Just because they have similar orders of magnitude of money doesn't
mean that the same moral judgements need to be made of them.

The whole article is a disingenuous troll piece.

Another example is the initial appeal to the universal hatred of software
patents. Yes, IP laws are horrible when it comes to software, but it is
ridiculous to claim that Apple's riches are dependent on them. The author is
grasping to associate Jobs with the standard "evils."

~~~
lukesandberg
He also compares jobs to people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. The oil
executives were being used as a polar example of the kinds of opinions that
people can have about the very wealthy. I don't believe the author was
trolling. He was pointing out simply the variety of opinions that people often
have about the very wealthy and the fact that Jobs seems to rise above it.

The main point is not about good/evil, it's about fairness. You may think that
it's fair that Jobs is so wealthy because he deserves it for all his hard work
(and im not saying that he hasn't worked very hard and done a very good job at
that). But the question is if it's fair. Warren Buffett admitted that he
didn't think it was particularly fair that he is as wealthy as he is, or (more
recently) that he pays as little in taxes as he does.

------
prodigal_erik
Why do any stockholders ever allow corporations to choose causes and give away
their money? Does that have some kind of tax advantage over putting the money
back in the hands of its owners and having them make the decision? Is it a PR
thing?

~~~
lukesandberg
I believe it's a morality thing.

~~~
prodigal_erik
Why is it more moral to watch corporations I've invested in give away my
money, hoping that at least some of it may reach the causes I would have given
it to?

~~~
lukesandberg
For one thing you are the investor, so you don't have to invest in them if you
don't believe in the same causes they do, or if you don't believe that
corporations should be engaging in charity at all.

As for the question of "why is it more moral...?" I'm not sure what you are
comparing to...

