

The Mystery of Steve Jobs’s Public Giving - blazamos
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/the-mystery-of-steve-jobss-public-giving/

======
aik
I think it's inappropriate to speculate on what "good" someone is contributing
to the world, period. So much of it is determined by intentions, plans, and
time -- these are things that are invisible to everyone but the individual.

Instead worry about your own contributions, don't try to determine what to
give based on expectations you draw from observing others (or try to force
this thinking upon others) -- it's unlikely your choice will be anywhere near
the truth, and it skews the act from one of generosity into one of keeping up
with social standards ("keeping up with the Joneses" sort of thing).

~~~
bradleyland
Reflecting on the decisions of others is an important component of human
cultural development. Alone, we all have limited experience. We can't possibly
match the diversity and reach of the outcomes resulting from decisions made by
everyone around us. Reflecting on Steve Jobs' decision to abstain from
philanthropy is an important cultural point of discussion.

Asking what "good" Mr. Jobs has contributed to the world is a question that
should be approached with an open mind. The objectivist would look at his
actions and hold them up as an example of a shared positive outcome resulting
from self-motivated action. By Mr. Jobs' relentless focus on advancing Apple,
we have all enjoyed the benefit of the many devices that were brought to
market by Apple under his leadership.

That's just one perspective though. It may not hold up under scrutiny, but we
owe it to ourselves to ask the question: Is philanthropy the best and only
way?

------
blazamos
I was surprised the article didn't mention that Jobs is a Buddhist.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C4%81na>

------
pontiacred
I think it is inappropriate to draw attention to somebody's personal life like
this. I wonder what the results of someone analyzing the author's charitable
giving would be.

~~~
onan_barbarian
It is considered a social norm to comment on or assess the "personal lives" of
people with, say, $US8.3B in personal wealth. As least as far as "what are
said people doing with these unusual quantities of money" goes. There might be
a bit of public significance in that; see also Gates and Buffett.

This isn't discussing the length of his dick, for crying out loud.

Trying to turn it around on the author is questionable, given that Andrew
Sorkin would be lucky to have one thousandth part of the wealth of Steve Jobs
and thus the public interest in what Sorkin is doing is quite small.

------
flocial
What brand of journalism is this? Is the New York Times trying to shame Steve
Jobs into donating his wealth? Basically, there is no information on Steve
Jobs' philanthropy so the article is about other billionaires giving money and
investigative dead ends encountered so far.

