
Ask HN: Why are billionaires not giving more money away? - danielovichdk
With some people having so much wealth, why are we not seing them put more money into society? Helping out where their money really can make big difference.
======
shubhamjain
I wrote about this a while back [1]. Thinking that more charitable donations
will create more upliftment is a false premise. Don't get me wrong, charities
do serve a function. But most of the human suffering emanates from greedy
politics, corruption, and dumb policies. Most of the world problems can't be
solved with capital alone.

Poor African countries, for instance, have received trillion dollars in aid,
and yet because of the incompetence of their leaders, poverty is still wide-
spread. I don't think if billionaires doubled their donations, it'll create a
change the situation significantly.

[1]: [https://shubhamjain.co/2016/10/02/fallacy-of-hating-the-
rich...](https://shubhamjain.co/2016/10/02/fallacy-of-hating-the-rich/)

~~~
oligopoly
Often the aid does more harm than good and actually keeps the very people in
position of power that are corrupt.

The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics[0]
examines the very phenomenon.

[0] [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11612989-the-
dictator-s-...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11612989-the-dictator-s-
handbook)

~~~
bayonetz
Awesome book. I find the lessons apply at all levels of leadership and
influence, i.e., from running a country to running a high school clique. I
worked in Africa under PEPFAR/CDC and can confirm, like 5% on average of that
aid actually reaches the intended targets and has the intended impacts. The
rest is siphoned off and diverted to the dictators and their coalitions (as
defined by the book, the people actually keeping the dictator in power, not
the populace).

------
Mz
_Helping out where their money really can make big difference._

First do no harm. We don't necessarily know what works. We have rich folks who
are pro UBI and that ticks me off. I don't think it is a good solution. I
think it just helps salve their guilt at helping to destroy jobs. I don't want
their guilt salved. I want them to focus on redistributing work. We should
view the trend towards automation as the Second Industrial Revolution, not the
start of making most people charity cases dependent on a handful of "generous"
rich people or some nonsense.

I was homeless for nearly 6 years. Most programs to help the homeless are
completely sucky. I am against growing more homeless services. I am trying to
come up with answers that shrink the problem of homelessness.

But a lot of people are not interested in shrinking the problem. Many are fine
with growing it, because it serves some sick emotional need of theirs.

I recently talked to someone who wanted to 'share their vision' of taking over
an entire downtown block with homeless services. I cut them off with "I have
an appointment. I gotta go."

This person said they had "a heart for the homeless." Sounds more like some
sick hard on for the homeless. That isn't actually caring about the welfare of
other people. That's some twisted desire to make them feel good about
themselves. If you care about other people, help them get off the fucking
street. Come up with solutions that shrink homelessness, don't build more soup
kitchens. Geez.

But solutions that shrink the problem of homelessness are hard to create. It
is a hard problem to solve. In contrast, programs to "help the homeless" (like
soup kitchens) are easy to dream up, but often help entrench the problem
rather than resolve it.

No matter who you are, trying to find something that actually works is
challenging.

Bill Gates said that automation of an efficient system magnifies the
efficiency. Automation of an inefficient system magnifies the inefficiency.

I think that same paradigm applies to throwing money at problems. I would hate
to guilt rich folks into throwing more money at programs that actually make
the problems worse and entrench them. They can just keep stuffing it under
their mattress or whatever until we have some concepts for how to actually
improve things. Then someone can go try to convince rich folks to invest money
in real solutions.

~~~
charlesdm
> First do no harm. We don't necessarily know what works. We have rich folks
> who are pro UBI and that ticks me off. I don't think it is a good solution.
> I think it just helps salve their guilt at helping to destroy jobs.

Rich people don't destroy jobs, efficiency / innovation / increases in
productivity destroy jobs. Society doesn't need jobs that are no longer
required, and it makes no sense to pay people for things that can easily be
done by a machine.

Now, that said, the problem you describe is real and it is an issue. But I
don't know what a viable solution aside from a properly implemented UBI would
be.

~~~
Mz
The first industrial revolution shortened work weeks, in part to redistribute
work. People worked really long hours. That was the norm. With automation,
unemployment levels rose while those with jobs continued to work inhumanely
long hours. Then people pushed for the 40 hour work week.

I think we can again work to lighten the burden of work for the average worker
without disenfranchising large numbers of people.

I used to write about that on my old blog, but I probably won't continue to
write about it. Here is at least a partial list of those writings:

[http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/p/ir2.html](http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/p/ir2.html)

~~~
Mz
My latest related thing, brand new. Still fleshing it out.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15781531](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15781531)

------
Geekette
False premise - you cannot know the full aggregate of those who actively give
to charity regularly.

A great number of people including some very wealthy ones prefer to give
anonymously and often stipulate that as condition of their giving.

Furthermore, even with public donations, there is no mechanism to track _all_
of it for various reasons (e.g. many agencies may release totals but not
donor/donation details), so you can't know the totals, much less judge the
rate changes of that.

~~~
db48x
Nor is giving away money necessarily an unalloyed good; it can create
dependency.

------
adamnemecek
Most billionaires have their value tied up in stock which they don't want to
be selling. As long as you own your stock, you own your baby. Once you sell it
you are losing control. There are of course exceptions.

------
Finnucane
I'm going to guess that what the question is referring to is not random
charitable donations, but large projects in the old Rockefeller/Carnegie mold.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have done this, but not too many others. Eli
Broad has dedicated major funding for medical research. Peter Thiel seems to
be determined to destroy society. I guess it depends on how much the feel
themselves to be a part of society, and want to keep it going.

------
megadethz
I would argue that allocating the capital wisely and creating jobs is more
valuable than giving it away to charity. Being a billionaire opens up the
floodgates to get people to listen to you and to have a meaningful impact on
the world. I'd lose respect if Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates decided to stop
investing their money in game changing ideas and just donated it.

------
closeparen
Which societal problems do you think are caused by a lack of capital?

------
Futurebot
It's important to realize that even if they're not giving enough, they do give
more in times of great inequality. Unfortunately, that's not, and will never,
be able to do the job that politics and real redistribution is designed to do:

"In developing this position Walker sits squarely within the traditions of
American liberalism, with its belief that promoting equality of opportunity
within the current economic and political system is the best response to its
failings. Everyone should have the same chance to be privileged, you might
say, so that they can use their privilege to attack privilege more
efficiently.

There’s some logic to this line of reasoning, but it rests on two questionable
assumptions.

The first is that generating more philanthropy is effective as a route to
reducing inequality. If it isn’t, then the intellectual scaffolding supporting
Walker’s arguments collapses, because the problems of capitalism can never be
addressed regardless of how many new philanthropists it creates. At the macro
level however, societies that are most dependent on philanthropy like the USA
are also the most unequal and vice versa—it’s the social democracies of
Scandinavia that have the highest levels of equality and wellbeing, where the
foundation sector is very small.

Tax-funded, redistributive government; people-funded, independent civil
society action; and dynamic but well-regulated businesses are far more
important. It was the same story in America under the New Deal and the Great
Society, which kept economic inequality at much lower levels before the new
gilded age began around the turn of the Millennium. In fact in the US,
philanthropy has increased in line with inequality over the last 50 years, so
the more you have of one, the more you have of the other. Statistically
speaking, philanthropy is a symptom of inequality and not a cure."

The Privilege of being Privileged:
[https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/michael-
edwards...](https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/michael-
edwards/privilege-of-being-privileged)

------
muzani
Because "charity" is not necessarily the best place for them to put it. Lots
of money goes into charity, but a lot of it is lost from inefficient spending.

And few of them believe their businesses are not doing a lot of good for
society. Jeff Bezos is the only one who can create an Amazon. Rockefeller
improved transportation. Warren Buffet invests in businesses people are too
greedy or impatient to invest in.

They all believe that they're adding a lot of value to society by doing what
they do. Elon Musk is good at articulating what he does, but Jeff Bezos
probably believes that he's doing a lot more good for poverty in the USA by
reinvesting his money into Amazon.

------
michaelbrave
Most wealthy people have an odd psychology. They want to believe that they
have earned everything they have, that it is some sort of just reward for
their own fiscal righteousness or cleverness or intelligence. Many don't even
consider themselves rich and use terms like "we're doing ok" or "middle class"
or "normal". But at the same time might feel ashamed to buy the expensive
bread because it may make the maid fell uncomfortable. To them all it took was
hard work, so why doesn't everyone else do the same, why should their money be
taken in taxes or why should they sacrifice for someone else as it is their
own fault to be in such a situation.

Most don't factor in how privileged they were to be born into some wealth or
with parents who were educated. On the smallest level, it trickles down to the
expectation that they would go to college (my poorest friends were never
expected, encouraged or helped to do so if anything it was discouraged by
their family as a waste of time and money). Going even deeper, if your parents
were good with money and had resources to help you, suddenly taking that
unpaid internship during a summer isn't a big deal, because dad pays for your
living expenses while you do it, to the poor kid it's an impossible notion to
work for free in a big city on your own dime. Going into debt for college,
forget it dad paid for that too, so now the next ten years of your life aren't
sapped by student loans, for some these are crippling. But I think more than
anything having the fiscal wisdom of parents who know how to wisely invest is
the biggest advantage of all.

All of that said, they get a few things right, blaming others for your
problems isn't constructive and their education and hard work is a factor. The
only problem is the disconnect between recognizing how lucky you were so that
you forget to be kind to those who weren't as lucky (and I don't mean
financially kind, I mean just not being a dick).

So to sum up, why don't they donate more or give more money away? They think
the world is as it should be, people who earn things have things, people who
don't have things didn't earn them. This is an oversimplification, but that's
the gist of it.

------
nitwit005
Probably because the people who devote their lives to charity, and the people
who devote their lives to earning billions of dollars don't have a lot of
overlap?

The exceptions tend to people who start businesses with a charity focus, or
who retire and need something to do.

------
ignasl
Because all their wealth are already put into society. Where do you think all
the factories comes from? Who do you think employs all the people? Who creates
products and services that people want and which improves people's lives?
Billionaires do not sleep on the bag of cash - their wealth is already tied up
to the things they are already doing. And as for non profit activities
probably all of them do it for the causes they believe in. Universities,
libraries, research, art, charities etc. I never understood this demonstration
of the rich people, like they are some kind of evil aliens who want to hurt
"us good people". This communistic nonsense should just go.

~~~
Gustomaximus
I downvoted you for;

1) "This communistic nonsense should just go." This is taking the question to
an extreme POV you want, not where the discussion was.

2) "Who do you think employs all the people?" Its worth recognising small
businesses employs about 50% of the population and is contributing more new
jobs than corporates these days.

~~~
ignasl
It's OK I don't mind. 1\. This was a bit of rant but questions like this are
very related to communist's/socialist's "it's always someone else's fault".
This is not productive nor is helpful. It's better to educate yourself on how
economics work in the real world. Then you will have a chance to make the
world a better place yourself instead of "let's use force to take from
productive people and give it to unproductive people" which is not that good
of an idea in the first place from economics perspective (proven empirically
in many countries many times).

2\. Nit-picking on my my "all". I didn't mean that literally. Billionaires'
wealth is tied up and even if they would sell everything (and give everything
to charity) someone else (who takes over) would be even richer which most
likely would result in less competition, less innovation, higher prices and
lower quality to everyone. Lack of understanding in how economy works results
in questions like this.

~~~
Gustomaximus
I concur 2) was nitpicky :)

Regarding your statement "let's use force to take from productive people and
give it to unproductive people" which is not that good of an idea in the first
place from economics perspective (proven empirically in many countries many
times)."

Firstly, one can easily argue force to take wealth is already in place. Most
people would pay less tax if it was voluntary. Try not paying your tax and see
what happens. So pretending this taking by force system doesn't already exist
is ignorant or misleading for rhetoric. The discussion really should be about
levels of taxation, not should there be taxation (ie forceful taking of
money).

Secondly, I'd be interested in where your empirical evidence comes from
regarding how taking money 'from productive people" is a bad thing. And
clarify 1) productive and wealthy are not the same and should be recognised
and clarified what is being debated. I assume we are staying with the core
discussion of taking money from billionaires in general, and not focusing on
billionaires that rent seek vs value add. And for your empirical evidence, I
assume your looking at the usual quoted countries at the more extreme edges
like Communist Russia or Venezuela. But please point me somewhere if I'm
wrong.

I would suggest you look at history more openly. You should find empirical
evidence suggests some level of redistribution is hugely beneficial. No
economy in the world has transitioned to first world status without
significantly balancing wealth distribution during this time. This could be
coincidental but I doubt it. Look at western Europe, Japan, US, Canada,
Australia etc through the 19th century. These became first world as they built
the service and mass consumer economy. How you ask I am sure? We'll it was
many things and redistribution of wealth and assets was a paradigm shift
during this transition for all nations, much like what china is attempting
now. People make the mistake of thinking first world countries are
'capitalist' in a much more pure sense than reality. All these countries have
significant redistribution policy already, most more so during boom times.
Think about education, health, unemployment systems, fire departments, roads,
libraries, vehicle authories etc

So my general point is that outside the fanatical fringe, people shouldn't
debate whether wealth redistribution good or not, but what level of
redistribution, or on what financial terms is it beneficial. I dont claim to
know whats right, but I feel places like Venezuela massively overcooked policy
left, whilst many western nations are swinging a bit too right these days.

~~~
ignasl
"Firstly, one can easily argue force to take wealth is already in place."
That's exactly what I had in mind just maybe was not clear enough. Welfare
economics/socialism has a lot of support on emotional level and it is
understandable that people who might be struggling are asking questions like
in this thread. But if we are discussing economic policies we want to
implement then a simple analysis and understanding on the very basics on how
things work quickly reveals that it's not as simple as "lets take it from the
rich and give it to the poor and everyone will be happy". Taxes are necessary
but I would argue that welfare is not what it should be used for at all.

About empirical evidence of socialism failures - countless examples where
underdeveloped countries tried it - Russia & co (some not voluntary like my
country Lithuania), Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua (and actually majority of
south/central America so no need to list all of them), Somali, Libya (and
actually mostly all worst African states where USSR were heavily involved no
need to list it), good latest example from Africa is Zimbabwe, from Asia
largest one is India, Bangladesh, Yemen, Cambodia, Vietnam, Burma, Laos etc.
Basically any poor country you can think of - it will have a history of some
form of socialism. Nice example is China. You can compare it to Taiwan and
Hong Kong. Also you can compare China 50 years ago and now (despite being
communist on paper now it's one of the most capitalist countries in the world
in reality and it's very good for them). North vs South Korea. Just too many
examples. Redistribution simply does not create any wealth. Some very rich
countries can get away with it but even current day Sweden on the very top on
ease to do business lists. And Sweden is already very rich so they have
something to redistribute ([https://mises.org/library/sweden-
myth](https://mises.org/library/sweden-myth))

I guess we look at 19th century extremely differently. For me it was as
laissez-faire as probably possible. Current levels of redistribution and
inefficiency of it would have been unimaginable back then. We should be very
thankful for our ancestors who were working so so so hard. We are currently
standing on the shoulders of those giants that started this exponential growth
of technology that improved our lifes so much in the last couple hundred of
years. Especially USA which to this day is world's economical, industrial,
technological and innovation locomotive. Even logical arguments why
redistribution though taxes are working for me seems like mental gymnastics
and doesn't really much sense. Why would would someone should be efficient
with someone else's money even if he has good intentions? Why would
redistribution create larger pie to everyone? 19 century is a great example to
me how human potential can be unleashed with freedom (from a lot of things at
that time - religion, taxes, regulation etc).

I don't disagree with your conclusion. I would avoid left vs right labels
though. There is some unavoidable reality on how the world works and labels
clouds our judgment and we make emotional decision based on what is "morally"
right or wrong and not adapting and working with what we actually have in
reality. Every country is actually capitalistic (including USSR and North
Korea). The only difference is who control that capital. It's ironic that in
capitalist countries it's usually controlled by people (people of merit who
often are creators and innovators) and in "communist" countries it is
controlled by "government" \- usually people with no merit and very often very
evil ones. The ones who are good at getting at the top in the power pyramid.
Where do you think computer would be invented and would reach all the regular
folks?

------
bodegajed
Money won't be helpful. It will just go to corruption. The premise that if
poor countries will just imitate the west, not be corrupt and be smart, then
poverty will go away is ignorant thinking. And if this happens Europe and
America will never have illegal immigrants again I hear that a lot sad to say.
While I'm not poor but I grew up in a poor neighborhood. I could say that if
these billionaires adopt more of my destitute childhood he gets a good
education not only from academic but also from the parents it could be a life
changing charity. Rather than throwing money on to corrupt organizations.

------
rajacombinator
You don’t become a billionaire by giving anything away. These people are all
psychopath tier manipulators. You can be sure anything they’re giving away (eg
Gates/Buffett tax dodge) they’re getting more than equal value in return.

------
malux85
Maybe because everyone that would give it away, did.

------
bhch
To maintain the status quo.

"Making the world a better place" is the biggest lie ever said.

------
segmondy
Why should they? Why can't the poor help themselves? Most of us won't be poor
if we only spent on the essentials. Stop buying material crap. Foster good
relationship with family, neighbors and community. Community service at large
and help each other. The wealthy get rich because we keep buying more of the
crap they make that we don't need.

~~~
sushid
Because the most marginalized in our society are so screwed. They're dealt the
worst cards. It's easy to shout Randian quotes from your high tower, but when
you come from impoverished backgrounds barely making ends meet, something like
an unexpected parking ticket or an injury can mean going homeless.

~~~
segmondy
You have no idea where I come from.

