[nodesocket]

I think Buffett and Gates proved that despite what the media or anti-capitalists say, the top 1% are able to have the biggest impact. Somebody who donates a million (while a great contribution), will never have the impact that a billionaire can.

Buffett took tremendous flack and there was very public outcry before he started donating. His rationale was that I'll just stack it up, and his late ex-wife Susie would distribute it after he died. However, when Susie passed away unexpectedly, Warren decided to make the move.

[pharrington]

No one said that the top 1% don't have the biggest impact.

Currently, our geo-economic systems are structured such that the world's underclasses rely on the emotions of the wealthiest 0.0001% of homo sapiens in America to continually fund triage operations to ameliorate problems that societies have developed institutionalized solutions to.

[forapurpose]

> despite what the media or anti-capitalists say, the top 1% are able to have the biggest impact

I think this argument misses, or even reinforces a core criticism about the concentration of wealth. The criticism is that so much and such disproportionate power should not be concentrated in the hands of one individual.

It's fundamentally undemocratic and a danger to society. In a democracy a broad-based group of citizens should be deciding where charitable resources are allocated. It's in aristocracies were a few wealthy control all the assets and make the decisions. Democracies were formed as a rejection of aristocracy, the U.S. in particular.

It's self-reinforcing: If the local 'aristocrat' funds a park, people are grateful because there were no other funds and now we have a park. But there are no other funds because we have a system that creates aristocrats and by concentrating wealth also creates the need for their charity, and instead of the citizens deciding democratically about their parks, the aristocrat decides.

Gates might be an enlightened despot but he's still a despot (in an exaggerated, metaphorical sense). We know what happens to nations and political systems that fall in love with enlightened despots.

> Somebody who donates a million (while a great contribution), will never have the impact that a billionaire can.

1,000 people who donate a million will have exactly the same impact as one who donates a billion and will be far more democratic. Far better: Each person makes an equal sacrifice (via a progressive taxation system) and we vote on how to spend the money.

[ethbro]

> 1,000 people who donate a million will have exactly the same impact as one who donates a billion and will be far more democratic.

Except if they don't. Or they do to a variety of causes, each with duplicate administrative overhead.

I'm not a fan of wealth concentration, but it does afford patronage opportunities that simply aren't taken on average in the alternative "more people with less money" world.

[forapurpose]

> Except if they don't. ...

Except when the billionaire doesn't. Is there evidence that billionaires donate a greater proportion of their wealth or more effectively than millionaires? Is a market of 1 more efficient than a market of 1,000?

I'd bet that the law of large numbers applies here, and the 1,000 people are overall more consistent than 1 person, and less prone to extreme swings.

It sounds like the trickle-down economics version of philanthropy.

[lorenzorhoades]

We have exactly what your explaining in the form of taxes, and the outcomes are terrible. We spend $1B on a healthcare website, that other companies have duplicated for a mere decimal point of the price. Not only that, but it actually turned out worse, cause now it's mandatory to have Healthcare, and for those who can't afford the "affordable health care plan", now have an additional payments in "penalties" for not being able to afford it and they STILL don't have health insurance. This is just one point of a thousand were socialistic practices are completely contrary to the original point. Let the people who create enough value to the world decide where they want to spend their money.

[rtpg]

The core problem is that society has to rely on the whims of these people to solve problems.

In an alternative universe we tax people more and ensure malaria eradication _whether or not Bill Gates personally decides to do so_.

There are obviously coordination problems (not saying that "government can solve everything!", there are difficulties there too). But having huge organizations ask for donations from people is a really ineffective way of solving most societal problems.

[Shivetya]

Your alternative cannot exist simply because the problem that exist isn't the billionaire but politicians and the governments they run. Gates and his type are able to have the effect they do because being individuals they don't run into problems of the state, there is no threat of imperialism or such. They are also able to do because they live under a government which respects private property rights, whether to self, land, money, or goods.

Government theoretically could solve everything but it requires good government to do so. The first step is what I stated above, respect for private property rights. If people cannot be assured their product of their work is theirs to use you cannot improve the society they live in. They must be able to trust their government.

[rtx]

Resource allocation is at the base of all our problems. And capitalism has been the best solution so far.

[rtpg]

extremely debatable. In the US, almost no national infrastructure was built through private means (though often privatised later). Private healthcare has been a disaster at maintaining a healthy public. An insistence on having government work happen through public contractors has generated massive conflicts of interests and made us end up with the most expensive infrastructure building process in the world.

Just because the Soviet Union fell over doesn't mean that capitalism has somehow been proven to be "the best solution".

[gozur88]

I don't know a good label for the US healthcare system, but it's so heavily regulated it's impossible to call it "private".

>Just because the Soviet Union fell over doesn't mean that capitalism has somehow been proven to be "the best solution".

Name one country implemented socialism (and by that I mean the government owns the means of production) and didn't end up worse off than when it started. Even the Northern European welfare states are capitalist.

[pharrington]

China.

[gozur88]

Not even close. 40 million people starved to death under the communists.

[pharrington]

It's at least been the best solution to creating value from resources.