[jampekka]

Now they instead gave the opportunity for other bitcoin holders to do good with the /dev/null'ed coins.

It's like giving up quota in a shared storage system for all others (in proportion to their quotas). And not like e.g. throwing away food or destructing buildings.

[crazygringo]

But the point is that you can do far more good by sending the money to some of the people who need it most, those in the lowest economic positions.

Rather than effectively sending it to the "average" Bitcoin user, which is definitely not in the lowest economic position -- and whatever the average Bitcoin holder spends on charity, it's only a small percent.

This is why Bill Gates spends his money on the Gates Foundation where it's designed to help those who need it most, rather than lighting all his money on fire so that the deflationary impact will help everyone in proportion to their savings.

[jampekka]

By the standard that someone would need it more, vast majority of consumer spending is a lot more wasteful than just burning money.

I don't think it's clear whether the world would have been better or worse off if Gates would have just burned (or preferably /dev/null'ed) all his money.

[crazygringo]

> By the standard that someone would need it more, vast majority of consumer spending is a lot more wasteful than just burning money.

No, because burning money is simply deflation, and existing money will continue to follow the same patterns of consumer spending.

The idea that consumer spending is worse than burning money doesn't make any sense -- they're the same.

That's the whole point of why targeted giving to charity is better. That's why the Gates Foundation is a million times better than burning money. The Gates Foudation isn't going to "consumer spending" -- it's helping those most in need, like people who would die from malaria otherwise.

[jampekka]

Burning money is same as having cash that you never spend. Never eating those extra calories or burning those extra gallons. Calories or gallons somebody else could use if needed, or that could be left to ground if not needed. Sounds almost the opposite to waste to me.

Gates (Foundation) allocates labor and material resources with its money. If it didn't, that labor and material resources would be allocated differently. E.g. central banks could print equivalent amount of money and it could be spent through governments to let's say malaria aid.

Money isn't a resource. Spending money dictates how resources are allocated. Assuming Gates Foundation is million times better than burning money assumes that Gates is million times better allocating resources than "non-Gates" would be.

I'm sure Gates isn't a million times better at this. I'm not sure at all he's even better than "non-Gates".

I am sure that no democratically unaccountable person should have that much power over how resources are allocated.

[crazygringo]

I think your key point is this:

> Assuming Gates Foundation is million times better than burning money assumes that Gates is million times better allocating resources than "non-Gates" would be. I'm sure Gates isn't a million times better at this. I'm not sure at all he's even better than "non-Gates".

But I think it's actually pretty clear that it is a million times better. I think it's extremely clear that saving somebody's life, who would otherwise have been killed by malaria, is a million times better than somebody eating a nicer meal at a restaurant, or buying a nicer chair, or whatever.

Yes, governments could be funding more malaria aid but they haven't been. The point is that the Gates foundation identifies areas where there hasn't been enough help and goes and provides that.

I honestly am pretty blown away by your assertion that you're not even sure whether the Gates Foundation does any good at all. Your logic seems to question whether charities do anything at all and whether they should even exist, and I don't think you're going to find a lot of people on your side there.

[jampekka]

> But I think it's actually pretty clear that it is a million times better. I think it's extremely clear that saving somebody's life, who would otherwise have been killed by malaria, is a million times better than somebody eating a nicer meal at a restaurant, or buying a nicer chair, or whatever.

I agree that society and resource allocation should be structured towards such that so much of it doesn't go to this kind of pointless crap. Heavily progressive taxation for all income and international redistribution would be a good start. But people seem to care more about their chairs than poor people suffering.

> I honestly am pretty blown away by your assertion that you're not even sure whether the Gates Foundation does any good at all. Your logic seems to question whether charities do anything at all and whether they should even exist, and I don't think you're going to find a lot of people on your side there.

Gates Foundation probably does some good. But so do e.g. UNICEF, WHO, public universities etc.

In general I find that, at least large scale, charity is a clear sign of a failed economic system. And promoting more charity tends to make the systemic problems worse.

I may be in the minority, but I'm definitely not alone in this. Philantrophy is oligarchy.

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/bill-gates-philant...

https://jacobin.com/2015/08/peter-singer-charity-effective-a...