|
|
|
|
|
|
by vanderZwan
4521 days ago
|
|
|
> Many things go into being rich, but the top of that list is making more money than you give away. Practically by definition, people who continue to do this will continue to get rich. Except there is this thing called "diminishing returns" that somehow does not apply to being rich. Also, wouldn't "spend" be a more appropriate description than "give away" here? > There is no shortage of humanitarian efforts, funds, and foundations started by the wealthy for the sake of the underprivileged. To suggest these are insufficient because their founders remain wealthy is foolhardy. Luckily, the author of this article isn't suggesting that - he is arguing that in its current form these efforts are insufficient because the poor remain poor, and that he has good reasons to believe they will stay poor if we don't change specific problems not addressed in Gates' letter. |
|
|
> there is this thing called "diminishing returns" that somehow does not apply to being rich
Once you hit a certain amount of money, investments begin to drive your income. Unlike salary which is additive, investments tend to be multiplicative in their wins and losses. So you stand to make (or lose, if you are bad at it) money faster.
> Also, wouldn't "spend" be a more appropriate description than "give away" here?
Semantics. Credit and debits are all i am referring to.
The author is literally arguing that poor places are not getting richer fast enough. Money alone does not make for better living conditions. There are environmental constraints, infrastructure additions, and countless logistical issues. The author provides no solutions that i saw, and instead spends his time ranting about comparison between developed vs developing countries.