[nirnira]

I truly, truly hate articles like this. The constant tone of judgement and scepticism. The underlying assumption that the rich don't deserve to spend their money however they want. Why can't you just celebrate success and encourage people to emulate the successful? Why can't you just say thank you that so many wealthy people choose to turn their fortunes towards so many philanthropic causes? Why do you have to have so much bile and resentment towards individuals choosing freely and harming no one?

Whatever happened to America being the land of the free? When did it turn into the land of cutting down tall poppies?

[firstOrder]

> The underlying assumption that the rich don't deserve to spend their money however they want. Why can't you just celebrate success and encourage people to emulate the successful?

Well let us look at these rich people, on the Forbes 400 richest list. So people can celebrate success and encourage people to emulate the successful.

#1 Bill Gates - had a million dollar trust fund from his bank president grandfather, mother on United Way board with president of IBM #2 Warren Buffett - father was a congressman, grandparents owned a chain of stores in Nebraska #3 Larry Ellison - after a middle class upbringing, he was inspired by a 1970 CACM article and proceeded to hit several home runs over the the next few decades #4 Charles Koch - inherited an oil company #5 David Koch - inherited an oil company #6 Christy Walton - inherited Wal-Mart #7 Jim Walton - inherited Wal-Mart ...and the rest of the Wal-Mart heirs...

Aside from Larry Ellison, all of these people were to the manor born. Telling people to "emulate their success" is ludicrous. Plenty of people are paid good money to tell us why we should "celebrate success" for these people, and should try to "emulate the successful". Anyone who would actually believe these people's press clippings is clearly a fool. They have the same kind of "success" the czar in Russia had - they were born into it.

[tsotha]

>#1 Bill Gates - had a million dollar trust fund from his bank president grandfather, mother on United Way board with president of IBM

In what reality could the act of taking a million dollars and multiplying it by a factor of seventy six thousand be viewed as being "born into it"?

[dm2]

He worked very hard, it just came natural to him. If he was lower-class he would have never had access to early computers and it would be much less likely that he would have been successful at all.

He was a natural leader, but you can't just start out as a CEO unless you have a product or service to offer. Bill Gates couldn't have had time to build his software if he had to work daily to put himself through school (to have access to the computer).

Starting with a million dollars is no different than starting with 100 million, it all depends on how good the person is at spotting opportunity, learning from mistakes, and manipulating (not in a bad way) people to help you build your empire.

[tsotha]

>He worked very hard, it just came natural to him. If he was lower-class he would have never had access to early computers and it would be much less likely that he would have been successful at all.

At the time you didn't have to be rich to be a computer enthusiast. Silicon Valley was full of average Joes who had breadboarded up a simple computer but couldn't figure out what to do with it. Gates may have had more trouble if his family was at the very bottom end of the income spectrum, but computer geekery was a middle class thing. Literally millions of people could have done the same.

>He was a natural leader, but you can't just start out as a CEO unless you have a product or service to offer.

That's just nonsense. Anybody can be a CEO - you just need to start a corporation. When Gates and Allen started Microsoft it was just the two of them. There was no product either. This is all on the wiki page, by the way.

>Bill Gates couldn't have had time to build his software if he had to work daily to put himself through school (to have access to the computer).

That might be true except that he dropped out of school as soon as the company was founded.

>Starting with a million dollars is no different than starting with 100 million, it all depends on how good the person is at spotting opportunity, learning from mistakes, and manipulating (not in a bad way) people to help you build your empire.

You don't need a million dollars to start a company, and lots of now-powerful companies were started with far less. Apple, for instance. If Gates was lucky it was because he came of age in a time where computers were changing so fast there were more opportunities for small, agile companies. But that was true of his entire generation.

[WalterBright]

Microsoft was bootstrapped from an initial investment of about $5000, as I recall. Hardly uberwealth, and no VC.

I worked for a contemporary of Microsoft at the time. We had better technology, knew microcomputers upside down, had better everything, except had no vision. And that company was booted from nothing.

[nirnira]

> They have the same kind of "success" the czar in Russia had - they were born into it.

Oh brother. Most of these people started out in life ahead of the average person, sure. But you know what, they all took what they started with in life and worked their asses off to build it into something even greater. I'm sure for every person on this list there's ten people who started with a silver spoon in their mouth, and through sloth and weakness blew everything. Some probably wound up on the streets.

And have you looked into the family histories of these successful people? How many of these families started off with members who had nothing, who worked hard and made it? Does it invalidate their original success that they were smart enough to build a family culture which preserved and built upon success? Oh, I suppose that's another thing we shouldn't bother trying to emulate.

But hey, let's not bother trying to build a representative sample base for our snide claims eh?

Bill Gates may have come from privilege, but then he built on that - he brought computing to the world, introduced untold economic efficiencies to every single industry on earth, and produced more economic growth arguably than any other single individual in the last century. Buffett again worked hard, made smart bets, took risks, and it paid off. Ellison you admit invalidates your hypothesis. Koch I'm not familiary with. The Waltons have obviously been working diligently because last I heard Walmart was a powerhouse that millions of Americans choose of their own free will to shop at every day.

Comparing Bill Gates and the others on this list to a blatantly parasitic ruling class extracting resources from the toil of slaves through a monopoly on state violence is just plain, unforgivable idiocy.

I would expect better from the audience of a website devoted to the idea that anyone who has a valuable idea and works hard can make something of themselves.

[mempko]

Their success is on the backs of people who do the real work. They are also on the backs of the American people who contribute significant amount of money through government sponsorship. The tech we use today is based on government investment that the private industry coudn't stomach.

So no, I do not celebrate their success and I will judge them sharply for profiting so handsomely from public investment.

And don't give me crap about how we benefit too. If our economy was working as a free market that the same billionaires feel it should, they coudn't be billionaires.

Profit has no space in "real" free markets.

[hueving]

>Profit has no space in "real" free markets.

What kind of drivel is that? If you create a product/service which nobody else can duplicate and the demand for it is there, you are going to make a profit. That's exactly how a "real" free market functions.

[mempko]

why wouldn't someone be able to duplicate? You keep things secret? Government protects you via patents and copyright? I mean econ 101 is that markets bring profits towards zero. A perfect market with perfect information means zero profit. Any market that tends towards "perfection" would therefore be anathema to any capitalist.

In other words, fuck man, capitalists hate markets. They would prefer that you don't have a choice but to buy from them.

[hueving]

>why wouldn't someone be able to duplicate?

Keeping secrets is only one option. Another is the cost to duplicate. Your myopic understanding of manufacturing processes likely cannot be alleviated in the comments section here, but just consider that the cost to build certain chip fab plants is up in the billions and takes years to build. Once the first entity builds that, it is guaranteed a profit for at least the number of years it takes to build a duplicate manufacturing process. This is true under any definition of a real free market, making your assertion false.

>In other words, fuck man, capitalists hate markets.

Nope, you mean incumbents hate markets. I think you need to revisit the definition of a capitalist. A real capitalist dreams of when they can come in with a better price/service/product and unseat the incumbents.

[Tycho]

Profits would only go to zero if everybody was equally talented, equally educated, equally industrious, and equally lucky. Reality, of course, is quite different.

[mempko]

So you are saying that of you win the genetic lottery, you make profits?

[Tycho]

There are lots of factors that have nothing to do with genetics.

[trentmb]

> The tech we use today is based on government investment that the private industry coudn't stomach.

Wasn't that, in at least part, the reason why government felt the investment was worth making? To fund (expensive) basic research that can then be taken to drive and create enterprise?

[mempko]

Notice we are talking about the government as some "other" instead of what it should be, made of you and me. Lets rephrase what you said with that in mind.

"Wasn't that, in at least part, the reason why WE felt the investment was worth making? To fund (expensive) basic research that can then be taken to drive and create enterprise?"

and let me finish it off for you.

"that can then be taken to drive and create enterprise so that we can pay out the ass for everything we buy so that a couple of snakes can have billions."

The reality is the government made that decision behind our backs. Nobody asked you and me. They made that decision to pad the pockets of their friends. They are just administrators after all.

[logicchains]

How much of the funding of Intel/Amd/ARM, who probably built the cpu you're using to access this side, came from the government? How much of the funding of this site itself, and of other sites you may use on a daily basis such as Google and Facebook, came from the government? How much of the funding for the GPU that's rendering this site came from the government? How are you not benefiting from all these things?

Long term profit has no space in models of a _perfectly competitive_ market, a theoretical concept used in the exploration of various economic ideas. The "free"ness of a market doesn't necessarily imply anything about the potential for profit within that market.

[mempko]

I mean, are you familiar with the history of google and facebook? Pagerank was paid for by a government grant. Why aren't the profits of google being distributed into our pockets? Facebook had early investment from CIA connected sources. SpaceX is almost all funded by NASA.

I mean look at the technologies they built. Largest people tracker (Google) and largest communication graph (Facebook). Look at the current web technologies and the massive centralization of technology.

Let the government turn off the money spigot, and silicon valley will be bankrupt in a week.

[logicchains]

No, I'm not familiar with the history of Google and Facebook, hence why I was asking for data regarding what proportion of their business was funded by government money. As in, a percentage.

[nirnira]

Hint: the answer for both companies lies somewhere between 0 and 0%.

[nirnira]

>Their success is on the backs of people who do the real work.

Oh really? And when was the last time you attempted to do what these people do? Easy to judge sitting from an armchair, isn't it?

While you're at it, why don't you stop using any of the products that these people create? And stop using any of the products created by people using their products? Why don't you stop patronising for instance any business that uses Microsoft or Oracle software? Let's see how much choice that leaves you.

>They are also on the backs of the American people who contribute significant amount of money through government sponsorship.

The American government decided to use public resources to fund research without attempting to monopolise the application of results. If you don't like the fact that people have created successful businesses and products with this, you should blame the government, not the people who took risks and brought the applications to market. You don't get to hold out your hand and ask for something back when you gave it away for free in the first place.

>I will judge them sharply for profiting so handsomely from public investment.

Perhaps you should be judged too. After all, aren't you this very moment enjoying the internet? Isn't your enjoyment of it, its enrichment of your life (even potentially your dependence on it for your economic niche) a profit of your own? And how much have you decided to donate to the government as compensation for this profit from your use of the fruits of public research funding?

>Profit has no space in "real" free markets.

I suggest you educate yourself in basic economics before making such stupid claims.

[mempko]

I am too nice to do what those people do. I am too nice to fire anyone, to stab my partner in the back. To steal millions from my employees. To lie to investors.

I am just too honest damned. and just too damn nice to attempt to do what these people do.

Remember the Simpsons episode with Bill Gates where he says "I didn't get rich by writing checks!"

And why the hell are you defending those people? Do you wish to be one of those one day? What is in it for you to spend time with a dope like me sniffing their shit?

[nirnira]

Jesus, get a grip. Stop embarrassing yourself.

[mempko]

Lol, don't worry, I only exist on the internet. Your bosses on the other hand...

[Tycho]

The article was pretty nauseating. Openly worrying that the government isn't taking more control of human endeavour.

[marincounty]

"tall poppies"? Our system allowed these Poppies the to flourish. These tall Poppies were never subject to shakedowns, or out right theft of their usually inherited monies. Most never served their country. They lived safe privileged lives. They didn't need to worry about much; other than making money. If we don't start closing the inequity gap, I wonder just how long this "cake walk" for the wealthy will last. I hope we never become, well like Mexico, where the wealthy need to be constantly on alert for kidnapping, or getting shot? As to letting the tall poppies do the right thing with there benevolent gifts; I believe they need some guidance. Bill Gates comes to mind. Spending millions on expensive genetically modified seeds--only to see one crop for some poor tribe in Africa. I do admire he brought up the condom issue though. I don't have any concrete answers, but "only in America" could a lot of these rich dudes make their fortunes. What really irks me is is when they take advantage of all the thing most of us take for granted(like an honest judicial system, right down to the cops on the streets), and then store their money offshore--all because they want a few more shekels. And then when they get in trouble they proudly proclaim,"I am an American.! I have rights".

[nirnira]

Thanks for contributing yet another well-reasoned, impartial analysis of modern society to Hacker news.

[timr]

Did you read the article, or just assume that it says what you hate?

The article is about the balance of funding -- how much of it is private, and how much of it is public. Nobody is claiming that rich people shouldn't be allowed to fund vanity science projects.

[nirnira]

I read the whole article thanks. It was stupid and judgemental - eg criticising rich people for only supporting research into rich white people disease - woops, never mind Bill Gates!

"Balance of funding" is a cute euphemism though for "let's punish rich people for exercising their free choice, steal more of their money and give it to bureaucrats and congressmen in the White House to squabble over and divert into kickbacks for districts and lobbyists." Because everyone knows the government's track record of wise use of funds is so fantastic.