So what is the aim of being billionaire?

[Cyrus]

Also, microsoft pretty much screws any company that gets in their way and puts them out of business. But hey, Bill Gates gave away lots of money. Hes a good guy!

I think If I ever became rich and did something bad, Id just give away lots of money. Its a great way to cover your ass and keep the people quiet and have the public love you.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Yes, and many of their VERY opulent homes are now museums. Were it not for their vast wealth, you would not have those homes around the country today.

You mean I should hark back to the past, when comparing the actions of people in today's societies. Not sure how a tycoon investing his wealth in schemes for the poor, is going to change the number of rich peoples houses that are now museums exactly?

Bill Gates is ruthless as a businessman, if you actually look at what he is done he is the epitome of the capitalist system (in fact he probably hasn't done anything any other business man wouldn't do given half the chance) But despite his ruthless (and frankly standard business practices) he's also a nice bloke who wants to give something back, we can overlook some of his more conventional business practices.

 

[Cyrus]

He breaks the law and puts other companies out of business. But he's a 'nice bloke' because he gave away some of his money.


-okayyyyyyyyyyy...

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

He breaks the law and puts other companies out of business. But he's a 'nice bloke' because he gave away some of his money. -okayyyyyyyyyyy...

I never said it's ok, I just said that at least he's a nice bloke in that he's thinking about others. Frankly he has the business clout to do pretty much whatever he wants in your system, if anything he's a success story for capitalism. I'd blame the system though for his business practices, which I don't condone, but they are just ordinary methods of doing business in the US, even if they are skirting the edge of what is legal sometimes. I mean we can probably list dozens of companies who haven't quite got away with it or have.

See just as two wrongs don't make a right, one wrong and a heap of right to help out truck loads of people, does not make a wrong. It makes a businessman with at least some sense of community spirit. So yes, if you ever become obscenely rich, and end up pouring millions into schemes to help the poor, people may well like you more. I know that's terrible, but I think I can live with the fallout?

 

[Cyrus]

What do you mean by 'my system'. When did I say breaking the law was ok?

What do you mean they are 'ordinary business practices in the us'? Breaking the law is not ordinary, nor allowed. That statement is a bunch of crap, I am sorry.

If I become rich, I will give out loans to people and companies to better themselves, and I expect every one of them to PAY ME BACK. Because when they pay me back I can reinvest it into something else. How are you going to do that when you give away all your money like a dope?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

What do you mean by 'my system'. When did I say breaking the law was ok?

I didn't and you didn't?

What do you mean they are 'ordinary business practices in the us'? Breaking the law is not ordinary, nor allowed. That statement is a bunch of crap, I am sorry.

Well copyright infringements are pretty commonplace to be frank.

If I become rich, I will give out loans to people and companies to better themselves, and I expect every one of them to PAY ME BACK. Because when they pay me back I can reinvest it into something else.

Well even offering loans to poor people is investing in the community. Of course giving poor people access to better education and jobs, is also an investment in the community. No one has a problem with schemes provided they are helping beyond what the poor can get anyway. If you set up a scheme to give a fair break to poor people then great. If it was just a business that offered loans at standard rates, then it's pretty much useless isn't it, since they can already get loans? Might as well just set up a bank. And let's face it who's going to give a loan out to someone who's subsisting? What you would be doing - I presume - is giving out high risk loans to people who would not normally get them, because of lack of collateral and money. So you would be taking a potential loss on your loans, which is where the charity element comes in. If your not then what are you actually offering? If you expect to be paid back in full, then you're wasting your time giving out loans to people with little or no credit rating.

Oh and if you're a billionaire, having the capital to invest is hardly going to be a problem is it? If you're trying to say that it encourages investment to get back what you give, then I'd say not in this case.

 

[Cyrus]

If it was just a business that offered loans at standard rates, then it's pretty much useless isn't it, since they can already get loans? Might as well just set up a bank.

Nothing to do with what I am talking about.

What you would be doing - I presume - is giving out high risk loans to people who would not normally get them, because of lack of collateral and money. So you would be taking a potential loss on your loans, which is where the charity element comes in.

Yes, that's right. And once you pay me back, I take that money and help the NEXT person. And so and so on. THATS the difference between loaning your money and giving it away, and why you NEVER give away money.


Being a billionaire means you have all the doors open to you in life. A moral thing would be to use that position of power to help open doors for others so they can move up in life, if they take the initiative to change their own life.

And yes, I expect to be paid back full. This is how it works in the Grameen bank in 3rd world countries.

 

[DaveC426913]

Cyrus, are you drunk, or just particularly angry today?

 

[Poop-Loops]

I never said it's ok, I just said that at least he's a nice bloke in that he's thinking about others.

I have an idea. Give me $10 and I'll give you $5 back. That way, I'll be a ruthless business man, but by your criteria a nice bloke because I think about other people. Deal?

 

[Cyrus]

Cyrus, are you drunk, or just particularly angry today?

hic. hiiiiiiiiiiiii daveeeeeeeeeee...

Sorry, people asking for handouts in life get me angry. Roar.

Take that free handouts!

 

[DaveC426913]

I have an idea. Give me $10 and I'll give you $5 back. That way, I'll be a ruthless business man, but by your criteria a nice bloke because I think about other people. Deal?

We all here on PF have done pretty well by capitalism, so you might want to think twice about biting the hand that's fed you. No really. Any of you here care to put your money where your mouth is and give up on capitalism?

Anyway, a capitalist economy is not new stuff, and no big secret either. But super simplifiying it to the levels being discussed in this thread is silly. Many of the examples given here - including the OP's - are mere cartoons of how the system works.

 

[Cyrus]

We all here on PF have done pretty well by capitalism, so you might want to think twice about biting the hand that's fed you. No really. Any of you here care to put your money where your mouth is and give up on capitalism?

Anyway, a capitalist economy is not new stuff, and no big secret either. But super simplifiying it to the levels being discussed in this thread is silly. Many of the examples given here - including the OP's - are mere cartoons of how the system works.

Which part has been overly simplified by my own statements dave?

 

[russ_watters]

Cyrus, are you drunk, or just particularly angry today?

No, he's just right.

 

[DaveC426913]

No, he's just right.

Wow. I didn't realize personal viewpoints could be confirmed as "correct" versus "incorrect". How do I level up to that?

 

[Cyrus]

Give me a generous donation! (I'll even split it with lisab and SD).

 

[Moonbear]

I have an idea. Give me $10 and I'll give you $5 back. That way, I'll be a ruthless business man, but by your criteria a nice bloke because I think about other people. Deal?

Don't you know the best way to accomplish both is to set up a charitable foundation to give money to things that ultimately help you out (like giving away your product free to a school so the kids will all learn how to use yours rather than your competitors and then buy your product to use at home) and then take the tax deduction? Yeesh, you'll never be a ruthless businessman if you pay for advertising when you could have a tax deduction for the same thing.

 

[Astronuc]

THATS the difference between loaning your money and giving it away, and why you NEVER give away money.

BTW, I never said anything about the conditions with which the money would be given. People give grants with conditions.

Being a billionaire means you have all the doors open to you in life. A moral thing would be to use that position of power to help open doors for others so they can move up in life, if they take the initiative to change their own life.

I agree with this.

I admire Warren Buffet - for the most part. Personally I think he should be rewarding the employees of the companies he owns.

I also think that if a large corporation (conglomerate like GE or what W used to be) wants to get out a particular line of business, then they should spin it off rather than just kill it. That's why I disapprove of Jack Welch's approach. Various W divisions bought themselves out and became fairly profitable - once they got out from W corporate management.


BTW, try making your point with smaller images.


The bottom line for me is that people are way more important that wealth, power and property. I don't even bother with prestige.

 

[DaveC426913]

Originally Posted by Cyrus
Being a billionaire means you have all the doors open to you in life. A moral thing would be to use that position of power to help open doors for others so they can move up in life, if they take the initiative to change their own life.

I agree with this.

This is essentially what I was trying to get across to the OP.
Except I'd make one change: replace the word "moral" with the word "cost-effective". It doesn't have to be a moral act; an act that makes one richer while making others richer works great too - a win-win. That's the beauty of it.

 

[Cyrus]

BTW, I never said anything about the conditions with which the money would be given. People give grants with conditions.

I agree with this.


BTW, try making your point with smaller images.

Education is one area I overlooked. I would set up a fund for free college education, provided the person maintains a certain GPA, say above a 3.5, with the condition that if they drop out or fall below a 3.5 GPA, they have to pay the money back so someone else can use it.

 

[Astronuc]

Education is one area I overlooked. I would set up a fund for free college education, provided the person maintains a certain GPA, say above a 3.5, with the condition that if they drop out or fall below a 3.5 GPA, they have to pay the money back so someone else can use it.

Attaboy, Cyrus. We'll make you president yet. Hmmm - another 12 years.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

No, he's just right.

About what? If you ask me he's saying pretty much the same as me? I mean when he said you shouldn't just throw money at the poor, I suggested a number of investments which wouldn't be doing that?

If you mean he's right about loans, you'd be wrong there also, fact is if he goes round giving out high risk loans to the poor it's unlikely he's going to get his money back. If he charges high rates to cover his potential loss then he's unlikely to be any different from what is already available. Investment in the community might entail a loss to you, but a gain to others in general. If he's arguing against that and you're supporting him there, then one has to wonder exactly what your point is? See it's possible in principal to make a charitable venture that makes money for you, and a business venture that makes a loss. But the charitable side of it is in the intent, not the profit margin.

It seems to me though, I was being pulled up for suggesting people who invest their money in society beyond their own selfish needs, are better people than those who don't, which is of course absurd. Beyond that our arguments were the same.

 

[Cyrus]

About what? If you ask me he's saying pretty much the same as me? I mean when he said you shouldn't just throw money at the poor, I suggested a number of investments which wouldn't be doing that?

If you mean he's right about loans, you'd be wrong there also, fact is if he goes round giving out high risk loans to the poor it's unlikely he's going to get his money back. If he charges high rates to cover his potential loss then he's unlikely to be any different from what is already available. Investment in the community might entail a loss to you, but a gain to others in general. If he's arguing against that and you're supporting him there, then one has to wonder exactly what your point is? See it's possible in principal to make a charitable venture that makes money for you, and a business venture that makes a loss. But the charitable side of it is in the intent, not the profit margin.

It seems to me though, I was being pulled up for suggesting people who invest their money in society beyond their own selfish needs, are better people than those who don't, which is of course absurd. Beyond that our arguments were the same.

See Dr. Yunus. Poor people in 3rd world countries actually DO pay it back! They do it all the time.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

See Dr. Yunus. Poor people in 3rd world countries actually DO pay it back! They do it all the time.

Who's Dr Yinus and why does forcing countries into ever increasing debts which they can't pay back apply here? IIRC didn't they agree to wipe off the interest on some of the highest third world debts recently? Do you think offering people a service that already exists, ie loans at high interest is quite the same as building public libraries? Scholarships for the poor and so on? Or as I said is it just supplying a service that already exists? I don't see how that is going to help anyone, but give it a go when you become a billionaire.

Like your idea about education, that's something that is a little more in line with charity than just expecting to make an equal or greater return on your loans.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2004-10-14.407.4

Seems to be happening over here?

Did you know that the richest business man in the UK, actually pays virtually nothing in tax because he spends so much time moving his funds around, that he pays very little tax, and the amount he pays is more than covered by the interest on moving his finances from Swiss bank account to offshore account and so on. These are people that despite being incredibly wealthy don't even want to pay taxes to the country where much of their investment is. These are the sorts of people that get my goat. Although thankfully many people are willing to pay their due.

 

[Astronuc]

Who's Dr Yinus and why does forcing countries into ever increasing debts which they can't pay back apply here? IIRC didn't they agree to wipe off the interest on some of the highest third world debts recently? Do you think offering people a service that already exists, ie loans at high interest is quite the same as building public libraries? Scholarships for the poor and so on? Or as I said is it just supplying a service that already exists?

Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize (and frankly he should get the Nobel in Economics as well) "for their efforts to create economic and social development from below". http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2006/

Yunus's method involves microcredit - small loans at the local level at reasonable rates which enable local folks to develop their own businesses. It is quite the opposite of IMF and World Bank, and is way more effective.

http://www.grameen-info.org/

http://www.grameen-info.org/bank/index.html

Breaking the vicious cycle of poverty through microcredit
http://www.grameen-info.org/bank/bcycle.html

 

[ShawnD]

Education is one area I overlooked. I would set up a fund for free college education, provided the person maintains a certain GPA, say above a 3.5, with the condition that if they drop out or fall below a 3.5 GPA, they have to pay the money back so someone else can use it.

I had a similar idea when I was about 10. Trade school and university would be free if you passed, but you would pay the entire thing back if you failed.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize (and frankly he should get the Nobel in Economics as well) "for their efforts to create economic and social development from below". http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2006/

Yunus's method involves microcredit - small loans at the local level at reasonable rates which enable local folks to develop their own businesses. It is quite the opposite of IMF and World Bank, and is way more effective.

http://www.grameen-info.org/

http://www.grameen-info.org/bank/index.html

Breaking the vicious cycle of poverty through microcredit
http://www.grameen-info.org/bank/bcycle.html

Ah... Thanks Astronuc, yes that does seem a better system. I see what he means now, apologies Cyrus, not sure what you meant. Having said that though, why aren't these ideas put forward to the systems that exist now in the UN? I mean UNICEF, why aren't these voices heard?

I had a similar idea when I was about 10. Trade school and university would be free if you passed, but you would pay the entire thing back if you failed.

Yeah but what if you couldn't pay it back if you failed? If you passed, surely you'd be able to pay it back much more easily? Just asking how this dynamic works?

 

[Cyrus]

Yeah but what if you couldn't pay it back if you failed? If you passed, surely you'd be able to pay it back much more easily? Just asking how this dynamic works?

You're screwed. If your serious, you wouldn't fail. Its really that simple.

 

[ShawnD]

A
Yeah but what if you couldn't pay it back if you failed? If you passed, surely you'd be able to pay it back much more easily? Just asking how this dynamic works?

It would be handled the same way as current student loans are handled - you file for bankruptcy when you can't pay them.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

You're screwed. If your serious, you wouldn't fail. Its really that simple.

I was serious and I failed college. Not because I wasn't serious, because I couldn't afford to stay. Not everyone who is serious passes any more than everyone who isn't doesn't. You seem to have a very black and white view of reality.

Sounds like student loans are better, you only have to pay them back when you are earning. Much better to offer everyone a chance to go to University I think. Scholarships under threat sound like a step backward to me.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It would be handled the same way as current student loans are handled - you file for bankruptcy when you can't pay them.

Student loans survive bankruptcy in most cases.