Are modern billionaires just hedonistic, selfish hogs ?
To me, the answer is yes.
I am listening to a CD lecture course on the Italian Renaissance. In Florence in the 14th and 15th centuries, some families gained enormous wealth. What did they do with that wealth ? They commissioned great artists to make beautiful art - much for the public. They commissioned public buildings to celebrate the greatness of ... Florence. Not themselves. Oh, they did want their memory preserved. But they recognized that the way to do that was to do great things for the people.
Florence had regained knowledge of the classics and that knowledge created much social pressure on wealthy persons to do acts of greatness. Aristotle had said in Nichomachean Ethics that regarding money, virtue required magnificence from a person of great wealth: magnificence meant doing great things with the wealth for the public. And "great" meant not just expensive, but wonderful , beautiful, and tasteful. Wealthy Florentines ensured quality both by specifics in the contracts and using committees to hold contests with all great artists permitted to enter. The commissions for art, sculpture, and architecture also paid well, ensuring top creativity and quality.
And it worked. Florence was the flower of the renaissance and its treasures are still recognized as truly great.
Here's a quote from Pericles given by Thucydides about a virtue of the Athenians:
"We cultivate refinement without extravagance and knowledge without effeminacy; wealth we employ more for use than for show, and place the real disgrace of poverty not in owning to the fact but in declining the struggle against it."
And Athens in the fifth century was a locus of greatness in architecture, knowledge and culture.
Who among the modern mega-rich emulates the magnificence of Andrew Carnegie who donated everything to create libraries in multitudes of small towns in America, including my home town? Following Pericles, his great wealth was quickly used to increase the intellectual capabilities of the entire nation. It was not hoarded in trust or a named foundation to perpetuate the glory of the donor.
Who uses the money for magnificence or to increase knowledge and / or quality of art, sculpture, letters, architecture ? Who does acts of great magnificence for the public ? I can think of none.
Not even the Gates Foundation does acts or deeds of magnificence. Buffet simply gives his money to the Gates Foundation. Hedge fund billionaires mostly build palaces for themselves or buy old paintings. They create nothing new or magnificent.
I've written on this subject before. It vexes me. The public needs to exert social pressure on billionaires to show the classic virtue of magnificence. Social pressure works. If worthless billionaires were ostracized or ignored, perhaps they would get it. And do something great with their great wealth.
Word of the Day
"Hypomania" - noun [$10]
Hypomania means a minor form of mania.
Sentence: A worldwide hypomania of social pressure on billionaires to do something magnificent with their great wealth could make the 21th century a truly great time for mankind. The skills are out there among the people. The wealthy need to hire it to do acts of magnificence.
Showing posts with label wealth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wealth. Show all posts
Monday, August 23, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
The Principal Source of Wealth
That is the skills, knowledge and motivation of the human beings in the community or nation, or on the planet. Human beings create wealth. Period. There is no other causal source of it. This is proven by so many examples, but it should be self-evident and obvious with minimal thought. The earth existed for billions of years, but where was the wealth in it ? That wealth did not exist. Until modern humans walked the earth, likely first about 100,000 years ago, there was almost no wealth on the planet.
Another example: The New World. For many thousands of years after the first modern human walked on the Earth, the New World was void of people. When people came, wealth was slowly created. But when human beings with more skills and knowledge arrived after 1492, the wealth of the New World increased at a much greater rate. What was the difference ? The knowledge, skills and motivation of the humans beings living there had increased by a quantum leap with the new arrivals.
Singapore has little land or natural resources, yet its people are relatively wealthy. That's because of their own skills, knowledge and motivations. Ditto Hong Kong.
Culture is part of the skills, knowledge and motivation that produces wealth. A nation with a culture that oppresses and effectively enslaves its women and /or certain castes automatically, ipso facto, loses that same proportion of its potential for wealth. Cultural institutions like slavery and serfdom impeded the growth of national wealth, as do special privileges for aristocratic classes.
Greece has problems. What is the solution ? Re-examine the sources and uses of human capital in Greece. All Greece possesses to increase its wealth - to solve its debt problems - are its people and its sole source of wealth is its people. What is debt ? Debt is simply a transfer in time for the rights to use goods or services: debt neither creates nor destroys wealth. Too much debt means simply that the nation (or community) is consuming too much wealth now versus what it can produce in the future.
Early retirements at high pay DOES reduce national wealth. The nation or community loses the productive capacity of the retiree for those years when he/she would other wise be able to work productively. That's a lot. Many, many other state activities reduce wealth of a community. If one focuses on the human source of wealth, these become apparent very, very quickly.
To solve a nation's debt problems, look to its people. To restore a community, look to its people. That's where all its wealth inherently comes from - the skills, knowledge and motivation of its people.
Word of the Day
"Canaille" - noun [$10] pronounced kuh 'ni with a long 'i' - loan word from French
Canaille means the rabble, the populace.
Sentence: Around 100 B. C., Gaius Marius saved Rome by recognizing the potential for, and using Rome's canaille in the legions. And in doing so, he likely preserved the future path of the modern world to that which we now have.
Another example: The New World. For many thousands of years after the first modern human walked on the Earth, the New World was void of people. When people came, wealth was slowly created. But when human beings with more skills and knowledge arrived after 1492, the wealth of the New World increased at a much greater rate. What was the difference ? The knowledge, skills and motivation of the humans beings living there had increased by a quantum leap with the new arrivals.
Singapore has little land or natural resources, yet its people are relatively wealthy. That's because of their own skills, knowledge and motivations. Ditto Hong Kong.
Culture is part of the skills, knowledge and motivation that produces wealth. A nation with a culture that oppresses and effectively enslaves its women and /or certain castes automatically, ipso facto, loses that same proportion of its potential for wealth. Cultural institutions like slavery and serfdom impeded the growth of national wealth, as do special privileges for aristocratic classes.
Greece has problems. What is the solution ? Re-examine the sources and uses of human capital in Greece. All Greece possesses to increase its wealth - to solve its debt problems - are its people and its sole source of wealth is its people. What is debt ? Debt is simply a transfer in time for the rights to use goods or services: debt neither creates nor destroys wealth. Too much debt means simply that the nation (or community) is consuming too much wealth now versus what it can produce in the future.
Early retirements at high pay DOES reduce national wealth. The nation or community loses the productive capacity of the retiree for those years when he/she would other wise be able to work productively. That's a lot. Many, many other state activities reduce wealth of a community. If one focuses on the human source of wealth, these become apparent very, very quickly.
To solve a nation's debt problems, look to its people. To restore a community, look to its people. That's where all its wealth inherently comes from - the skills, knowledge and motivation of its people.
Word of the Day
"Canaille" - noun [$10] pronounced kuh 'ni with a long 'i' - loan word from French
Canaille means the rabble, the populace.
Sentence: Around 100 B. C., Gaius Marius saved Rome by recognizing the potential for, and using Rome's canaille in the legions. And in doing so, he likely preserved the future path of the modern world to that which we now have.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Disappointing ...
.... to hear that the SEC vote to charge Goldman, Sachs was 3 to 2. Here's the actual complaint ->
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2010/comp21489.pdf
In that complaint, one will read that Paulson & Co. paid Goldman, Sachs $15 million to set up the transaction that led to over $1 billion in losses (see paragraph #5). Goldman, Sachs has not yet denied that charge. If true, in my thinking that is a smoking gun for the guilt of Goldman, Sachs ... and Paulson & Co. in an insidious conspiracy to defraud investors. One simply cannot take undisclosed money from one party while purporting to work for another. Since Paulson & Co. paid the "fee" - how can they not be responsible, too ?
Why would an SEC commissioner vote not to proceed ? Both were Republicans. I suppose IF I was a conspiratorialist, I'd think they were paid off or in the pocket of the rich & powerful Wall Street crowd. But as I like to joke (with truth), I've seen black helicopters, so if I can't see a conspiracy, it's likely not there. In this case, I think not.
Perhaps they wanted the SEC to try to settle first. That is the prior SEC modus operandi aka m. o. aka method of operation. Maybe. But after the Panic of 2008 and all that pain caused by Wall Street and the beefers, why keep that old m. o. ? That did NOT serve the public in the past, but was a means for the clique of ruling class lawyers to keep nefarious deeds as quiet as possible. Hence IF that was their reason, it was wrong.
Some Republicans (and even some liberals) have a knee-jerk anti-government reflex action. That's not so bad to have. I have it, too, as a good Fraternal Libertarian. Government fails in so many things it purports to do. BUT any Republican or anyone else with a bit of historical knowledge should know that great Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt, led the fight to bust the big trusts who were strangling the nation to get more wealth for themselves. And one should note that the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, favored well-structured internal improvements. The simple fact noted above should have neutralized any knee-jerk reflex against a strong SEC move. Hence IF their knee-jerk anti-government philosophy was the cause for voting no, that was wrong, too.
Therefore I'm disappointed in the Republicans, just like I was on the first TARP vote, which they defeated for incorrect knee-jerk anti-government reasons. That was a massive error that helped let the Panic of 2008 grow to epic size. The markets have only just recovered to pre-first-TARP vote levels. The public really needs an open hearing on all the crimes of Wall Street. This should be a start.
Republicans, think about Theodore Roosevelt's leadership. Stop being stupid and rigid. Adopt some of Theodore Roosevelt's populism. That is the key to winning elections now. You have to be more "Pro common man" .. well, perhaps more like a Fraternal Libertarian :)
Word of the Day
"Marry" - interjection [$10] - this is use #2 in dictionaries; archaic (often used in Shakespeare plays as an interjection.
Marry (2) means expressing surprise, asseveration, indignation, etc. [Middle English from (the Virgin) Mary]
Sentence: Marry, why did those Republicans votes against charging Goldman, Sachs ?
Analogy for understanding its usage: mild interjections that are very common today are "Christ!" and "jeez" (from Jesus), or even "Jesus H. Christ" !! Even "gosh" and "golly" arose from "God!". In Shakespearean times, an interjection that arose from Mary was ... marry !
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2010/comp21489.pdf
In that complaint, one will read that Paulson & Co. paid Goldman, Sachs $15 million to set up the transaction that led to over $1 billion in losses (see paragraph #5). Goldman, Sachs has not yet denied that charge. If true, in my thinking that is a smoking gun for the guilt of Goldman, Sachs ... and Paulson & Co. in an insidious conspiracy to defraud investors. One simply cannot take undisclosed money from one party while purporting to work for another. Since Paulson & Co. paid the "fee" - how can they not be responsible, too ?
Why would an SEC commissioner vote not to proceed ? Both were Republicans. I suppose IF I was a conspiratorialist, I'd think they were paid off or in the pocket of the rich & powerful Wall Street crowd. But as I like to joke (with truth), I've seen black helicopters, so if I can't see a conspiracy, it's likely not there. In this case, I think not.
Perhaps they wanted the SEC to try to settle first. That is the prior SEC modus operandi aka m. o. aka method of operation. Maybe. But after the Panic of 2008 and all that pain caused by Wall Street and the beefers, why keep that old m. o. ? That did NOT serve the public in the past, but was a means for the clique of ruling class lawyers to keep nefarious deeds as quiet as possible. Hence IF that was their reason, it was wrong.
Some Republicans (and even some liberals) have a knee-jerk anti-government reflex action. That's not so bad to have. I have it, too, as a good Fraternal Libertarian. Government fails in so many things it purports to do. BUT any Republican or anyone else with a bit of historical knowledge should know that great Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt, led the fight to bust the big trusts who were strangling the nation to get more wealth for themselves. And one should note that the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, favored well-structured internal improvements. The simple fact noted above should have neutralized any knee-jerk reflex against a strong SEC move. Hence IF their knee-jerk anti-government philosophy was the cause for voting no, that was wrong, too.
Therefore I'm disappointed in the Republicans, just like I was on the first TARP vote, which they defeated for incorrect knee-jerk anti-government reasons. That was a massive error that helped let the Panic of 2008 grow to epic size. The markets have only just recovered to pre-first-TARP vote levels. The public really needs an open hearing on all the crimes of Wall Street. This should be a start.
Republicans, think about Theodore Roosevelt's leadership. Stop being stupid and rigid. Adopt some of Theodore Roosevelt's populism. That is the key to winning elections now. You have to be more "Pro common man" .. well, perhaps more like a Fraternal Libertarian :)
Word of the Day
"Marry" - interjection [$10] - this is use #2 in dictionaries; archaic (often used in Shakespeare plays as an interjection.
Marry (2) means expressing surprise, asseveration, indignation, etc. [Middle English from (the Virgin) Mary]
Sentence: Marry, why did those Republicans votes against charging Goldman, Sachs ?
Analogy for understanding its usage: mild interjections that are very common today are "Christ!" and "jeez" (from Jesus), or even "Jesus H. Christ" !! Even "gosh" and "golly" arose from "God!". In Shakespearean times, an interjection that arose from Mary was ... marry !
Friday, April 16, 2010
TGIF ... and a some thoughts
Yup, and I'm tired. It's been a long week.
Below is a slight modification of an old post from mid 2008 when the Panic of 2008 was getting really bad. I updated it by changing "populist libertarian" to Fraternal Libertarian. For reference, at the time written, the price of oil was about $140 per barrel and the financial market panic was getting much worse - soon to implode completely.
***Old post begins***
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Speculation is not a Dirty Word
For all my rants against beefers (aka big, evil funds) and oil market speculators, I want to make it explicit that speculation is neither a dirty word nor a dirty business. Everyone should be free to speculate to the extent of his or her desire. That's what freedom means and clearly, being a fraternal libertarian, you expect that from me.
But ...But that means as a person ... not a giant pool of big money. Human freedom is to be exalted, but not groups of big money pools. Those need to be regulated and / or prohibited from trashing crucial financial markets, and overwhelming natural hedgers by their sheer size and thus manipulating prices higher in the same manner as the old "corners" on markets.
And the rich pour money into these pools in the search for "excess returns" and "stable returns". Do they invest in a new oil field ? Or a new mine ? Or in new discoveries ? No. They pour money into financial products and beefers who act as their Vikings to loot more plunder in trading pools. The rich should just find a good broker to pick some stocks and private investments in new mines, oil, or ventures. This layer of beefers needs to be heavily regulated.
Fraternal Libertarianism is a two word concept. The "fraternal" part means that the big pools of money, the ruling classes, must be limited in their ability to raid the common man.
***Old post ends***
Back to now
Later in the fall of 2008, the financial Vikings did destroy the markets. They cause a worldwide panic much like the original Vikings did just after 800 AD. Then everyone had to hide in castles and towers or in the woods to avoid their depredations. Later in 2008, many persons and institutions moved all their money to T-bills and hid, shriveled up and terrified of the raids.
Now the markets have recovered just to pre-October 2008 panic levels. The economy is back to a sort of normalcy, with a huge loss in economic wealth and human capital in the millions of unemployed and underemployed. And it truly did not have to get that bad. The beefer Vikings caused the Panic. If the financial reform bill does not address them, then it will be a failure.
Regulate hedge funds, Wall Street trading operations, credit default swaps. Banks should be banks, not securities trading operations. Any "bank" not making loans should be forced to cease being a bank and lose the right to take deposits.
Money has to circulate in the small towns and cities across ALL of America. Big banks should not suck it all out to play in securities trading in NYC, etc. Regulate all the big money pools much more: make them serve the common man more, and not be used to fund speculation.
Word of the Day
"Genuflect" - verb, intransitive [$10]
Genuflect means to bend the knee.
Sentence: It's time to make the money masters genuflect to the common man; for too long they have acted like lords over all people. Make them submit to stronger regulations that benefit the common man.
Below is a slight modification of an old post from mid 2008 when the Panic of 2008 was getting really bad. I updated it by changing "populist libertarian" to Fraternal Libertarian. For reference, at the time written, the price of oil was about $140 per barrel and the financial market panic was getting much worse - soon to implode completely.
***Old post begins***
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Speculation is not a Dirty Word
For all my rants against beefers (aka big, evil funds) and oil market speculators, I want to make it explicit that speculation is neither a dirty word nor a dirty business. Everyone should be free to speculate to the extent of his or her desire. That's what freedom means and clearly, being a fraternal libertarian, you expect that from me.
But ...But that means as a person ... not a giant pool of big money. Human freedom is to be exalted, but not groups of big money pools. Those need to be regulated and / or prohibited from trashing crucial financial markets, and overwhelming natural hedgers by their sheer size and thus manipulating prices higher in the same manner as the old "corners" on markets.
And the rich pour money into these pools in the search for "excess returns" and "stable returns". Do they invest in a new oil field ? Or a new mine ? Or in new discoveries ? No. They pour money into financial products and beefers who act as their Vikings to loot more plunder in trading pools. The rich should just find a good broker to pick some stocks and private investments in new mines, oil, or ventures. This layer of beefers needs to be heavily regulated.
Fraternal Libertarianism is a two word concept. The "fraternal" part means that the big pools of money, the ruling classes, must be limited in their ability to raid the common man.
***Old post ends***
Back to now
Later in the fall of 2008, the financial Vikings did destroy the markets. They cause a worldwide panic much like the original Vikings did just after 800 AD. Then everyone had to hide in castles and towers or in the woods to avoid their depredations. Later in 2008, many persons and institutions moved all their money to T-bills and hid, shriveled up and terrified of the raids.
Now the markets have recovered just to pre-October 2008 panic levels. The economy is back to a sort of normalcy, with a huge loss in economic wealth and human capital in the millions of unemployed and underemployed. And it truly did not have to get that bad. The beefer Vikings caused the Panic. If the financial reform bill does not address them, then it will be a failure.
Regulate hedge funds, Wall Street trading operations, credit default swaps. Banks should be banks, not securities trading operations. Any "bank" not making loans should be forced to cease being a bank and lose the right to take deposits.
Money has to circulate in the small towns and cities across ALL of America. Big banks should not suck it all out to play in securities trading in NYC, etc. Regulate all the big money pools much more: make them serve the common man more, and not be used to fund speculation.
Word of the Day
"Genuflect" - verb, intransitive [$10]
Genuflect means to bend the knee.
Sentence: It's time to make the money masters genuflect to the common man; for too long they have acted like lords over all people. Make them submit to stronger regulations that benefit the common man.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Bunkerman Busts Billionaires ... a reprise
Something that has bugged me for awhile recurred this AM while I was watching Blabberg - aka Bloomberg TV.
Why oh why do we or does anyone care about what one - or two - or many - billionaires are doing ? Why do we care what they think ? Blabberg has another piece about what George Soros thinks. And then had a piece about some Brazilian billionaire trash-talking about how he's gonna be the World's Richest Man soon. And another piece on what some billionaire investors are doing ... to make more money.
Most of these guys seem unable to do anything except try to make more money. Or talk about it. Or try to get power with it. Most do nothing good for humanity with it. Sheesh, what a morally and philosophically worthless class ! Thus I have decided to reprise one of my early blog posts from August 19, 2007.
***Old Post Begins***
Uses of Wealth
The private enterprise system and private property [aka that Marxist term "capitalism" that I dislike] fantastically motivates people to create wealth. Some create great wealth. Here's a quote from Thucydides that sparked my thinking - perhaps I first read it referenced in Erasmus' "Praise of Folly". The quote is from the famous oration of Pericles.
Chilblain means a painful itching, swelling of the skin usually on a hand, foot, etc., caused by exposure to cold and by poor circulation.
Sentence: Most billionaires are chilblains on society.
Why oh why do we or does anyone care about what one - or two - or many - billionaires are doing ? Why do we care what they think ? Blabberg has another piece about what George Soros thinks. And then had a piece about some Brazilian billionaire trash-talking about how he's gonna be the World's Richest Man soon. And another piece on what some billionaire investors are doing ... to make more money.
Most of these guys seem unable to do anything except try to make more money. Or talk about it. Or try to get power with it. Most do nothing good for humanity with it. Sheesh, what a morally and philosophically worthless class ! Thus I have decided to reprise one of my early blog posts from August 19, 2007.
***Old Post Begins***
Uses of Wealth
The private enterprise system and private property [aka that Marxist term "capitalism" that I dislike] fantastically motivates people to create wealth. Some create great wealth. Here's a quote from Thucydides that sparked my thinking - perhaps I first read it referenced in Erasmus' "Praise of Folly". The quote is from the famous oration of Pericles.
"We cultivate refinement without extravagance and knowledge without effeminacy; wealth we employ more for use than for show, and place the real disgrace of poverty not in owning to the fact but in declining the struggle against it."
Other than Bill & Melinda Gates, who among the modern mega-rich emulates the beneficence of Andrew Carnegie who donated everything to create libraries in multitudes of small towns in America, including my home town? Following Pericles, his great wealth was quickly used to increase the intellectual capabilities of the entire nation. It was not hoarded in trust or a foundation to perpetuate the glory of the donor. The Gates Foundation has a fixed time limit to spend - use - all the money.
Modern rich and powerful people lobby to eliminate the rule against perpetual trusts, so they can create a new de facto nobility [not de jure as no titles can exist in America thanks to the Constitution, Article I, Section 9]. Named foundations are created that, barring stupid investments, last forever as independent institutions. Their independent boards of trustees over time can completely diverge from the donor's wishes - only the name is perpetuated. The Ford Foundation is the quintessential example.
And then I read Bill Gross in the WSJ, August 4-5, 2007 issue, page B4: "... now is the time, long overdue in fact, to admit that for the rich, for the mega-rich of this country, that enough is never enough ..." and "... "A thirty million dollar gift for a concert hall is not philanthropy, it is a Napoleonic coronation."
Much of the mega-rich seem to just want more, or to be able to brag about their "returns", hence the current infatuation with hedge funds. Or the money is spent in great shows of extravagance. Many modern mega-rich emulate dukes & princes in the past courts of Europe in their opulent parties, colossal mansions, and vast landholdings. Or endowing events and groups with the primary purpose of creating a perpetual edifice inscribed with the donor's name. Or donating to universities for fund named endowed professorships or named institutes therein. Younger scientists - those actually making most of the discoveries ... get little.
Is using the funds for increasing the capabilities of the human race ever a consideration?
Some do. A recent WSJ article about a conference in mathematics sponsored by the American Institute of Mathematics that was founded by John Fry seems to be one fine example. From its website:"The American Institute of Mathematics, a nonprofit organization, was founded in 1994 by Silicon Valley businessmen John Fry and Steve Sorenson, longtime supporters of mathematical research.The goals of AIM are to expand the frontiers of mathematical knowledge through focused research projects, through sponsored conferences, and through the development of an on-line mathematics library.
In addition, AIM is interested in helping to preserve the history of mathematics through the acquisition and preservation of rare mathematical books and documents and in making these materials available to scholars of mathematical history."
Pericles would approve.
Citation: Great Books, Vol. 5, Thucydides, page 397, section 40.
***End of Old Post***
Billionaires ... ptui. Do something good for humanity.
Word of the Day
"Chilblain" - noun [$10]Chilblain means a painful itching, swelling of the skin usually on a hand, foot, etc., caused by exposure to cold and by poor circulation.
Sentence: Most billionaires are chilblains on society.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Uses of Wealth
Herein I reprint a blog post from Sunday, August 19, 2007, with a current update and application.
*** Reprint Begins ***
The private enterprise system and private property [aka that Marxist term "capitalism" that I dislike] fantastically motivates people to create wealth. Some create great wealth. Here's a quote from Thucydides that sparked my thinking - perhaps I first read it referenced in Erasmus' "Praise of Folly". The quote is from the famous oration of Pericles.
"We cultivate refinement without extravagance and knowledge without effeminacy; wealth we employ more for use than for show, and place the real disgrace of poverty not in owning to the fact but in declining the struggle against it." [note 1]
Other than Bill & Melinda Gates, who among the modern mega-rich emulates the beneficence of Andrew Carnegie who donated everything to create libraries in multitudes of small towns in America, including my home town? [See below for a couple other examples] Following Pericles, his great wealth was quickly used to increase the intellectual capabilities of the entire nation. It was not hoarded in trust or a foundation to perpetuate the glory of the donor. The Gates Foundation has a fixed time limit to spend - use - all the money.
Modern rich and powerful people lobby to eliminate the rule against perpetual trusts, so they can create a new de facto nobility [not de jure as no titles can exist in America thanks to the Constitution, Article I, Section 9]. Named foundations are created that, barring stupid investments, last forever as independent institutions. Their independent boards of trustees over time can completely diverge from the donor's wishes - only the name is perpetuated. The Ford Foundation is the quintessential example.
And then I read Bill Gross in the WSJ, August 4-5, 2007 issue, page B4: "... now is the time, long overdue in fact, to admit that for the rich, for the mega-rich of this country, that enough is never enough ..." and "... "A thirty million dollar gift for a concert hall is not philanthropy, it is a Napoleonic coronation."
Much of the mega-rich seem to just want more, or to be able to brag about their "returns", hence the current infatuation with hedge funds. Or the money is spent in great shows of extravagance. Many modern mega-rich emulate dukes & princes in the past courts of Europe in their opulent parties, colossal mansions, and vast landholdings. Or endowing events and groups with the primary purpose of creating a perpetual edifice inscribed with the donor's name. Or donating to universities for fund named endowed professorships or named institutes therein. Younger scientists - those actually making most of the discoveries ... get little.
Is using the funds for increasing the capabilities of the human race ever a consideration?
...
...
*** End Reprint ***
Almost 30 months have past since that post. Unfortunately, it seems I had few readers among the rich then. Warren Buffet is giving his billions to the Gates Foundation, so maybe he did. I found an example from the recent past and a more distant example that were done prior to that post.
My original post contained an example of a gift that establish an institute to help advance the frontiers of mathematical knowledge. Last month I learned of a large gift that helps advance the humanities. Heiress Ruth Lilly gave $100 million to endow The Poetry Foundation. [NB: Its name is NOT Lilly, showing some humility and true generosity.] The foundation runs Poetry magazine and funds numerous poetry programs nationwide and provides prizes for new poetry. It is a bit controversial, as some think the money could have been better used - of course that will depend on the trustees [see http://www.slate.com/id/2240323/]. Perhaps. Maybe a time limit to distribute the funds would be a good idea. But at least it's not another named building. Btw, I subscribe to Poetry Magazine.
Recently I realized that historic preservation is another place that perhaps the wealthy could put their wealth to a fine use in the manner of Pericles' charge. In my hometown over 40 years ago a local wealthy man endowed a foundation to restore a historic section of the town and ensure it was maintained and preserved, as well as providing programs for modern people to understand the way of life that existed circa 1840 in Ohio. [Note: the name of the benefactor is nowhere excessively displayed, showing humility that Pericles would approve.]
This particular development has been quite helpful to the local economy, too. The tourism provides a fine boost for local jobs. At a time when government funding for historic preservation is under pressure, perhaps rather than send money to some university to endow some named chair for a grey eminence (and not a younger scholar), persons seeking to do something good with their wealth might consider historic preservation in their own communities. If well-designed, these provide economic help to the communities as well and cultural value.
Markets
Waiting, holding. I have no preconceived targets for this speculation. I'll just follow the trend and news. The Green-red trading rule applies now.
Word of the Day
"Ekphrasis" - noun [$10,000] from a Greek word of same spelling, meaning "a description"
Ekphrasis means the use of language to describe, or to speak on behalf of, a silent work of art.
Sentence: Poetry provides many examples of ekphrasis, perhaps the most famous being Keats' "Ode on a Grecian Urn."
*** Reprint Begins ***
The private enterprise system and private property [aka that Marxist term "capitalism" that I dislike] fantastically motivates people to create wealth. Some create great wealth. Here's a quote from Thucydides that sparked my thinking - perhaps I first read it referenced in Erasmus' "Praise of Folly". The quote is from the famous oration of Pericles.
"We cultivate refinement without extravagance and knowledge without effeminacy; wealth we employ more for use than for show, and place the real disgrace of poverty not in owning to the fact but in declining the struggle against it." [note 1]
Other than Bill & Melinda Gates, who among the modern mega-rich emulates the beneficence of Andrew Carnegie who donated everything to create libraries in multitudes of small towns in America, including my home town? [See below for a couple other examples] Following Pericles, his great wealth was quickly used to increase the intellectual capabilities of the entire nation. It was not hoarded in trust or a foundation to perpetuate the glory of the donor. The Gates Foundation has a fixed time limit to spend - use - all the money.
Modern rich and powerful people lobby to eliminate the rule against perpetual trusts, so they can create a new de facto nobility [not de jure as no titles can exist in America thanks to the Constitution, Article I, Section 9]. Named foundations are created that, barring stupid investments, last forever as independent institutions. Their independent boards of trustees over time can completely diverge from the donor's wishes - only the name is perpetuated. The Ford Foundation is the quintessential example.
And then I read Bill Gross in the WSJ, August 4-5, 2007 issue, page B4: "... now is the time, long overdue in fact, to admit that for the rich, for the mega-rich of this country, that enough is never enough ..." and "... "A thirty million dollar gift for a concert hall is not philanthropy, it is a Napoleonic coronation."
Much of the mega-rich seem to just want more, or to be able to brag about their "returns", hence the current infatuation with hedge funds. Or the money is spent in great shows of extravagance. Many modern mega-rich emulate dukes & princes in the past courts of Europe in their opulent parties, colossal mansions, and vast landholdings. Or endowing events and groups with the primary purpose of creating a perpetual edifice inscribed with the donor's name. Or donating to universities for fund named endowed professorships or named institutes therein. Younger scientists - those actually making most of the discoveries ... get little.
Is using the funds for increasing the capabilities of the human race ever a consideration?
...
1. Citation: Great Books, Vol. 5, Thucydides, page 397, section 40.
...
*** End Reprint ***
Almost 30 months have past since that post. Unfortunately, it seems I had few readers among the rich then. Warren Buffet is giving his billions to the Gates Foundation, so maybe he did. I found an example from the recent past and a more distant example that were done prior to that post.
My original post contained an example of a gift that establish an institute to help advance the frontiers of mathematical knowledge. Last month I learned of a large gift that helps advance the humanities. Heiress Ruth Lilly gave $100 million to endow The Poetry Foundation. [NB: Its name is NOT Lilly, showing some humility and true generosity.] The foundation runs Poetry magazine and funds numerous poetry programs nationwide and provides prizes for new poetry. It is a bit controversial, as some think the money could have been better used - of course that will depend on the trustees [see http://www.slate.com/id/2240323/]. Perhaps. Maybe a time limit to distribute the funds would be a good idea. But at least it's not another named building. Btw, I subscribe to Poetry Magazine.
Recently I realized that historic preservation is another place that perhaps the wealthy could put their wealth to a fine use in the manner of Pericles' charge. In my hometown over 40 years ago a local wealthy man endowed a foundation to restore a historic section of the town and ensure it was maintained and preserved, as well as providing programs for modern people to understand the way of life that existed circa 1840 in Ohio. [Note: the name of the benefactor is nowhere excessively displayed, showing humility that Pericles would approve.]
This particular development has been quite helpful to the local economy, too. The tourism provides a fine boost for local jobs. At a time when government funding for historic preservation is under pressure, perhaps rather than send money to some university to endow some named chair for a grey eminence (and not a younger scholar), persons seeking to do something good with their wealth might consider historic preservation in their own communities. If well-designed, these provide economic help to the communities as well and cultural value.
Markets
Waiting, holding. I have no preconceived targets for this speculation. I'll just follow the trend and news. The Green-red trading rule applies now.
Word of the Day
"Ekphrasis" - noun [$10,000] from a Greek word of same spelling, meaning "a description"
Ekphrasis means the use of language to describe, or to speak on behalf of, a silent work of art.
Sentence: Poetry provides many examples of ekphrasis, perhaps the most famous being Keats' "Ode on a Grecian Urn."
Sunday, March 9, 2008
The Dumb Rich
I've used that phrase often in this blog site and in my comments and replies to commentors. Today I saw more written proof that the 2008 version of the "rich" must ipso facto be stupid. OK, I'm exagerating for the purpose of humor, but hear me out.
Barron's of March 10, 2008 [page 27] has a reprise article of their oft-cited article of July 27, 1998 on "What does it take to be rich in America today?" The original article is available online or is paraphased in several places on the Internet - I have a copy. That article from 1998 was rational and derived concepts of rich from income percentiles and the amount of invested assets needed to realize those incomes at about 5% rate of return excluding a paid-off home - very reasoned.
What does the 2008 version use for a definition of rich? Here is the crucial clause, "... to be seen as rich these days." Notice the "seen as", not "be". Philosophically, Barron's is now using an ontological definition for "being rich" based on perception versus the prior version derived from reality of people's income distribution. Perception vs. reality. The article proceeds to illustrate this perception as the ability to spend money stupidly and frivolously on items such as buying a $200,000 Bentley out of petty cash. "Live the high life with little worrying of running out of money. Pick any private bank you like." Interestingly, their examples seem to indicate one can't be rich unless one's butt is being kissed by a private banker wanting one's account to gouge for big fees. And of course the "rich" must accept such or not be in the "club". This is really hilarious: "you're at the level of wealth where most of the leading private banks will start showering you and your family with attention, including access to hot hedge funds of other exclusive investments." How foolish and hedonistic and decadent ! Absolute levels of wealth mean nothing ... what's important is how many silly "toys" or "experiences" one can acquire, such as "zero gravity flights with astronaut Buzz Aldrin".
My post of August 19, 2007 titled, "Uses of Wealth" fits well here, so I repost a partial reprise here.
*** reprise begins ***
Here's a quote from Thucydides that sparked my thinking - perhaps I first read it referenced in Erasmus' "Praise of Folly". The quote is from the famous oration of Pericles.
"We cultivate refinement without extravagance and knowledge without effeminacy; wealth we employ more for use than for show, and place the real disgrace of poverty not in owning to the fact but in declining the struggle against it."
*** reprise ends ***
America in the 2008, at least for the financial press exemplified by Barron's, seems to use the obverse of Pericles' statement: "We cultivate extravagence without refinement and effiminacy without knowledge; wealth we employ more for show than for use ..."
I'm not an America basher as readers well know, but the expression of our culture in that Barron's article this week is very sad.
Words of the Day
"Reprise" - noun [$10] or adjective as used herein.... I knew this one, but made it a Word of the Day anyway.
Reprise means 1a. (musical) a repetition of a phrase or verse; 1b. a return to an original theme; 2. recurrence or resumption of an action; 3. an annual charge or deduction made out of an estate. Sentence: see above herein.
"Ontology" - noun [$10] ... I knew this one, too, but many do not.
Ontology means the philosophical study of the nature of being.
Sentence: Metaphysics is the combination of ontology, the study of being, and epistemology, the theory of knowledge.
Idiom of the Day
"Ipso facto" is Latin for "by that very fact".
Barron's of March 10, 2008 [page 27] has a reprise article of their oft-cited article of July 27, 1998 on "What does it take to be rich in America today?" The original article is available online or is paraphased in several places on the Internet - I have a copy. That article from 1998 was rational and derived concepts of rich from income percentiles and the amount of invested assets needed to realize those incomes at about 5% rate of return excluding a paid-off home - very reasoned.
What does the 2008 version use for a definition of rich? Here is the crucial clause, "... to be seen as rich these days." Notice the "seen as", not "be". Philosophically, Barron's is now using an ontological definition for "being rich" based on perception versus the prior version derived from reality of people's income distribution. Perception vs. reality. The article proceeds to illustrate this perception as the ability to spend money stupidly and frivolously on items such as buying a $200,000 Bentley out of petty cash. "Live the high life with little worrying of running out of money. Pick any private bank you like." Interestingly, their examples seem to indicate one can't be rich unless one's butt is being kissed by a private banker wanting one's account to gouge for big fees. And of course the "rich" must accept such or not be in the "club". This is really hilarious: "you're at the level of wealth where most of the leading private banks will start showering you and your family with attention, including access to hot hedge funds of other exclusive investments." How foolish and hedonistic and decadent ! Absolute levels of wealth mean nothing ... what's important is how many silly "toys" or "experiences" one can acquire, such as "zero gravity flights with astronaut Buzz Aldrin".
My post of August 19, 2007 titled, "Uses of Wealth" fits well here, so I repost a partial reprise here.
*** reprise begins ***
Here's a quote from Thucydides that sparked my thinking - perhaps I first read it referenced in Erasmus' "Praise of Folly". The quote is from the famous oration of Pericles.
"We cultivate refinement without extravagance and knowledge without effeminacy; wealth we employ more for use than for show, and place the real disgrace of poverty not in owning to the fact but in declining the struggle against it."
*** reprise ends ***
America in the 2008, at least for the financial press exemplified by Barron's, seems to use the obverse of Pericles' statement: "We cultivate extravagence without refinement and effiminacy without knowledge; wealth we employ more for show than for use ..."
I'm not an America basher as readers well know, but the expression of our culture in that Barron's article this week is very sad.
Words of the Day
"Reprise" - noun [$10] or adjective as used herein.... I knew this one, but made it a Word of the Day anyway.
Reprise means 1a. (musical) a repetition of a phrase or verse; 1b. a return to an original theme; 2. recurrence or resumption of an action; 3. an annual charge or deduction made out of an estate. Sentence: see above herein.
"Ontology" - noun [$10] ... I knew this one, too, but many do not.
Ontology means the philosophical study of the nature of being.
Sentence: Metaphysics is the combination of ontology, the study of being, and epistemology, the theory of knowledge.
Idiom of the Day
"Ipso facto" is Latin for "by that very fact".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
