Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Facebook The Almighty Buck News

Facebook's Zuckerberg To Give Away Half His Cash 450

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the i'll-take-some dept.
Stoobalou writes "Facebook co-founders Mark Zuckerberg and Dustin Moskovitz are among the latest batch of 17 billionaires who have promised to give away at least half of their fortunes, after signing up to a philanthropic campaign led by Microsoft founder Bill Gates 3.0 and celebrity investor Warren Buffett. By signing up to The Giving Pledge, the mega-rich make a vague promise — sorry, 'moral commitment' — to give away more than half of their fortune at some point during their lifetime."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook's Zuckerberg To Give Away Half His Cash

Comments Filter:
  • by Afforess (1310263) <afforess@gmail.com> on Thursday December 09, 2010 @10:30AM (#34500230) Journal
    Because clearly, what's good for America must be truly terrible for the rest of the world... er, what?

    America creates the most billionaires in the world, and reaps the rewards (or doesn't, depending on your point of view...). Other countries only have themselves to blame if they feel left out.
  • by khallow (566160) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @10:35AM (#34500324)

    'cause conservatives like to laud this kind of thing as a sign that their take on capitalism works. But why should us lower classes have to go begging to some rich guy just to get what they need? Random generosity & hoping for the best isn't a good way to stabilize human society.

    The real question here. Why would we want to "stabilize" human society? I think the rate of human progress is in large part due to the inherent instability of human society.

    And you could always get a job or even better, start your own business. Then you could save your income rather than spend it frivolously. Then you too could be one of the rich people rather than one of the "beggars".

  • by recoiledsnake (879048) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @10:43AM (#34500430)

    They put the money into a foundation that then invests the large amounts of money into the American economy and sometimes businesses or areas of development that they hold an interest in. Once the return is netted at the end of the year, then this is what is "given away" in the strictest sense of the words

    The objective is to make money for the charity, so more money can be given out. It does not matter to the foundation if that's an American business or not, just that it has to be profitable. If African companies are not profitable then the foundation will simply squander the money away.

    If you don't think that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is American-centric and nationalistic in its investments, why don't you read his warning letter about China developing alternative energy [slashdot.org].

    What has that go to do with the foundation? It's not even mentioned there. Dare a person have different goals and objectives in his life? I think you're letting bias cloud your judgment. Just throwing the money at a problem does not solve it. Signing a check of a trillion dollars to the African government will just make the situation worse. A foundation is far better.

    How is what the foundation doing largely detrimental?

  • Re:in reality... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Chapter80 (926879) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @11:14AM (#34500820)

    Buffett is no kindly grandfather type... the Berkshire Hathaway Reinsurance Group has reaped BILLIONS in just
    the last several years via policies that ensured insane increases in homeowner insurance policy...

    Huh?

    There is no customer of Berkshire Hathaway that is forced to purchase a policy from them. If you are unhappy that they raised your rates, go buy a policy elsewhere!

    You capitalize BILLIONS as if this is an issue because it's a big number. Berkshire Hathaway is a huge organization, with annual revenues of roughly $112 Billion, from willing customers who choose to buy from this company. As a shareholder, I would be disappointed if they didn't reap BILLIONS.

  • by Anonymous Freak (16973) <prius DOT driver AT mac DOT com> on Thursday December 09, 2010 @11:19AM (#34500890) Journal

    Facebook hasn't gone public. Facebook hasn't been sold.

    Facebook could collapse tomorrow, and he wouldn't have more than whatever he has saved of his yearly salary recently...

    I'd love to know how Zuckerberg thinks he's rich right now.

  • by ScentCone (795499) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @11:26AM (#34500964)
    Just like the stock market is going to last forever?

    It has so far. Those interested in long-term do-gooding in a particular niche think in longer terms. Changes in education, for example, are cultural issues. That takes generations, not one fiscal year, or the few years spanning some cyclical fluctuation in the value of equities. Over time, a halfway rationally managed pile of equities always has and always will grow in value. If all of the assets in a well balanced portfolio completely cease to exist, you can rest assured that there are far, far bigger problems than splitting hairs over whether it was smarter to buy a big pile of mosquito netting once, or setting up a foundation chartered to buy them regularly and forever.

    The stock market is a gamble. Any thoughts otherwise are true bullshit.

    Sure, if you only think in the very short term. And you think that, what ... handing all of your resources over, in one lump, as cash, to a particular charity for use right then and there ... that's not a gamble? We've seen many large funds get hoovered up by corrupt recipients over the years. Better for there to be oversight, guided by the principles of those that set up the foundations. And if they are students of a couple hundred years of history, they'll know that reasonably well balanced long-term investments grow, often very, very substantially. No multi-billion-dollar foundation is going to put all of its stock in a company in Venezuela that could at any moment by rendered worthless by Hugo Chavez in one of his weekly fits of nationalization, or tie up all of the funds in real-estate on one coast of one continent.
  • Re:On that note (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Chapter80 (926879) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @11:52AM (#34501364)

    Tough call.

    Gates could have quietly given away his fortune, while everyone called him a greedy S.O.B., and followed the advice of the Biblical quote. Instead, he announced that he was giving it away, and encouraged others to give it away. And many have agreed to, and the world should be a better place because of the public give-away and challenge of Gates.

    I know several multi-millionaires who have decided to quietly commit to giving up half, because of this Billionaire Challenge. I'm sure there are many. So Gates' challenge has actually achieved more on earth than had he quietly donated.

    Each billionaire that signs up calls more attention to the challenge, and probably causes a few more multi-millionaires to sign up.

  • Re:Huh... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Thursday December 09, 2010 @02:15PM (#34504006) Journal

    And thanks to the increased starfish numbers they were able to easily feed on toxic waste left on the bottom by unscrupulous mobsters, grew into 10 story tall starkillers, and promptly attacked Tokyo, which thanks to Godzilla being well fed and fat on monster island after being labeled an endangered species Japan was utterly destroyed robbing the world of strange big eyed cartoons and used panty machines.

    As for TFA it reminds me of an old bit I saw "If I have 100 million and you take half I won't be bothered 1 bit, if I have 10,000 and you want half I may have to kill you". While it is nice these uber rich want to blow some of their cash on whatever they consider charity, the simple fact is they could blow money on hookers and blow every day while wiping their asses with hundred dollar bills and the interest alone will make sure they come out ahead. If they really wanted to help out the country that allowed them to make their fortunes maybe they should push for a tax hike on the top 1% and for closing all the loopholes like the "double dutch" that allows them to dodge what little taxes they are supposed to pay? I know Google bounces money all over the place to keep from paying taxes on it, and MSFT has more tax havens than the mob. Maybe paying their fair share might be better than playing Daddy Warbucks?

As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error. -- Weisert

Working...