Ok, but still maybe modest for a billionaire.
Hereâs a good quote from Behave.
But something subtler will be done, and this is the most important idea in the book: when you explain a behavior with one of these disciplines, you are implicitly invoking all the disciplinesâany given type of explanation is the end product of the influences that preceded it. It has to work this way. If you say, âThe behavior occurred because of the release of neurochemical Y in the brain,â you are also saying, âThe behavior occurred because the heavy secretion of hormone X this morning increased the levels of neurochemical Y.â Youâre also saying, âThe behavior occurred because the environment in which that person was raised made her brain more likely to release neurochemical Y in response to certain types of stimuli.â And youâre also saying, â. . . because of the gene that codes for the particular version of neurochemical Y.â And if youâve so much as whispered the word âgene,â youâre also saying, â. . . and because of the millennia of factors that shaped the evolution of that particular gene.â And so on.
There are not different disciplinary buckets. Instead, each one is the end product of all the biological influences that came before it and will influence all the factors that follow it. Thus, it is impossible to conclude that a behavior is caused by a gene, a hormone, a childhood trauma, because the second you invoke one type of explanation, you are de facto invoking them all. No buckets. A âneurobiologicalâ or âgeneticâ or âdevelopmentalâ explanation for a behavior is just shorthand, an expository convenience for temporarily approaching the whole multifactorial arc from a particular perspective.
He didnât keep working in 1990 because he wanted to maximize his charitable contribution. He kept working because thatâs what he does. Itâs his life. Itâs what he loves and what makes him happy.
Yeah my stepmomâs son lives in his neighborhood and I visited them a few years ago and walked by his house. He wasnât home. Theyâve never seen him or anyone but serious looking security people around that house.
1 Like
Really sucks for society that billionaires are allowed to accumulate and hoard unimaginable amounts of wealth because it makes them happy.
5 Likes
Wait, are you begrudging him for not retiring or for not donating more money? I was just saying that 1990 was a time when he was obviously capable of donating multiple billions of dollars, and that people were probably criticizing him for not doing so. But I think the world is better off because he let the money compound in Berkshire Hathaway, leading to a substantially larger future donation.
Iâll drop this now. I just think that Buffett has been extraordinarily thoughtful about his charitable giving and I think heâs gone about it in basically exactly the right way to maximize his lifetime charitable effect on the world.
But again, I am an enormous Buffett fanboy, so Iâm probably biased.
Maybe the world is better off. My point is that wasnât his objective. His objective was the same as it ever was, to make more money. Which is fine and itâs good heâs going to donate it to charity, but really itâs the least he could do. He shouldnât be celebrated for it. If he had done what Chuck Feeney had done and given all his money away but two million dollars and lived in his Omaha house without his security guards and private jets, well, the world might be worse off. But Buffett would be a better person.
3 Likes
Talking about shitty things people do with a billion dollars and this popped up on youtube
4 Likes
He does âcontrol itâ, but he is limited in what he can do with it. Itâs not like he can use it for literally anything like his personal assets. He is more or less required by law to put it towards charitable purposes. Now I understand that there are plenty of shenanigans that non-profits can pull where they spend on all sorts of stuff that doesnât actually help anyone in need. But is Gates doing that? I donât know for sure, but Iâm under the impression that he is not. Maybe those PR guys got to me.
Bill Gates is the worst philanthropist in the world. I mean he is like very bad at giving away all of his money. Heâs only made like 50 billion since announcing he would.
Iâm not sure if it is possible to be any worse at a thing than trying to go minus 20 billion and instead going up 50 billion. Thatâs a huge swing. The Producers style. Overselling action in poker tournaments and then making the final table level failure.
Society needs to help poor old Bill. He wants to be a philanthropist so bad but he is just the worst in the world at it.
Probably no one here will ever be an actual billionaire. But suppose you won the lottery for, say, a couple hundred million? What kind of rich guy would you be?
THE UP BILLIONAIREâS POLE
- Blow it all. You want some pearls, muthafucka?
- Give everybody $1M
- I wouldnât tell anyone
- Give it all to charity (Feeney model)
- I need more money! (Bezos)
- Bill Gates model
- Warren Buffet model
0
voters
Some lotto winner:
âI spent half of it on booze, women, and gambling⌠and I wasted the restâ
7 Likes
Reinvest in the lottery, duh.
3 Likes
Sir, this is the low content thread. Please donât derail this thread with talk about tedious advanced investment strategies. Take it to the finance thread.
6 Likes
But if you keep doubling your bet youâre guaranteed to win eventually.
The conjunction of the spheres is coming:
2 Likes
10 Likes
I donât know, but I sure as shit wouldnât be expecting anyone with net worths of 7 figures and below to be defending ANYTHING that I would do with the money.
1 Like