Billionaire-scale conspicuous consumption is certainly overrated. But Gates's own example shows how wonderfully useful and fulfilling it can be to have tens of billions of dollars to mobilize in a really heroic cause, like working to eradicate various infectious diseases from the human experience.
Just to get started, as long as we don't have clean water, plenty of food, proper healthcare, good education, meaningful personal freedom, and a well-functioning legal system for every human being in the world, cheap carbon-neutral energy, strong environmental protection and sustainable ecosystem conservation throughout the world, a cure for cancer, a complete genome and proteome and extended phenotype encyclopedia for all life on Earth, telescopes that can image Earthlike planets in other galaxies and the first stars to ignite in the extremely early Universe, robots crawling around under the surfaces of Europa and Enceladus and screaming through interstellar space toward Alpha Centauri and Epsilon Eridani, and human colonies on Mars and the asteroids and in the clouds of Venus, there will be plenty of interesting and valuable things to do for someone with tens of billions of dollars to throw at an ambitious project.
But Gates's own example shows how wonderfully useful and fulfilling it can be to have tens of billions of dollars to mobilize in a really heroic cause, like working to eradicate various infectious diseases from the human experience.
Maybe. But it doesn't particularly make me want to be a billionaire. If the main satisfaction you get out of having $100 billion dollars is giving it all away again, I'd rather let someone else make those $100 billion dollars and give 'em away.
I figure Bill Gates made $100 billion and gave it away so I wouldn't have to. Thanks Bill!
The point of making the billion dollars yourself is having a say in where it gets spent, not in "giving it all away" indiscriminately. Indeed, someone else might choose to just keep their billions in the family, for the sake of obnoxious levels of luxury. I'm sure there are some billionaires exactly like that.
Anyways, the whole problem with trying to become a billionaire is that it's really a lottery. Sure, someone determined could probably earn a few million through effort alone, but becoming a billionaire requires a special mix of smarts, hard work, and luck. Mostly luck, disproportionately so. You can't just will yourself to earn billions.
> The point of making the billion dollars yourself is having a say in where it gets spent
I doubt people that are great at creating value would appreciate making these kind of decisions once they get to know what's involved.
Just to give an example: an 8 year-old requested $50'000 from Bill and Melinda Gates foundation to help him survive by contributing to his leukemia treatment, but Gates turned the request down because they don't contribute to individual cases (their policy is to fund programs designed to target large groups of people, i.e. population control in Asia).
I don't imagine great founders or great engineers getting up in the morning because they dream in having a "point" to say in this kind of decisions. They love to do what they do best: creating something people want.
The Gates Foundation isn't your traditional "take money, give money" charity, though. It is actually just the kind of charity that you would expect a successful entrepreneur to create. They require results from the research that they fund and they require regular status from the research they fund. It is a very hands-on style that entrepreneurs are good at and other charities, traditionally, have not.
An interesting point. Is it more interesting to do the work, or to pay for the work? I'd come down on the of doing the work, though I guess if you pay for the work, you can be present for the fun bits and absent for the hard slog (the majority).
The problem with doing is that it can be hard to make end meet while doing interesting work with long term payoffs. The options I can think of are:
1) Get an interesting job.
2) Fight tooth and nail to the top of the career/academic heap in a boring job and hope you make it to a position of being able to set your own interesting work while you still have brain cells.
3) Find an angel or patron who is prepared to pay for an interesting long shot.
4) Say hang it, and do interesting work while keeping your lifestyle within the modest remuneration you can scape together.
5) Part time work, with interesting stuff making up a full time load.
Can anyone suggest other options that might work with dependents?
Start a business that generates a passive income source, in the same vein as patio's BCC. This would obviously require a large amount of work up-front, but within 10 years you should be sorted.
I was really surprised to realise that my living costs are only about $130 per week, or $20 per day. If I could earn $20 every day, I could do whatever I want in the other 23 hours.
Wow I can't find anything at all supporting anywhere near that. The total net worth of all the worlds billionaires is only $4.5 trillion according to forbes.
Forbes only knows about public wealth. The Rothschilds in the mid 19th century owned half the wealth of the world, and the contemporary argument is that they have not lost money since then, rather it has grown steadily, and is hidden off the books in countless family controlled foundations as well as secret reserves stashed away before there was the type of public accounting we have today.
Heads of state and CEOs have public wealth. The Rothschilds didn't.
How does the total value of privately traded companies compare to publically traded companies, and how many privately traded companies can the Rothschilds plausibly own without it being public knowledge?
Is it possible to find the total market cap of all privately traded companies? Considering that a private company's wealth isn't public knowledge the only thing we can do is estimate using a tool like bizstats.com.
Macro economics can give you a pretty accurate estimate of the "market cap" of privately traded companies: just work your way down from the Gross National Product by segmenting it into public and privately earned. (You could also look at total tax revenue and calculate from there)
Y'know, I went looking for something to debunk this (rather implausible sounding) theory, so I googled "rothschild snopes". Snopes doesn't actually have anything, but I did find this rather delicious thread from the prisonplanet forums, wherein a bunch of conspiracy nuts speculate about precisely who is funding snopes:
Snopes most definitely is a disinfo website much like wikipedia
Anyway, I certainly can't find any evidence to support the contention that the Rothschilds are significantly wealthier than the wealthiest known people, and I don't believe it's possible to have a trillion dollars in assets while flying underneath the radar.
Families grow exponentially. It's possible that over the years it was spread out to the dozens of great great great grandchildren who are probably so far from the core family, that they don't act as a unified group any more.
The Rothschilds had a tradition of the majority of the family fortune going to the first born male, and the others only received, as they say in the Godfather, "a living".
Well, counterpoint to that is whether the billionaire is giving to things with which you agree. If you're the billionaire, you get to choose where the money goes. :)
Imagine though if we had a thousand Bill Gateses who each had a hundred billion dollars, and the brains and determination that got them that money, to throw at one or more of the projects mentioned above. Can there be such thing as too much resources being deployed for the advancement of the human race?
If that were the case, thousands of people with bill gates's wealth, either you would have an accumulation of capital at the top that would be unsustainable, or more likely such a devaluation of the currency that having a hundred billion dollars wouldn't make you rich, think Zimbabwe.
That just assumes that accumulation of wealth is necessarily due to extracting it from the general economy rather than by generating wealth for the economy at large. Without debating the relative merits of Microsoft's contributions in particular, and assuming you accept the capitalist premise that someone can deserve to become wealthy by generating more wealth for society than they take home for their own benefit, why should there some intrinsic limit to how many people that can be true of or of how much value they can collectively create?
The problem is simply that we can't all be rich. We can all be billionaires, but we can't all be rich. The intrinsic limit comes from the fact that wealth itself is relative.
Using your example, Microsoft's creation of value to such a large consumer base couldn't have happened if there had been thousands of Microsofts equally successful (e.g. not thousands of companies can have a 90% market share in the same market at the same time, for company A to have 90% of market share of a market it means company B doesn't have it. Opportunity cost).
When you have thousands of people at the very very very top (.0001% cf 1%) that thousand of people would have to either extract wealth (not value, that's different) from the rest of the economy. There is only so much wealth to go around, regardless of how you represent it, whether its US Dollars or Friedman's island's stone money. Accumulation of wealth is relative.
When quality of life is taken into consideration, especially against most of human history and large portions of the world today, then I'd say most of the first world is already 'rich', we just aren't billionaires.
The trouble is no amount of finance will cure mismanagement. Throwing money at something is not necessarily the best solution. There are problems that money cannot solve, and it is often these problems that we need solved, if we are to tackle the major challenges.
You can't have a telescope with that resolution. The data is simply not there, not in a manner that can be reconstructed with a telescope smaller than several solar systems at least.
I've done published research where we started by using data from a gravitational lensing search for black holes, and used data they had collected but disregarded on very distant stars. A mere 100 years ago, there was not an astronomer on Earth who could have conceived of gravitational lensing. My point is not necessarily that we will make even more ambitious and unexpected use of gravitational lensing itself, but rather, what will we invent in the next 1,000 years plus that we have no way of concieving of right now?
In that flight of fancy s/he is at epsilon eridani, so that won't be a problem (it's not the size you need, it's the baseline) :-) Anyway who cares about earth-like planets in other galaxies, this one will do fine.
The flaw in the argument is that you need one person with billions of dollars to throw at an ambitious project; of course we could also just decide to do those things collectively, and in fact have managed to do some amazing things that way.
You certainly don't need to have that scale of resources accumulated under one individual's ownership to launch massive, heroically selfless projects for the betterment of humanity. Rather, from the perspective of an individual, there are lots of heroic projects you could attack where there's no foreseeable limit to how much more awesomeness you could accomplish given more and more resources.
This was an important thing for me to read. For the past several years I have been trying hard to deprogram myself of the "richer is better" mindset. Part of my problem has been the assumption that richer people believe themselves to be better than those less rich, to the point that someone like Bill Gates would think less of someone who "only" had a couple million dollars.
I'm slowly weaning myself off of this damaging viewpoint. Something that has really helped have been TED Talks: it's awesome to see a room full of people - some of them hugely wealthy and successful - looking with absolute respect and awe at the presenter on stage talking about (say) the intelligence of crows.
This answer by Gates really helps further cement the idea in my mind that, yes, having more money is great to a point, but in the end, what have you DONE with your life? What have you MADE that brings value to the rest of the world? Those are the kind of things that bring true respect to you, from the rich and non-rich alike.
I find it increasingly bizarre, day by day, that people are so fixated on money and not value, or meaningfulness.
There's something about the way that money is discussed on HN that I find odd, but I haven't quite put my finger on it yet. Maybe it's that there can sometimes feel like a larger emphasis on politics or money than the things people have actually created... maybe. I'm not sure. I'm still working on figuring it out. Anyways, cheers to you!
I think the fixation on money is mostly because it's quantifiable. Most people, at least at some point in their lives, feel the need to compare themselves to those around them. There's 2 problems with value and meaning. First when you have a life that is fulfilled and meaningful you tend to be less interested in demonstrating that you are provably superior others or even ranking yourself, after all if you are fulfilled what gain is there? And more practically, it's a qualitative thing, there is no ordered relation on the set of value and meaning in ones life, so you can't really compare in an absolute manner.
Having gone through several large pay increases in my life, the really strange thing is that salary doesn't really affect that much. It slightly reduces stress about 'having enough' though most middle class (upper and lower) people can always be wiped out by disasters, and it only slightly improves your day to day life. When I was younger I'm sure I dreamed about making what I do today, but having gotten there I realize that if I were ever to arrive at my revised dream salary today it probably wouldn't change all that much.
There is a small but vocal subset of people on HN who find it hard to believe anyone cares about anything besides money. I think some people just want a simple way of deciding how good they are doing at life.
> I find it increasingly bizarre, day by day, that people are so fixated on money and not value, or meaningfulness.
...or happiness.
I recently read "Stumbling on Happiness" which had an interesting discussion on the fact that there are several studies that show that pay raises up to around $45k per year result in an increase in happiness. But after that, an increases in salary brings only a marginal increase in happiness, if that.
So the question he raised is that if one doesn't receive additional happiness from earning more than $45k, what is the reason for doing so? Most other human actions are geared towards happiness. It really got me thinking about the subject.
Yes. I do research on the economics of happiness, and I do lectures/seminars on it occasionally. In these sessions, I often can't get general agreement that earning money is just a means to the end of being happy. Some students will maintain that earning money is the ultimate goal. Which is frankly weird and a little scary.
I think the point of the $45k/year figure, though, is that you get no extra happiness from spending more than $45k/year. But being paid more than that helps 'keep score' in the sense that you know that someone really values your work -- particularly if you're able to compare with what other people are being paid.
Edit: I also sometimes wonder if there are differences related to social safety nets, and particularly health. It seems in the US that you need $millions to be completely certain that health issues couldn't financially ruin (or kill) you, so more money provides more security even when you're already fabulously rich. Whereas in most of Europe, if you're sick, you get treatment, so if you have a million euros in the bank you basically can't get any more security from money.
The optimal philanthropy community is trying to figure out how to convey these messages: 1) more money doesn't directly buy more happiness; and 2) more money DOES buy better world outcomes (which probably leads to more happiness overall).
It seems like it should be possible to convince people with some disposable income to put a substantial fraction of their extra money into actually saving the world. Giving What We Can (http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/) is one of the organizations trying to do this. Givewell (http://givewell.org) is doing research on cost-effectiveness -- and there's a HUGE range of cost-effectiveness among charities.
Eh. Anyone who piled up a hunk of savings and invested it in the 2000s saw it get decimated or hemimated and took a hit against happiness. Taking more vacation or a fun lower paying job might well have been higher utility.
But yeah, having a savings cushion while unemployment is rampant is satisfying.
I paid off $35k worth of student loan debt within 3 years of graduating. While I was in debt, earning more to pay it off was a great motivator. Now that I'm debt free and have my basic living costs covered without worry, more money just does not motivate me anymore.
The most depressing comment I read on HN was one guy telling a story about a sales manager he knew that encouraged his sales people to go into debt so they would be more motivated to earn more and therefore, make more sales.
Totally - the startup scene now seems to be trending more Hollywood than real meaning. There's so much awesome talent going to optimizing coupons, and not to improving the human condition.
But would they even be in the startup scene if it weren't for the profits? The chance at being the next x or y and making enough money to retire in luxury before the age of 30 is a nontrivial motivator when considering creating a startup. Looking at certain startups it's patently obvious that helping humanity was not a primary concern.
> it's patently obvious that helping humanity was not a primary concern.
But that's exactly what your parent is criticizing. There are genius people in the startup scene whose talents would be better applied to solve problems that actually matter, and not "optimize coupons".
The problem is the inanity of the culture is glorified. Techcrunch is often just entrepeneurial porn.
The community could do so much more if it first asked, "what does this do for people?" rather than "does it make us a billion dollars?" There's plenty of opportunity out there -- especially if you focus on delighting your customers.
That's right, I haven't been there for years either, but money was never discussed there. Simpler times I guess. Maybe a person should go bac to see what it's like?
Having been there a bit recently, I can't really say things have changed for the better. A lot of discussion and sigs are focusing on money these days. Politics surrounding money is a more common topic than tech.
I found it interesting that Steve Jobs was worth "only" about $6B when he died, and more of that wealth came from Pixar than Apple. But, the driving force behind wealthy and successful people is very rarely money.
I don't quite believe that. Look at periods of history where high taxes on wealth have led to a drastic decrease in entrepreneurship activity. I think the dream of becoming wealthy is what does drive people initially, however, (not through experience but from what I've learned from others) once wealthy the pursuit of earning more money does not become the motivation - although I did work for someone who had sold a previous company for a lot of money who went against this.
It seems you do need that initial dream to be about wealth in order to get some people to reach for success.
Off the top of my head, I believe before Margaret Thatcher took office in Britain, taxes reached 99% at the top level which stagnated the economy. There are other periods I have read about but can't remember the specifics at the moment.
If you make $1B in a free market economy, you have also provided (at least) $1B in value to others. You need not have created it: you might simply have arranged for them to have it rather than other people.
An obvious example would be an extraordinarily effective thief, but one needn't be so blatant. For instance, the main effect of a successful investment advisor's work may be to transfer money from people who haven't taken her advice to people who have. (There may be some benefit to the -- presumably better-than-average -- companies she suggests investing in, but there's no reason why that should be large.)
I think one grievance of the OWS protestors is, roughly, that many of the richest people have got that way simply by arranging for their clients to have money at others' expense, rather than by creating value. Though they probably mostly wouldn't put it that way.
The reason I mentioned "free market" was to not consider gaining money through theft, fraud, extortion, blackmail, etc.
In a free market economy, one creates value and then exchanges that value for money. This means that in order for one person to get wealthy, it is not necessary for them to drain wealth from others. Equal value is exchanged.
In other words, one gets wealthy by making the pie bigger, not taking other peoples' pie.
In a free market, of course one can get wealthy by growing the pie. But one can also get wealthy without growing the pie, even when illegal or blatantly unethical actions are not involved.
For instance, consider a country with a perfectly free market, in which many of the people enjoy betting on horse races. These bets use a tote system, which means in effect that the odds are set automatically according to how betters are betting (and the owner takes a small cut from every bet, makes a steady profit, and gets rich). There are some professional betting advisors, who watch lots of races and monitor the appearance and performance of the horses. Some of them are very good at evaluating how likely a given horse is to win in a given race. They charge large fees.
Clients of a very good betting advisor will win more of their bets; they will, on average, lose less money at the races. They may even gain on average, if the other people betting haven't been well advised. If you bet without such good advice (or equivalent horse-assessing skills of your own) then you will, on average, lose more at the races than if the well-advised people weren't betting. The immediate effect of the betting advisors' work, on average, is simply to transfer money from people who aren't their clients to people who are. (And to themselves.)
These betting advisors certainly provide value to their clients. They may, if they're good enough and have many clients who bet a lot, be very handsomely paid and deserve every bit, in the sense that their clients gain more from the advice than they pay for it. But they have added no value at all to the world; they have not grown the pie.
If the advisors' advice is very good, they charge very large fees, and extremely cheap credit is not readily available, then someone wealthy can engage a betting advisor and reap a profit at the races that exceeds the advisor's fees, while someone less wealthy can't afford to pay an advisor. This may become an appealing investment activity for the wealthy. Effectively, what the advisors are then doing is to increase the price (for the majority) of betting on the horses, while diverting some of the profits to themselves and their clients. If the effective price increase is too large, no one unadvised will bet any more, the horse-racing business will collapse, and lots of people will be in trouble. (The people who actually organize the races and the betting will probably lower their prices to maximize their profits in the new situation, which will postpone that disaster.) But as long as that doesn't happen, everyone's still reasonably content. Compared with not having the betting advisors: (1) the people who organize the races will take less profit, (2) the betting advisors and their clients will take more profit, (3) ordinary betters will lose more, and (4) the actual results of the horse races will be entirely unaltered. Again, the advisors have not grown the pie; they and their clients gain at the expense of the unadvised betters and the people who organize the races and betting (the latter being the only ones who are actually adding any value in this scenario, by providing an activity that people enjoy more than they pay for it).
So, in this hypothetical scenario, betting advisors get wealthy neither by making the pie bigger nor by taking other people's pie, but by arranging for their clients to get more pie while other people get less.
(You might feel inclined to draw an analogy with, say, hedge funds in the real world. But the situations are not precisely equivalent, and I am not claiming that they are.)
Hedge funds provide value in 1) providing liquidity and 2) more accurately setting prices.
People who engage in gambling, such as on horses, do so voluntarily. This means that they believe they are getting value for their money blown, even if you don't see the point in gambling yourself.
A lot of gamblers find gambling to be highly entertaining, even when losing. Personally, I find it dull.
I'm not speaking from experience, but based on what I've read, this makes perfect sense.
Happiness/life satisfaction doesn't improve with more money. You need enough money to be comfortable (i.e., a roof over your head and food on the table), but after that it has no effect.
With $5M you buy an excellent house anywhere, send your kids to the best schools, drive a very nice car and have plenty of money left over for traveling the world. $5B will get you more houses, cars and a massive yacht, but why do you want those things? If you want it to beat your neigbours, then you'll always be unsatisfied since there'll always be people with more (except when you get to the level of Gates), but more importantly, people get used to good things. I have seriously impressive camera equipment. A few years ago I would have loved to own such high quality gear and would be using it all the time. But now, most of the time it sits on a shelf in my bedroom. And I imagine it would be exactly the same if I owned a Ferrari. Or a fleet of them.
And then you have the super-rich people problems, foremost is worrying about their children. A well-meaning relation telling them that they'll never have to work a day in their life isn't going to do much for their drive to do something with their life. And finally, most rich people, whether they're worth tens or hundreds of millions, don't consider themselves financially secure, but they think they would be if they increased their wealth by 25%...
What $5B gives you isn't more cars, it's the ability to finance anything that you find meaningful to you (public health for Bill Gates, movies with a message for Jeff Skoll, other startups for Reid Hoffman).
At the risk of overextending the idea (and definitely tongue in cheek), most everyone has two eyes and four limbs -- more money buys better-looking TVs and interior design for those eyes, and lots of fun activities for all those limbs, like really big yachts and private lakes.
"Student question. Computer science in education, starting even in elementary school. Good idea?
Gates. Hmm. I think computer is a great tool, but if by computer science we mean understanding queing theory and hashing and database indexes, not sure. But knowing how to write a program, prime numbers by algorithm is very interesting test of whether I know prime numbers. What’s really necessary? Geometry? No, probably not. But certainly a level of complex thinking valuable to be exposed to. Statistics very important. Where computer scientist falls in hierarchy, I don’t know."
Obviously elementary level students don't need to know queing theory etc. However, I think a lot games developers might disagree that Geometry is not really necessary. There's other uses as well I'm developing a web app for customizing products and I use Geometry every day.
I think the subtle value lesson he was trying to get across to these kids is to avoid making money ( i.e. a certain amount of it ) as the goal. Humble, self-effacing and smart answers.
Oddly enough, I know very few people personally who set out with an exact locus on their future net-worth. Many, in my and the upcoming generation, aspire to have meaning over / along with money.
I see such bad financial advice coming from those who obviously have never made money (shouldn't be surprising, I guess). And then when someone comes along who has made a lot of money, most people ignore what they have to say.
A million bucks isn't much nowadays. Certainly not enough to retire comfortably in the US (yes yes, I know we've had a recent rash of articles on how to retire on $9000 a year or whatever, but I don't wanna live in a trailer park). I reckon you need at least $2 million, preferably $4 million, before you have enough money to never have to worry about money again.
Still, I like to think that Bill Gates, having been a many-billionaire since the 1980s, has lost track of what the hell a mere million dollars is worth nowadays.
Yeah, there is definitely a limit to how much you can gain which is useful to spend purely on your own confort and entertainment. When you think of worthy projects you could contribute funds to though I don't think there is any limit to the amount of money that would be useful.
I posted this as its own link, but it's worth reposting here: Jaan Tallinn, founder of Skype, at the most recent Singularity Summit, talks about what to do with your money and how to make a difference.
Do people really try to become billionaires? they start companies intending to become (multi-)millionaires and they do better than expected and become billionaires.
I think some people do set out with the goal in mind of becoming a billionaire and I don't think these people succeed. Like you said, I think people who do become billionaires are fixated on a more proximate goal (like starting a company that serves an important need) and end up exceeding their initial expectations.
You're right, I was working backwards from the life-stories of billionaires I've read about. There are surely a vast number that wanted to become billionaires before they were even millionaires and failed.
I'd rather have $10mm in personal wealth and control of $10b for interesting investments/research/etc., vs. a personal $100mm.
Even $10b isn't enough to accomplish every large goal, but being able to do cheap LEO satellite launch (space cannon), real free trade zones internationally, and robotic space missions to mars, the moon, etc. would be amazing. Plus anonymous electronic cash, and trusted computing.
I would like to somehow find a way to thank Bill Gates for his talk I really enjoyed it. Though out of everything I would say my favorite line by him today was:
"If you really want to learn something then get a book and read about it. If you want to learn more about CS read Knuth and actually do the problem sets after each section."
I was there and although the transcription does take some paraphrasing at points, this is a direct quote. It leaves out that before this the student said something like:
"Before I ask my question I want to tell a little story: When I was growing up my parents and friends always asked me what I wanted to be and I would tell them I wanted to be the richest person in the world. Now you are here speaking to me so if A=B and B=C then A=C. Do you have any advice so that I can become someone like you"
I assure you the A=B... part is not a random addition by me, she actually said this but I could not tell what it was based off of.
Really besides a few questions from students that I felt were a little off topic, Mr. Gate's presentation was really fascinating and I am more than glad that I was able to attend.
I think she is saying if I want to be B, and B is Bill Gates, then I want to be Bill Gates, therefore the question "how can I become like you, Mr. Gates?"
Maybe it's because I didn't read the transcript of the talk, but it sounded like someone tried to ask him his opinion of money in politics and about money being able to buy influence and power, and unfortunately it looked like he failed to address that. If that's the case, that was a very disappointing missed opportunity by him I think.
He didn't say it was over rated per se, he said not to start in business with being a billionaire as your goal. If you create a great product, and a sustainable company the money will follow. There are few things that are consistent across the scores of biographies I've read, but that's one. Create value. The money will follow.
I am a UW student who went to this talk. It was an interesting event. I think Gates' response to the student who asked how to be rich was the most memorable part for me.
At the department website it says the talk will be archived, but the link doesn't seem to be active:
There were plenty of TV cameras everywhere recording. It'll surface somewhere, likely on the UW CSE pages.
For me watching the Kinect render the images so smoothly and immediately was pretty cool. Then again I was stuck 4 floors up and couldn't see anything.
Yeah, I was on the 5th floor. I had a good view actually, but it was a little bit hard to hear, especially at the beginning while everyone was still moving around, trying to find a place to stand.
It's amazing how people forget. Bill doesn't have to worry about losing everything he has -- there's no way -- muchless worry about losing his house, getting fired in a recession, or how he's going to get his kids through college.
Other than that, and the ability to go anywhere you want, do anything you want within reason, and stay as long as you like -- yeah, I'm sure being a billionaire is overrated.
To address the first items, how about taking example from a country that has high progressive taxing system. You are taken care of, even though not particularly well.
My considered opinion is that the main reason Bill Gates is spending so much money, is to improve the world just enough to generate more users of Windows, over decades, in developing countries, thereby adding to Microsoft's bottom line, in the very long term, and in doing so, making more money for himself. Think about it: You have to raise living standards for people in untapped markets before they can buy your product, a thing which they now effectively consider an unattainable luxury.
I thought those "notes" were really poorly transcribed. Did the author really not have time to turn them into sentences?
"Personally like to thank you for saving me winter algebra last year through Khan Academy investment."
"Africa, 800m today will be bigger than China or India, 20M in 2040. In terms of stability, education."
"Politics and role of web?"
"Student question on negative impact of technology."
I understand that he was just trying to get the gist across, but this is a news article. I would have rather read a more readable article an hour later.
They probably had something else to do in that next hour. Lots of events like this go completely unreported precisely because the notetaker doesn't want to publish them until they get around to going through and tidying them up, which, of course, then never happens. Generally I'm happier with rough notes like this than if they don't get published at all.
Just to get started, as long as we don't have clean water, plenty of food, proper healthcare, good education, meaningful personal freedom, and a well-functioning legal system for every human being in the world, cheap carbon-neutral energy, strong environmental protection and sustainable ecosystem conservation throughout the world, a cure for cancer, a complete genome and proteome and extended phenotype encyclopedia for all life on Earth, telescopes that can image Earthlike planets in other galaxies and the first stars to ignite in the extremely early Universe, robots crawling around under the surfaces of Europa and Enceladus and screaming through interstellar space toward Alpha Centauri and Epsilon Eridani, and human colonies on Mars and the asteroids and in the clouds of Venus, there will be plenty of interesting and valuable things to do for someone with tens of billions of dollars to throw at an ambitious project.