If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   You're not helping   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 85
    More: Interesting, Warren Buffett, Peter Buffett, return on investments, nonprofit sector, Urban Institute, opinion pieces, eco  
•       •       •

5104 clicks; posted to Business » on 04 Aug 2013 at 1:56 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



85 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-04 09:51:50 AM  
I have found that any statement that begins with "My dad is a big deal, and I think.." should probably have a pinch of salt added.
 
2013-08-04 09:53:44 AM  
Give a man to fish and he will eat for a day,teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.

/is that statement really that difficult to comprehend?
 
2013-08-04 09:57:38 AM  

BunkyBrewman: Give a man to fish and he will eat for a day,teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.

/is that statement really that difficult to comprehend?


Teach a man to fish after you've used a net to empty the lake of fish and he will be a great source of slapstick humor.
 
2013-08-04 10:26:21 AM  

bunner: Teach a man to fish after you've used a net to empty the lake of fish and he will be a great source of slapstick humor.


I will be stealing this forever. Thanks!
 
2013-08-04 10:30:08 AM  
When billionaire Warren Buffett pledged to give away 85 per cent of his fortune in 2006


Gee, I wonder why he feels that way?
 
2013-08-04 10:34:01 AM  
Wait! Upon further review (actually reading the article), he has some good points.

I retract my claim that he cares about an inheritance. He just genuinely cares about creating sustainable economic conditions for people.
 
2013-08-04 10:34:41 AM  
Somewhere, Andrew Carnegie is laughing at this guy.
 
2013-08-04 10:36:56 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Wait! Upon further review (actually reading the article), he has some good points.

I retract my claim that he cares about an inheritance. He just genuinely cares about creating sustainable economic conditions for people.


I sort of jumped the gun, too. I wouldn't want to dissuade the wealthy from charity, but being selective and thinking about the bigger picture is certainly a good idea.
 
2013-08-04 10:43:36 AM  
It's not necessarily about charity in the usual sense.  It's usually a simple matter of putting massive profits back into play to create and maintain a robust job base.  A living wage isn't really munificent largess, it's the bedrock of a viable working class community who will happily bust their asses for you, by and large, if they can have some semblance of a comfortable life on what they make for their time and work.  Stagnant wealth serves nobody except the wankstains who hoard it and then meet at the club, once a month, for the bank balance pissing contest fandango.  People like that need to discover Star Wars action figures.
 
2013-08-04 10:48:06 AM  
Yes and no.

Giving to people is bad. Giving to systems can be good, it can be bad. It depends on the system, and how realistic you are in your expectations of what the money will be able to do.

Example: giving your dollar to the Sally Struthers-esque 'help feed a poor kid in Africa with flies on his eyes' doesn't do a damn thing but help line the pockets of the person running that 'charity'. Giving money to a starving person in the street feeds them for a day, but it also helps them to be justified in thinking 'waiting for people to give me things is a proven business model, if I'm just willing to be miserable and patient in the interim'.

However, giving money to some charities is extremely effective. The Carter Foundation has just about entirely eradicated the Guinea worm, a horrible parasite that has been afflicting humanity since at least Biblical times. Polio is on the way out. Real efforts are being made at doing the same to malaria. There's simply no way that giving a billion dollars to a group like that wouldn't make a difference.

Or, you can be indirect. Giving a $2bn endowment to your city orchestra may not feed the starving, but it will damn sure provide beautiful music for generations to come.

You just have to do your homework, and treat it like any other business decision.
 
2013-08-04 10:49:20 AM  

Nabb1: I sort of jumped the gun, too. I wouldn't want to dissuade the wealthy from charity, but being selective and thinking about the bigger picture is certainly a good idea.


Well, you actually hit the nail on the head. Carnegie focused his money very well and it had quite a lasting impact on humanity. He was simple and focused. I think you can say the same about Buffett and Gates. Gates especially with his focus on trying to cure curable things. All he does is provide the logistics to make sure impoverished people can get things we can get at any clinic or hospital. Sure, he has education as a goal and that will require ALL of use to get on the same page about how we should educate our kids. Lot of money on lobbying, compromising, testing things, failing succeeding... You could call that one a pipe dream, but I'm glad he's at least making the effort.

No, Buffett's kid is making a good point. Deploying capital in a focused effort on a single thing can really do wonders. But you have to have the right people to do it who focus on it like a laser and don't think of it as a business to run in perpetuity.

For example... I like what Clooney is doing in Sudan, but at the end of the day he is basically throwing his money away. Not the direct aid to people/refugees, but his satellite and other stuff to get rid of a dictator. The only thing that would solve that is a private Army or some sovereign state deciding to take him out.

Warren's son is right about one thing, it has become big business when it should be focused on a goal and ready to close shop the second they reach that goal. Some charities are different, but I'd say the best ones would operate like a light infantry unit. Go in, destroy the problem, and evac.
 
2013-08-04 10:52:37 AM  

BunkyBrewman: Give a man to fish and he will eat for a day,teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.

/is that statement really that difficult to comprehend?


Give your son a billion dollars and he can hire someone to fish for him.
 
2013-08-04 10:52:57 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Nabb1: I sort of jumped the gun, too. I wouldn't want to dissuade the wealthy from charity, but being selective and thinking about the bigger picture is certainly a good idea.

Well, you actually hit the nail on the head. Carnegie focused his money very well and it had quite a lasting impact on humanity. He was simple and focused. I think you can say the same about Buffett and Gates. Gates especially with his focus on trying to cure curable things. All he does is provide the logistics to make sure impoverished people can get things we can get at any clinic or hospital. Sure, he has education as a goal and that will require ALL of use to get on the same page about how we should educate our kids. Lot of money on lobbying, compromising, testing things, failing succeeding... You could call that one a pipe dream, but I'm glad he's at least making the effort.

No, Buffett's kid is making a good point. Deploying capital in a focused effort on a single thing can really do wonders. But you have to have the right people to do it who focus on it like a laser and don't think of it as a business to run in perpetuity.

For example... I like what Clooney is doing in Sudan, but at the end of the day he is basically throwing his money away. Not the direct aid to people/refugees, but his satellite and other stuff to get rid of a dictator. The only thing that would solve that is a private Army or some sovereign state deciding to take him out.

Warren's son is right about one thing, it has become big business when it should be focused on a goal and ready to close shop the second they reach that goal. Some charities are different, but I'd say the best ones would operate like a light infantry unit. Go in, destroy the problem, and evac.


I think there's places for both. It's great to focus on the long term, but there's nothing wrong with alleviating immediate suffering. You really need both in some sort of balance. I think I'd make a great philanthropist, so if anyone is willing to assist me in accumulating a vast sum of wealth, I promise to do you proud.
 
2013-08-04 10:56:27 AM  
The laws suck.  Charities are only required to keep accurate books and have very low disbursements demands as to how much goes to the people they serve. Tax loopholes abound for everybody with enough money to not need them.  Charities, like any other corporate whorehouse, are largely designed to move money in one direction and have accountants and attorneys show them how to skim the cream off.
 
2013-08-04 10:58:56 AM  

bunner: Charities, like any other corporate whorehouse, are largely designed to move money in one direction and have accountants and attorneys show them how to skim the cream off.


Not all of them, but the ones you are referring to (Report on celebrity charities designed at tax avoidance vehicles)... We should put all of them in GITMO. Those people are the scum of the earth. The people, their lawyers and accountants and enablers.

Who the f*ck takes a loan from a charity? Yeah, tighten the laws on those who do it for personal gain. I'd love to see that.
 
2013-08-04 11:03:57 AM  
The most charitable thing you can do for a poor family is to give them 10,000.00 out of your stash of millions under the condition that they listen while you explain how money works.  And answer a quiz.  Downside, finding out how money actually works is like accidentally walking in on your mom while she's taking a dump.  The "money fairy" that we accuse the poor of waiting on either has to stop coming down the billionaires' chimneys or start expanding her route.
 
2013-08-04 11:14:52 AM  

bunner: The most charitable thing you can do for a poor family is to give them 10,000.00 out of your stash of millions under the condition that they listen while you explain how money works.  And answer a quiz.  Downside, finding out how money actually works is like accidentally walking in on your mom while she's taking a dump.  The "money fairy" that we accuse the poor of waiting on either has to stop coming down the billionaires' chimneys or start expanding her route.


Uh, giving poor people who have no experience managing money $10,000 (which doesn't go very far these days) is to going to get them put of poverty. They'll probably pay off some debts and buy some sort of consumer goods with whatever is left.
 
2013-08-04 11:20:34 AM  

Nabb1: Uh, giving poor people who have no experience managing money $10,000 (which doesn't go very far these days) is to going to get them put of poverty. They'll probably pay off some debts and buy some sort of consumer goods with whatever is left.


Sounds a lot like the Bush stimulus checks. I swear to god, that was the dumbest things I've ever seen in my life. I was sitting there, looking at the National Debt and watching them give out checks because our current account was in surplus. Seriously, what a waste of money. And $300? Wow. Hooray!

Simplified analogy, agreed. That one just made my head spin. I also don't agree with giving them direct money, but his idea of teaching them about money is something we should have a class for in every high school to make sure that even if kids have financially illiterate parents, why try to give them some baseline.

I remember being taught to balance a checkbook in high school. I wonder how often that occurs today.
 
2013-08-04 11:26:33 AM  
No business, even a non-profit, will ever completely eliminate the need for its own existence, because the people who run the business would rather perpetuate the problem that creates the need than put themselves and their colleagues out of a job. Charities, pharmaceutical companies, pretty much all bureaucracies are examples.
 
2013-08-04 11:28:04 AM  
Saying that you shouldn't give people who've never had money any money is the same sh*t as telling the kid with 90,000.00 in loan debt that he has to come back when he has three years of experience.
 
2013-08-04 11:28:36 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Nabb1: Uh, giving poor people who have no experience managing money $10,000 (which doesn't go very far these days) is to going to get them put of poverty. They'll probably pay off some debts and buy some sort of consumer goods with whatever is left.

Sounds a lot like the Bush stimulus checks. I swear to god, that was the dumbest things I've ever seen in my life. I was sitting there, looking at the National Debt and watching them give out checks because our current account was in surplus. Seriously, what a waste of money. And $300? Wow. Hooray!

Simplified analogy, agreed. That one just made my head spin. I also don't agree with giving them direct money, but his idea of teaching them about money is something we should have a class for in every high school to make sure that even if kids have financially illiterate parents, why try to give them some baseline.

I remember being taught to balance a checkbook in high school. I wonder how often that occurs today.


The stimulus wasn't intended to get anyone out of poverty, though. It was intended to just put some quick cash in a lot of people's hands. I used it for a surround sound systems, but I wasn't teetering on the edge of poverty, either.

I bet they don't even teach kids how to balance a checkbook in this age of ATMs, debit cards, and online banking. We're cavemen compared to these kids.
 
2013-08-04 11:30:22 AM  

bunner: Saying that you shouldn't give people who've never had money any money is the same sh*t as telling the kid with 90,000.00 in loan debt that he has to come back when he has three years of experience.


You can do whatever you want, but dumping $10k in a poor person's lap most likely will not lift them out of poverty. But, feel free to pool that cash and prove me wrong. And if that employer doesn't want someone without experience, that's just tough shiat.
 
2013-08-04 11:31:03 AM  

DarwiOdrade: No business, even a non-profit, will ever completely eliminate the need for its own existence, because the people who run the business would rather perpetuate the problem that creates the need than put themselves and their colleagues out of a job. Charities, pharmaceutical companies, pretty much all bureaucracies are examples.


Poor people are why rich people are rich.  Because they gave them every dime in their loot chest, 1.29 at a time, 80,000,000 times a day.  Poor people are to rich people what plankton is to humpback whales.
 
2013-08-04 11:32:17 AM  

Nabb1: bunner: Saying that you shouldn't give people who've never had money any money is the same sh*t as telling the kid with 90,000.00 in loan debt that he has to come back when he has three years of experience.

You can do whatever you want, but dumping $10k in a poor person's lap most likely will not lift them out of poverty. But, feel free to pool that cash and prove me wrong. And if that employer doesn't want someone without experience, that's just tough shiat.


The issue for grads in the job market is slightly more complicated than you're implying here.
 
2013-08-04 11:33:58 AM  
Every so often, I click the show posts from ignored users area and remind myself just how many dolts come here to say "It works like this and that's all there is to it and I just said so, so tough c*nt crust, I know how things really are!"  And it's sort of amusing.  I really appreciate the toggle, however.
 
2013-08-04 11:35:17 AM  
Remember!  You have to learn to BLOW THE JOB CREATORS BETTER THAN THE OTHER GUY or you are a worthless, communist failure!1!1!!  * snort*
 
2013-08-04 11:38:09 AM  

LasersHurt: And if that employer doesn't want someone without experience, that's just tough shiat. (NABB)

The issue for grads in the job market is slightly more complicated than you're implying here.


He does have a point. Labor is a buyers market. It sucks, but that's where we're at. I was always working and never finished my 4 year degree. I got an entry level (part-time) gig and fought my way to where I'm at. Lived on Ramen and water for many years fighting for it.

I want everyone to be gainfully employed that can be. This is just the worst labor market I've seen in my life. Opportunities are there, but there is a lot of nepotism in hiring right now. It's all in who you know. I've heard tell the 70's were as bad as this, but we got through it. I'm just hoping we find a way through soon.

I know far too many people with advanced degrees, massive debt, and sh*tty job prospects.
 
2013-08-04 11:42:09 AM  

NewportBarGuy: LasersHurt: And if that employer doesn't want someone without experience, that's just tough shiat. (NABB)

The issue for grads in the job market is slightly more complicated than you're implying here.

He does have a point. Labor is a buyers market. It sucks, but that's where we're at. I was always working and never finished my 4 year degree. I got an entry level (part-time) gig and fought my way to where I'm at. Lived on Ramen and water for many years fighting for it.

I want everyone to be gainfully employed that can be. This is just the worst labor market I've seen in my life. Opportunities are there, but there is a lot of nepotism in hiring right now. It's all in who you know. I've heard tell the 70's were as bad as this, but we got through it. I'm just hoping we find a way through soon.

I know far too many people with advanced degrees, massive debt, and sh*tty job prospects.


Hell I rode the nepotism train into the station, got my job because I knew a guy in an IRC channel. It's a crap-ass market out there for precisely the reasons you mentioned - it's a buyer's market where they CAN ask for more experience and offer less pay because they'll get away with it.
 
2013-08-04 11:45:08 AM  

LasersHurt: it's a buyer's market where they CAN ask for more experience and offer less pay because they'll get away with it.


Yeah, that's called "pulling the floorboards out for your new paneling."  It never ends well.  "We made more money by screwing our workers!"  "Yeah, unfortunately, people are trading wheelbarrows full of it for SPAM and goldfish crackers."
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-04 12:08:33 PM  

bunner: Yeah, that's called "pulling the floorboards out for your new paneling."  It never ends well.  "We made more money by screwing our workers!"  "Yeah, unfortunately, people are trading wheelbarrows full of it for SPAM and goldfish crackers."


The thing is that wealthy people aren't generally looking out for future generations of wealthy people, they are out for themselves.  They don't give a crap about the long term, they'll be dead by then so they could care less.
 
2013-08-04 12:33:00 PM  
So no one else has figured out a solution to the labor glut yet?

BunkyBrewman: Give a man to fish and he will eat for a day,teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.

/is that statement really that difficult to comprehend?


Clearly, it is.
 
2013-08-04 12:35:07 PM  
This is not a revelation. We have learned this many times over but never seem to apply it. Those who figure this out tend to retire soon thereafter.
 
2013-08-04 01:00:17 PM  
he's just upset that daddy's pissing away his inheritance.
 
2013-08-04 01:12:15 PM  

bunner: DarwiOdrade: No business, even a non-profit, will ever completely eliminate the need for its own existence, because the people who run the business would rather perpetuate the problem that creates the need than put themselves and their colleagues out of a job. Charities, pharmaceutical companies, pretty much all bureaucracies are examples.

Poor people are why rich people are rich.  Because they gave them every dime in their loot chest, 1.29 at a time, 80,000,000 times a day.  Poor people are to rich people what plankton is to humpback whales.


Yes, the wino panhandling in front of the train station is truly the reason why people make money in this country, and he would be much better served if somebody just handed him a wad of Benjamins....

Some people are poor because of the system.

Some people are poor because they're stupid and make poor decisions.
 
2013-08-04 01:17:52 PM  

bunner: I have found that any statement that begins with "My dad is a big deal, and I think.." should probably have a pinch of salt added.


i105.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-04 01:24:12 PM  

Fark It: Yes, the wino panhandling in front of the train station is truly the reason why people make money in this country


Yeah, boyee, false equivalencies are the most prescient argument on earth.  I keep some in the junk drawer just in case.
 
2013-08-04 01:26:16 PM  

bunner: Fark It: Yes, the wino panhandling in front of the train station is truly the reason why people make money in this country

Yeah, boyee, false equivalencies are the most prescient argument on earth.  I keep some in the junk drawer just in case.


I guess your junk drawer is where you got this gem:

"Poor people are why rich people are rich. "
 
2013-08-04 01:28:03 PM  

Fark It: "Poor people are why rich people are rich. "


You get enough rocks, you can make a wall.  You're the one saying poor = pissing in their pants by the mailbox with 18 cents and a Marlboro as en toto liquidity.  And that's.. I dunno.  Are you amused?  I'm sort of "huh" about it.
 
2013-08-04 01:30:56 PM  
By the way, you're an utter dolt and a troll and I only clicked the show posts from ignored users button to wade through the "LOOK HERE YOU!" farmers.  Make this a good one.   :  )
 
2013-08-04 01:31:16 PM  

LasersHurt: Nabb1: bunner: Saying that you shouldn't give people who've never had money any money is the same sh*t as telling the kid with 90,000.00 in loan debt that he has to come back when he has three years of experience.

You can do whatever you want, but dumping $10k in a poor person's lap most likely will not lift them out of poverty. But, feel free to pool that cash and prove me wrong. And if that employer doesn't want someone without experience, that's just tough shiat.

The issue for grads in the job market is slightly more complicated than you're implying here.


I know. I was responding solely to his incredibly poor analogy.
 
2013-08-04 01:32:05 PM  
What will end the greatest amount of poverty is the ending of corruption.  Corrupt politicians and agencies are what perpetuates poverty.
Clean out what is rotten then something healthy can grow.
 
2013-08-04 01:34:24 PM  

bunner: Fark It: "Poor people are why rich people are rich. "

You get enough rocks, you can make a wall.  You're the one saying poor = pissing in their pants by the mailbox with 18 cents and a Marlboro as en toto liquidity.  And that's.. I dunno.  Are you amused?  I'm sort of "huh" about it.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-08-04 01:36:46 PM  

Fark It: bunner: Fark It: "Poor people are why rich people are rich. "

You get enough rocks, you can make a wall.  You're the one saying poor = pissing in their pants by the mailbox with 18 cents and a Marlboro as en toto liquidity.  And that's.. I dunno.  Are you amused?  I'm sort of "huh" about it.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 320x320]


Bad troll.  No cookie.  Bye Plato.  Hey, you think memes are profound, so here's one.   :  )

i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-04 01:40:04 PM  

rev. dave: What will end the greatest amount of poverty is the ending of corruption.  Corrupt politicians and agencies are what perpetuates poverty.
Clean out what is rotten then something healthy can grow.


Can you imagine what would happen to the GPD if, for one year, nobody skimmed, conned, finagled, pork barreled, overcharged, took a few home that they wouldn't miss or inflated contracts?  Just did what the f*ck they told the boss they would do?  Just cut the sh*t and took home what they honestly earned?
 
2013-08-04 02:12:36 PM  
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Have your dad give you enough fish for 20 lifetimes and you can preach the morality of hard work.
 
2013-08-04 02:22:15 PM  

bunner: finding out how money actually works is like accidentally walking in on your mom while she's taking a dump.



I want the Wall Street Journal to use that as the front headline someday.
 
2013-08-04 02:23:07 PM  
i39.tinypic.com
 
2013-08-04 02:24:12 PM  

EvilEgg: Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Have your dad give you enough fish for 20 lifetimes and you can preach the morality of hard work.



www.independent.co.uk

"I didn't grow up in the ocean - as a matter of fact - near the ocean
- I grew up in the desert. Therefore, it was a pleasant contrast to see
the ocean. And I particularly like it when I'm fishing."
 
2013-08-04 02:45:35 PM  

Nabb1: bunner: Saying that you shouldn't give people who've never had money any money is the same sh*t as telling the kid with 90,000.00 in loan debt that he has to come back when he has three years of experience.

You can do whatever you want, but dumping $10k in a poor person's lap most likely will not lift them out of poverty. But, feel free to pool that cash and prove me wrong. And if that employer doesn't want someone without experience, that's just tough shiat.


but what if the employer deems the applicant overqualified, but not qualified enough for a position the next level up?

/in my recent job search, this happened to me five times.
 
2013-08-04 02:49:57 PM  

dumbobruni: /in my recent job search, this happened to me five times.


That's code for "You're not 25 but if we tell you you're too old, you an sue us."
 
Displayed 50 of 85 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report