There was a famous Diamond vs Water paradox that confused ancient economists or philosophers. What they grappled with was why is diamond more expensive when water is clearly more useful. Without diamond a person can live but without water a person cannot. The answer to that paradox actually is the answer to the above. Why is it that hedge funds managers earning so much more than nurses/fire fighters/teachers etc. Would you care to guess why it is so?
Tudor Jones "Why we need to rethink capitalism"
- Thread starter game
- Start date
There was a famous Diamond vs Water paradox that confused ancient economists or philosophers. What they grappled with was why is diamond more expensive when water is clearly more useful. Without diamond a person can live but without water a person cannot. The answer to that paradox actually is the answer to the above. Why is it that hedge funds managers earning so much more than nurses/fire fighters/teachers etc. Would you care to guess why it is so?
The definition I gave means capital in the broad sense. There is even human capital, which can also be in private hands if you, or a privately owned corporate entity for example, have control of it through a contractual relationship.
You may have been saying the opposite of what I understood you were saying. Was that a sarcastic remark about hedge fund vs others compensation? If that is the case, yes, I did fail to understand it for what it was. I took it literally as a genuine concern.
No, I expressed my bewilderment at someone being the impersonation of capitalism and standing up there looking to change the system that allowed him to be what he wanted to be. If he shows such great concern for the underprivileged why does he not commit his life at least at this point in his journey? Everything else is just unsubstantiated talk. And spending 0.5% of one's wealth on something is an investment not a commitment. Pretending to be a great philanthropist is a slap in the face of all those who truly committed their lives to a greater good.
I couldn't care less if PTJ or anyone else wholesales weapons to africans or ships them free cargo of peanut butter. I was replying to your claim that Mommy Theresa saving 10000 is better than PTJ saving 100 000. It's always quite a show to look at you dealing with numbers.
As of giving time rather than money to help people out of their life of hardship, may I suggest you stick to money and spare the poor folks the extra pain of dealing with you ?
Last edited:
let me add my 2 cents here:
1) PTJ is not nearly so negative on "capitalism" as it sounds. He states clearly that it's the system responsible for most of the advancement the world has seen so far, and surely of his own success.
2) He promotes his "Just" index, which presumably ranks companies by the amount of corporate giving they make, and bemoans the fact that corporate giving has declined overall. I think he is way wrong on this. Corporate giving has declined due to better and stricter corporate governance, not due to less ethical managers. I think Warren Buffett (someone not known to shy away from giving) was right when he explained Berkshire's policy of corporate giving, which is essentially to let shareholders decide if, when and how they want to give, and not force it onto them on the corporate level. Or does PTJ want to let his secretary decide which church he gives how much to?
3) PTJ basically criticizes the concept of "shareholder value", and instead prefers "stakeholder value", even though he never mentions these words.
4) He blames "capitalism" with creating a surge in inequality in the US, without mentioning that globalisation and technological change are much more responsible for that.
1) PTJ is not nearly so negative on "capitalism" as it sounds. He states clearly that it's the system responsible for most of the advancement the world has seen so far, and surely of his own success.
2) He promotes his "Just" index, which presumably ranks companies by the amount of corporate giving they make, and bemoans the fact that corporate giving has declined overall. I think he is way wrong on this. Corporate giving has declined due to better and stricter corporate governance, not due to less ethical managers. I think Warren Buffett (someone not known to shy away from giving) was right when he explained Berkshire's policy of corporate giving, which is essentially to let shareholders decide if, when and how they want to give, and not force it onto them on the corporate level. Or does PTJ want to let his secretary decide which church he gives how much to?
3) PTJ basically criticizes the concept of "shareholder value", and instead prefers "stakeholder value", even though he never mentions these words.
4) He blames "capitalism" with creating a surge in inequality in the US, without mentioning that globalisation and technological change are much more responsible for that.
Both driven by capitalism.
if you did not grasp the relationship then I am afraid it's an issue on your end that needs to be dealt with. If the increasing wealth and increasing giving was what mattered then how come poverty and hardship over time is increasing not decreasing even in regions with stagnating birth rates and number citizens? After all according to your point the dollar amount is all that matters right? As usual you are talking out if your ass without looking at facts
Globalization is just a necessary aspect of pure capitalism if you go back to the definition of capitalism. And if you let everyone choose to give or not to give and let everyone choose to be insured or not insured guess what you end up : Precisely, a country of foodstamp recipients, millions without any insurance, millions who may actually harm others and a disability to reimburse others for harm done, and of course a few billionaires for whom it is en vogue these days to take a sunbath in the admiration received by others due to their pledging 10% of their wealth. Congratulations ...a new nation born of selfish individuals without any concern for others (such gross lack of concern most would not even be able to pinpoint Asia or Europe on a map and much less able to identify neighborhoods of true need in their own country )