Why Malcolm Gladwell is right - Even though John Paulson did a good thing

Malcolm Gladwell needs to keep his nose out of somebody else's business.

Anyone like Paulson who has amassed $400 million to just give away deserves more respect than getting trashed over where his donation goes to.
 
I side with Paulson unless aid to the poor involved paying for their birth control. I would rather invest in science and progress. The problem is that when you give to those who can't sustain themselves, they simply have more offspring which perpetuates the poverty problem into the future, with the accompanying diseases, misery, etc. "give to the poor" do-gooders and their cronies who sell crops/medicine/drugs to the government funded programs are creating a disastrous population explosion in parts of Africa that is not sustainable.
 
MrN said:
I side with Paulson unless aid to the poor involved paying for their birth control. I would rather invest in science and progress. The problem is that when you give to those who can't sustain themselves, they simply have more offspring which perpetuates the poverty problem into the future, with the accompanying diseases, misery, etc. "give to the poor" do-gooders and their cronies who sell crops/medicine/drugs to the government funded programs are creating a disastrous population explosion in parts of Africa that is not sustainable.
More...
Yeah, it would be so much easier if the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation just gave all their money to Harvard and be done with it, eh?
 
Frederick Foresight said:
No one is telling anyone anything. They're just commenting.
More...

Did you read the tweets? That's not just commenting. That's slamming, insulting, snarking, whatever.

It would be one thing to say "You know, it'd be nice to donate the money to the poor, John." (and it would, I agree). But that's not how he did it. He posted an hour long rant of tweets about it. If he (or you) doesn't like where the money was donated, then all he has to do is raise $400 million and show the man up by giving it to the poor.
 
Tsing Tao said:
Did you read the tweets? That's not just commenting. That's slamming, insulting, snarking, whatever.

It would be one thing to say "You know, it'd be nice to donate the money to the poor, John." (and it would, I agree). But that's not how he did it. He posted an hour long rant of tweets about it. If he (or you) doesn't like where the money was donated, then all he has to do is raise $400 million and show the man up by giving it to the poor.
More...
As compared to some of the stuff we have to sift through in P&R?

Look, I can make three observations about Paulson's decision to give the amount that he did to Harvard. First, it will do a lot of good. No argument. Second, it could have been put to better use; Harvard is not hurting. And third, Paulson probably did it in large part for the prestige. Which is entirely his right to do. And entirely Gladwell's right to comment on exactly that in his own charming way.
 
Frederick Foresight said:
As compared to some of the stuff we have to sift through in P&R?


Look, I can make three observations about Paulson's decision to give the amount that he did to Harvard. First, it will do a lot of good. No argument. Second, it could have been put to better use; Harvard is not hurting. And third, Paulson probably did it in large part for the prestige. Which is entirely his right to do. And entirely Gladwell's right to comment on exactly that in his own charming way.
More...

Then I guess it's our right to tell Gladwell to shut his hole, and make his own money if he wants to donate it to the poor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top