Zuckerberg’s gift
Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Dr. Priscilla Chan have announced a decision they’ve made on the birth of the daughter:
Zuckerberg announced that his family will be giving away 99 percent of their shares in Facebook, which currently totals around $45 billion. This donation won’t happen overnight, but will take place over the course of Zuckerberg and Dr. Chan’s lifetime. The point is to start early enough so that his daughter and future generations will be able to live in a world that’s much better off than the one we’re in now.
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative focuses on two areas: advancing human potential and promoting equality. With the former, Zuckerberg explained that he wants to cure diseases, clean up the environment, and cultivate entrepreneurship so that anyone can build a business that will solve any challenge to grow peace and prosperity. The latter is the next step, ensuring that everyone around the world has the same access to these opportunities regardless of where they come from, who their families are, or what their circumstances are.
If the Facebook shares total $45 billion, and they give away 99% of them, that will leave them with the non-paltry sum of $450 million worth of shares (did I do the math right? It’s hard to count all those zeros). They’re people with relatively simple tastes (that’s not sarcasm; it’s true), so that 450 mill should do them just fine. In addition, it’s not their entire wealth, the giveaway won’t happen overnight (they will be creating a limited liability company), and the assets they retain can continue to grow.
As for Zuckerberg’s goals, good luck with that. On a global scale, $45 billion really isn’t all that much. As an example, the US spends about five billion dollars each year on cancer research alone. That’s one country, one disease, one year, and no cure in sight (that’s not a knock on cancer researchers, either; it’s just an example of the magnitude and complexity of the task).
Fighting disease and helping struggling entrepreneurs by lending them money is a piece of cake, however, compared to Zuckerberg’s secondary goal—which is utopian, unachievable, and impossible to measure: “ensuring that everyone around the world has the same access to these opportunities regardless of where they come from, who their families are, or what their circumstances are.”
Although the goal is described in therms of equal access—a goal this country has probably come closer to realizing than any in the world—I very much doubt that’s what Zuckerberg and his wife ultimately mean. I think they actually mean what Thomas Sowell calls “cosmic justice.” Sowell wrote a brilliant book on the subject in 1999 (revised in 2002) called The Quest for Cosmic Justice; I recommend it highly. In it, Sowell explains why humans continue to yearn for cosmic justice (equality of outcome rather than merely of opportunity) even though it is not only unobtainable, but the attempt to achieve it is destructive of liberty and often makes things worse in terms of actual equality.
But let’s stick with Zuckerberg’s own words and not imagine he means what I think he may mean. To achieve any sort of meaningful equality of opportunity in other countries would require changing most of the governments and societies around the world, because that’s the reason for the lack of it. Is Zuckerberg a neocon, desirous of spreading the American system of democracy/republicanism, combined with human rights and liberty guarantees, all around the world? I doubt he would see it in those terms, but that’s probably what would be required to spread equality of opportunity, and there’s probably no amount of money that could do that effectively.
I congratulate Zuckerberg and Chan on the birth of their daughter. I assume that their efforts to fight disease and to help struggling entrepreneurs around the world will be fruitful and helpful to some people. They won’t transform the world, but what does? And I have little doubt that Zuckerberg, Chan, and their offspring will remain mega-rich and very comfortable, and I don’t begrudge them that in the least.
Baby girl’s name is Max. Why?
The boy named Sue problem is coming.
Meanies.
Since Zuckerberg wasted millions in Newark, NJ, I am assuming he will do the same in other areas as well. Giving money to ‘foundations’ and ‘non-profit groups’ is a bad idea. So much better to give directly.
For example, why not contact the food banks in all small towns across American and give them $100K each? Or give an endowment to smaller universities and colleges that don’t have the alumni backing of Harvard or Yale and have them use it for scholarships for middle class families? Or stop in a bunch of different walmarts across the U.S. and pay off everyone’s Christmas layaway?
I just see so many opportunities to give in this country, and these billionaires decide to spend it in really dumb ways. If I had that money, I would be much more directly involved with the giving. I wouldn’t hand it over to a ‘foundation’ that promises ‘change’ in education or obesity or what have you. I would go to small churches and community groups that are actually doing things in this country with small amounts of money from local families who donate. Those are the places that actually make a difference.
First, you may be sure that over the years the Zuckerberg fortune is only partially based on Facebook shares. He has diversified long ago. His retained fortune will be well into the multiple billions.
Second, columnist David Warren has this reaction to the “gift:”
“Latest from the death cult
Sad news from San Francisco, today. It seems Mark Zuckerberg, who has by age thirty or so amassed a fortune of some forty-five billion (thousand million) electronic dollars with his “Facebook” obscenity, intends to loose “99 percent” of this holding. He and his paediatrician wife, Priscilla Chan, announced this in the most sick-making, sentimental way they could think of: framing it as a letter to their (presumably illiterate) newborn daughter. Their huge fortune is now earmarked (if they are telling the truth) to “advancing human potential and promoting equality” – i.e. the usual smug liberal and progressive stodge. I stagger to think of the harm so much money may do.”
http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/2015/12/01/latest-from-the-death-culture/
vanderleun:
Yes. As I wrote: “it’s not their entire wealth.”
As far as the odd vehicle they chose to announce it, I decided not to get into that aspect because the post was already long enough and I also figured I’d cut them some slack on the birth of their first child.
Zuckerberg’s gift is a good start for ALL the liberals to put “their money” where their mouth is.
Thing is most of these new billionaires from silicon valley could give away most of their wealth, start all over and make as much if not more than they gave away.
They will never hurt for money.
Think of this. Say Zuckerberg keeps 500 million. He could spend $1,000 a day for what … 166 years or so and still give the 45 bil away.
I commend the young man and his wife but he, his wife, his child and their children are never going to hurt for anything.
Preface: it’s their money to do with as they wish.
That said an inherent contradiction is revealed by;
“The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative focuses on two areas: advancing human potential and promoting equality.
Zuckerberg explained that he wants to… cultivate entrepreneurship so that anyone can build a business that will solve any challenge to grow peace and prosperity.”
Ah the cognitive dysfunctions that emerge from false, unexamined premises.
A non-profit that ‘cultivates entrepreneurship’ is unavoidably rewarding merit, which leads to inequality… as merit and enterprise are not equally blessed upon all.
Attempts to avoid that unintended consequence by setting politically correct preconditions upon those entrepreneurs that the non-profit judges to be worthy of ‘cultivation’… ensures a still-born enterprise.
Finally, “equality of opportunity” is a myth. In that while a ‘level playing field’ is semi-achievable, “equality of opportunity” is determined by the liberal/left to be “equality” of results which is unachievable.
Thus the left is reduced by reality to an after the fact corrective; “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need”. Which is theft, justified by intellectual dishonesty.
Over time those who produce, being made to give to those who lay idle, produce less and less, in reaction, the left becomes ever more tyrannical.
By the law of unintended consequences, the Zuckerberg’s are thus doomed to be fascism’s friend.
Mark Zuckerberg used 2,234 words to describe the things he values most in the world. None of those words was “freedom.”
That’s the beginning of an article up at Forbes that’s worth a read.
Clean up the environment?
Here in the US or China?
We are plenty clean here. Spend it in China. We can’t afford to be cleaner.
Ann:
That Forbes article is interesting.
He doesn’t use the word “liberty,” either, and I think it’s an even better word.
My guess is that Zuckerberg is unaware of the importance of liberty to achievement. He’s like a fish who swims in water and needs it to live, but is unaware of what it is or what its absence would mean.
Geoffrey Britain:
Have you ever read the Cosmic Justice book by Sowell that I linked to? It basically goes into many of those points, and more, about the illusion of “equality” and its consequences. That’s why I linked to it.
Well, I am sure that their hearts are in the right place. Let us hope that some of their money ends up there as well. If nothing else, it should increase employment at various foundations and charities.
Like others, I do wonder at the seeming naivete of obviously intelligent people. I wonder if they wrote those goals themselves, or hired professional goal writers to do so?
Even though I would never post personal information myself (except possibly anonymously in a blog forum); I enjoy face book to the extent that my daughters and grandchildren post their doings, and pictures,
for me to access. On the other hand, they could communicate personally and directly. I really do not understand why it is a multi-billion $$ business.
Sort of reminded me of the parable of the Pharisee who announced in public what a wonderful person he was. He had a very high opinion of himself, and believed he was righteous.
Very apt analogy citing fish and water, Neo.
Social signaling on steroids! He’s so cool for saying he’s going to do this it makes me want to groom the lice out of his fur…
Such a waste. He’s following in the footsteps of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Gates has given away a ton of money. Have we heard about any big changes in health, education, African poverty, etc. where he has donated so much money? Nope.
Contrast that with his fellow Microsoft founder, Paul Allen. Allen has given some money to charity, but he has continued to invest his money in business ventures that create jobs. Has he gotten richer? Yep, but he has done much more of value with his riches than the “philanthropists.”
If at age 30, I had become remarkably wealthy, I suppose I would be arrogant enough to believe I could create a utopia with those riches. At 30 I had little experience of where wealth comes from and how it is created. Nor did I understand that not everyone is suited to be his own boss and own a business. The vast majority of us are worker bees by nature. And that is a good thing. Someone has to do the work to execute the vision of entrepreneurs. As I understand it, Zuckerberg prefers worker bees with H-1B visas. Isn’t that charitable of him? Robbing Americans of good paying jobs to further enrich himself. (Yeah, I know that point isn’t totally proven by data, but there is substantial anecdotal evidence.)
Zuckerberg is obviously smart. Maybe he will wise up over time and realize how little of value the big foundations and NGOs create.
Its his money and he can exercise his ‘white privilege’ in the manner of his choosing. Scam artists around the globe applaud his generosity.
Gates has given away a ton of money. Have we heard about any big changes in health, education, African poverty, etc. where he has donated so much money?
The Gates Foundation has been focusing on something that would make a huge difference in combating disease in the developing world — toilets. It’s also made a big contribution to eradicating malaria and polio. I wouldn’t consider any of that wasted effort.
I believe i read that they’d be giving the money to their foundation, and then ‘investing’ the money from there. So they will remain in control of it for some time.
Ann – I wonder how the toilets will work in the mid to long term. You hear of all the wells being built by Christian groups, and it seems we never hear of the continued success.
If it were me, and I was going to do something other than the smaller things such as pay off wal-mart bills, and other things that K-E suggests, I would use the money to bolster small markets and small businesses in the developing world. This would help prevent malnutrition. Of course, corruption would cause issues with my attempts, but still…
K-E,
I am with you completely. You don’t have to take care of someone for the whole of their life. You have to show the some possibilties to improve it and give them a start. Their satisfaction with their accomplishments will take over from there. And all of this is best accomplished when the person giving knows the recipient and can judge how he or she responds. This means smaller projects work best.
Furthermore, when the recipient has figured out what has worked for him, he will pass that on to others.
I would much rather fund some cooking classes for people who use a food bank or an after-school project that would show boys how to “gentrify” their own homes. Creating another agency with loads of administrators is not my idea of really helping.
Oldflyer, 2:46 pm — “Well, I am sure that their hearts are in the right place. Let us hope that some of their money ends up there as well. If nothing else, it should increase employment at various foundations and charities.”
. . . many/most/all? of which inevitably end up as cash cows for leftish causes, and thus have at least as much potential for do-gooder mischief-making as for genuine good.
Ann: “The Gates Foundation has been focusing on something that would make a huge difference in combating disease in the developing world – toilets. It’s also made a big contribution to eradicating malaria and polio. I wouldn’t consider any of that wasted effort.”
Most of those things are like throwing paper money into a fire. It makes the fire burn better for a while. None of it lasts. Have you been to Africa? NGOs, foreign aid, Christian charities, Bono, Gates, and many others are not making much of a difference. Until they are able to govern themselves with something other than kleptocracies and dictatorships, nothing the West does for them will have lasting effects. I love Africa and the African people. It breaks my heart to see how aid from the West cripples them and allows their corrupt governments to stay in power. In the meantime the aid is helping people to stay alive longer and to procreate more children than their economies can support….. without more aid from the West.
Malaria and bed nets? Don’t make me laugh. The people sell the nets to others who use them for fishing, or bags to carry things. Malaria can be conquered cheaply – DDT. But the liberals won’t allow it.
Toilets? A good thing as long as the water supply and the sewers continue to work. The infrastructure in Africa (left behind by the Brits, Germans, French, etc.) is crumbling and almost never repaired. What will happen after the Gates’ toilets are installed? When they break down it will be easier to dig a ditch and put the waste in that.
Polio? Bravo. That’s a good thing and maybe the only thing of real value that Gates has done.
Life has made me a skeptic. I do not doubt the motives of the Zuckerbergs/Gates, etc. I am sure they are sincere. Yet, I think their money would be better spent at food banks and crisis centers in the USA, and international organizations like Heifer who have proven track records.
Toilets? A good thing as long as the water supply and the sewers continue to work. The infrastructure in Africa (left behind by the Brits, Germans, French, etc.) is crumbling and almost never repaired. What will happen after the Gates’ toilets are installed? When they break down it will be easier to dig a ditch and put the waste in that.
At that Gates Foundation link I provided above:
“The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Water, Sanitation & Hygiene program focuses on developing innovative approaches and technologies that can lead to radical and sustainable improvements in sanitation in the developing world.
This requires understanding issues across the entire sanitation service chain, including waste containment (toilets), emptying (of pits and septic tanks), transportation (to sewage treatment facilities), waste treatment, and disposal/reuse.
Because the innovations we support can be most immediately valuable in densely populated areas, our main focus is on urban sanitation. Our priorities include developing non-sewered sanitation approaches, identifying new delivery models, and advocating for public policies that support improved sanitation in densely populated areas.
Ultimately, better sanitation will be a key to ensuring healthy, sustainable cities in the developing world, and the approaches that prove successful can be adapted and extended to rural communities.
We support many clean water and hygiene projects that have and will deliver significant results, but sanitation is our top priority because we have identified it as a neglected area in which we can spur significant change.
Most of our sanitation projects are in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, where the burden of inadequate sanitation is greatest.”
“The Gates Foundation has been focusing on something that would make a huge difference in combating disease in the developing world – toilets. It’s also made a big contribution to eradicating malaria and polio. I wouldn’t consider any of that wasted effort.” Ann
Sadly, even tragically it is mostly wasted. As for why? J.J. nails it; “NGOs, foreign aid, Christian charities, Bono, Gates, and many others are not making much of a difference. Until they are able to govern themselves with something other than kleptocracies and dictatorships, nothing the West does for them will have lasting effects. I love Africa and the African people. It breaks my heart to see how aid from the West cripples them and allows their corrupt governments to stay in power. In the meantime the aid is helping people to stay alive longer and to procreate more children than their economies can support….. without more aid from the West.”
“You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.”
Africa’s problem Ann is tribal and cultural. Until Africa transcends its tribal mentality and embraces the cultural values that lead to socio-economic success, it will continue to be a basket case.
Malaria can be conquered cheaply — DDT. But the liberals won’t allow it.
WHO gave approval to use DDT again in 2007.
Zambia uses it in its anti-malaria program, which is heavily financed by the Gates Foundation.
The problem with charity, even here (think the united way), is that humans are often corrupt and draw heavy salaries for ‘doing good’. In the 3rd world its just more open and easily identified. People everywhere have the responsibility to take control of their own lives. Often in the 3rd world that involves killing, and perhaps dying in the attempt, the masters who enrich themselves in a thoroughly corrupt system. Human nature contains the beautiful and the vilest motivations. Witness chicago.
Ann, the WHO approval is still controversial and applies only to indoor use. Mosquito control works best when applied to standing pools of water outdoors.
Here’s a quote from May 4, 2009 Scientific American:
“A panel of scientists recommended today that the spraying of DDT in malaria-plagued Africa and Asia should be greatly reduced because people are exposed in their homes to high levels that may cause serious health effects.
The scientists from the United States and South Africa said the insecticide, banned decades ago in most of the world, should only be used as a last resort in combating malaria.
The stance of the panel, led by a University of California epidemiologist, is likely to be controversial with public health officials. Use of DDT to fight malaria has been increasing since it was endorsed in 2006 by the World Health Organization and the President’s Malaria Initiative, a U.S. aid program launched by former President Bush.
In many African countries, as well as India and North Korea, the pesticide is sprayed inside homes and buildings to kill mosquitoes that carry malaria.
Malaria is one of the world’s most deadly diseases, each year killing about 880,000 people, mostly children in sub-Saharan Africa, according to the World Health Organization.
The 15 environmental health experts, who reviewed almost 500 health studies, concluded that DDT “should be used with caution, only when needed, and when no other effective, safe and affordable alternatives are locally available.”
(Yes, 880.000 deaths a year are less important than “serious health effects of using DDT. 🙁 )
So, who’s right? In spite of the effectiveness and safety of DDT, some people (mostly Green Weenies) are determined to keep people from using it.
Gates’ money has paid for the development of a machine built right here in my local area that can process human waste into potable water. A magnificent development. It will be installed in African cities and towns where there is access to reliable power to operate them. Even better, the development company has invented a way to operate and troubleshoot them from their headquarters here. They are expensive, but will help more people stay healthy, which will allow them to produce more children who can’t be cared for unless the West steps up its aid.
There are several books about the problems of aid in Africa. Probably one of the best is “Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa,” by Dambisa Moyo. Or there is “Dark Star Safari” by Paul Theroux. Bill Gates needs to read both of them.
Government reform is what they need before aid will have any lasting effects.
WHO, UN, IMF, CNN, NYT, etc. says ______. What more do you need to know?
Cancer research has long devolved into an annuity for biologists, and such.
I’m reminded of the discovery that cured most ulcers.
It terminated MANY promising ‘medical’ careers — of being totally ineffectual — yet caring.
What’s happening is that the same dead ends are re-pursued again and again.
So the entire macro-enterprise is merely one of the public paying so that technicians can play in the bio-lab.
When real scientists — physics and chemistry professors look on over and in… they are stunned at the obtuseness.