I don't think this really makes sense. Capitalism isn't a zero sum game for humanity. He created Paypal, which, generally speaking, provided a net value to society. That was his work, and he was one of the 0.0001% to be mega successful with it. Also, the argument "he has savings which is depriving other of income" is neither here nor there when the article is about a Roth IRA vs, presumably, a normal brokerage account with capital gains tax. At the end of the day, we're going to end up arguing about fundamental moral values like how rich should rich people be allowed to be.
It helped increase net commerce on the internet. We also know that this increase in commerce contributes to climate change.
The reality is we can't escape the second law of thermodynamics. So whenever we do anything of 'value' we must necessarily produce waste.
To actually make the statement 'provided net value to society' you have to prove that the waste paypal produced was worth it.
Can you prove that?
We have a heatwave now in the PNW that is exasperated because of global warming. What if the waste we produced (in the form of CO2, and other heat trapping gasses which paypal most certainly increased) isn't worth it? What if we threaten our existence on this planet or organized human life?
So unless you did the math, it's just magical thinking that paypal produced net value.
Second law of thermodynamics? That's a good one. I really can't be bothered to be drawn into a conversation on the pros and cons of capitalism and human progress (especially if a heatwave is the argument you're running with), sorry
I'm confused, are you denying any work (valuable or not) doesn't produce waste? Or does capitalism magically work outside of physics?
Even without CO2, at the 2% annual growth target rate, the amount of energy humans would output as waste into the environment would literally boil the oceans in a couple hundred years.
If there is no growth, is capitalism still not a zero sum game?
Comments
I don't think this really makes sense. Capitalism isn't a zero sum game for humanity. He created Paypal, which, generally speaking, provided a net value to society. That was his work, and he was one of the 0.0001% to be mega successful with it. Also, the argument "he has savings which is depriving other of income" is neither here nor there when the article is about a Roth IRA vs, presumably, a normal brokerage account with capital gains tax. At the end of the day, we're going to end up arguing about fundamental moral values like how rich should rich people be allowed to be.
It helped increase net commerce on the internet. We also know that this increase in commerce contributes to climate change.
The reality is we can't escape the second law of thermodynamics. So whenever we do anything of 'value' we must necessarily produce waste.
To actually make the statement 'provided net value to society' you have to prove that the waste paypal produced was worth it.
Can you prove that?
We have a heatwave now in the PNW that is exasperated because of global warming. What if the waste we produced (in the form of CO2, and other heat trapping gasses which paypal most certainly increased) isn't worth it? What if we threaten our existence on this planet or organized human life?
So unless you did the math, it's just magical thinking that paypal produced net value.
Second law of thermodynamics? That's a good one. I really can't be bothered to be drawn into a conversation on the pros and cons of capitalism and human progress (especially if a heatwave is the argument you're running with), sorry
Forget about the rest of what that user asked, I'm still curious if you can actually prove PayPal has had a net value to society writ large.
I'm confused, are you denying any work (valuable or not) doesn't produce waste? Or does capitalism magically work outside of physics?
Even without CO2, at the 2% annual growth target rate, the amount of energy humans would output as waste into the environment would literally boil the oceans in a couple hundred years.
If there is no growth, is capitalism still not a zero sum game?
If he lives 30 years past IRA checkout time, that's 30 * 365 = 10950 days. $5B / 10950 is $456,621. Spending 456k a day seems like hard work.
MacKenzie Scott Gave Away $6 Billion Last Year. It's Not As Easy As It Sounds
https://time.com/6050873/mackenzie-scott-profile/