|
|
Post by btexpress on Jan 24, 2020 13:54:57 GMT
Well, my $32 is going to a Bach/Vivaldi concert on Feb. 8.
Damn noble of me.
|
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Jan 24, 2020 14:37:05 GMT
And don’t forget consumers. For-profit entities create goods (or provide services) people want at a price they’re willing to pay—competition encouraging them to do so as cheaply and efficiently as possible. That provides innumerable benefits to society. There’s nothing inherently “better“ about doing something without seeking profit—indeed, in some circumstances that may be actively detrimental to society by encouraging inefficient allocation of resources. (That’s not to say there aren’t plenty of “bad” companies or “good” charities, but rather that there’s nothing inherent about their forms that makes one better than the other.) And to put a finer point on this: I like indie rock. Other people like (or want people to think they like) classical music. Is there something more noble about the fact those people “donate” to the orchestra than that I spend my ducats to support the artists I like? (And, along similar lines, is there something more noble about those administrators and musicians who work for the “non-profit” orchestra than those managers and artists trying grind out a living working for profit?) There have been lots of articles written by lefties bemoaning the fact that folks have been donating to the “wrong” organization — religious institutions chief among them, but also groups like the philharmonic, ballet and opera that appeal mostly to the rich. Liberals would prefer that money come to the federal government, where they can control it, and would like to end the tax deduction for charitable donations and take away the tax exempt status of religious institutions. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorquant on Jan 24, 2020 14:44:24 GMT
And, it goes to what doctorquant mentioned earlier. Let's say a billionaire sells everything, keeping a little for himself to live on, and gives away the rest to charity. Not quite the thing I was alluding to. The great bulk of Gates' wealth is on paper, and a lot of its value reflects the appreciation (in price) of that paper. But until that paper is sold, it's sort of an economic non-entity: Not one iota of real wealth (land, labor, materials, etc.) is connected to it. We're all the richer so long as Gates is "hoarding" it, since his doing so doesn't draw down the stock of real wealth available to the rest of us. |
|
|
|
Post by Da Man on Jan 24, 2020 14:59:37 GMT
And, it goes to what doctorquant mentioned earlier. Let's say a billionaire sells everything, keeping a little for himself to live on, and gives away the rest to charity. Not quite the thing I was alluding to. The great bulk of Gates' wealth is on paper, and a lot of its value reflects the appreciation (in price) of that paper. But until that paper is sold, it's sort of an economic non-entity: Not one iota of real wealth (land, labor, materials, etc.) is connected to it. We're all the richer so long as Gates is "hoarding" it, since his doing so doesn't draw down the stock of real wealth available to the rest of us. That's what I was getting at when I asked speedtchr2 if Gates HAS $110 billion or IS WORTH $110 billion. You want him to write checks for $100 billion of that? How much of that $110 billion do you think is cash on hand (or similarly liquid assets)? I'm assuming much of that net worth is in Microsoft stock. If he sells the majority of it, he loses control of his company, right? |
|
|
|
Post by lcjjdnh on Jan 24, 2020 15:38:39 GMT
And to put a finer point on this: I like indie rock. Other people like (or want people to think they like) classical music. Is there something more noble about the fact those people “donate” to the orchestra than that I spend my ducats to support the artists I like? (And, along similar lines, is there something more noble about those administrators and musicians who work for the “non-profit” orchestra than those managers and artists trying grind out a living working for profit?) There have been lots of articles written by lefties bemoaning the fact that folks have been donating to the “wrong” organization — religious institutions chief among them, but also groups like the philharmonic, ballet and opera that appeal mostly to the rich. Liberals would prefer that money come to the federal government, where they can control it, and would like to end the tax deduction for charitable donations and take away the tax exempt status of religious institutions. Some conservatives would like to end the tax deduction, too, to be fair. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 15:54:32 GMT
Not quite the thing I was alluding to. The great bulk of Gates' wealth is on paper, and a lot of its value reflects the appreciation (in price) of that paper. But until that paper is sold, it's sort of an economic non-entity: Not one iota of real wealth (land, labor, materials, etc.) is connected to it. We're all the richer so long as Gates is "hoarding" it, since his doing so doesn't draw down the stock of real wealth available to the rest of us. That's what I was getting at when I asked speedtchr2 if Gates HAS $110 billion or IS WORTH $110 billion. You want him to write checks for $100 billion of that? How much of that $110 billion do you think is cash on hand (or similarly liquid assets)? I'm assuming much of that net worth is in Microsoft stock. If he sells the majority of it, he loses control of his company, right? Massive tax avoidance scheme   |
|
|
|
Post by doctorquant on Jan 24, 2020 17:14:53 GMT
Not quite the thing I was alluding to. The great bulk of Gates' wealth is on paper, and a lot of its value reflects the appreciation (in price) of that paper. But until that paper is sold, it's sort of an economic non-entity: Not one iota of real wealth (land, labor, materials, etc.) is connected to it. We're all the richer so long as Gates is "hoarding" it, since his doing so doesn't draw down the stock of real wealth available to the rest of us. That's what I was getting at when I asked speedtchr2 if Gates HAS $110 billion or IS WORTH $110 billion. You want him to write checks for $100 billion of that? How much of that $110 billion do you think is cash on hand (or similarly liquid assets)? I'm assuming much of that net worth is in Microsoft stock. If he sells the majority of it, he loses control of his company, right? I think roughly 20% of Gates' wealth is in Microsoft stock (he owns 300M+ shares). But he is not close to being the majority stakeholder ... there are 7.5B+ shares outstanding. The Vanguard Group is the largest shareholder, but its holding is only about 8% of the total outstanding. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Jan 24, 2020 21:19:47 GMT
Well, my $32 is going to a Bach/Vivaldi concert on Feb. 8. Damn noble of me. That's an expensive ticket for a cover band. |
|
|
|
Post by jaketaylor on Jan 24, 2020 21:20:26 GMT
Guess you've never seen the Fab Faux.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 21:46:49 GMT
Best cover band name:  |
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Jan 24, 2020 21:48:08 GMT
Best cover band name: Better than Mini Kiss? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 22:53:05 GMT
I saw Mini Kiss one time. They lip-synched, and pretend-played their instruments.
Fraudulent little fucks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 23:33:05 GMT
Best cover band name: this is awesome and I will be looking them up and listening. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2020 0:43:18 GMT
"Whatchu talkin' about, Willis?"
|
|
|
|
Post by jaketaylor on Jan 25, 2020 3:15:04 GMT
The Fab Faux is pretty awesome. It's full of guys who were in house bands for various late night shows, largely Conan and Letterman. They don't play dress up, they are just amazing musicians who try to match the sound of the albums as close as they can in a live show.
Tickets are pricey, luckily my mother-in-law has bought them for the whole family on a couple of occasions.
|
|
:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-919624-1312618814.jpeg.jpg)
