Slashdot Mirror


Inside Dean Kamen's Seceded Island of Geekery

mattnyc99 writes "The new issue of Esquire has a long, in-depth, intricate profile of Dean Kamen and his quest to invent a better world. Earlier this month, we discussed Kamen's Sterling-electric car, but this piece goes into much more detail about how that engine works — he got the original idea from the upmodded Henry Ford artifact in the basement of his insane island lab — and about how his inventions often go overlooked, including the Slingshot water purifier that Stephen Colbert made famous but that no one has actually bought yet. Quoting: 'To get the Slingshot to the 20 percent of the world that doesn't have electricity, Kamen came up with the idea of splitting it in half. Leaving the Stirling aside, he would try to develop a market for his distiller in parts of the developing world that have electricity but not reliable clean water. "There are five hundred thousand little stores in Mexico," he says. "If we can put one of these in 10 percent of them, that's enough to put it in production." That may be the killer app for the distiller.' So, is this guy all hype with overpriced devices, or is time for someone to take his genius (Segway aside) to the mass market?"

187 comments

  1. question by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Funny

    has he managed to solve the pickle matrix in his hamburger earmuffs yet?

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:question by andrikos · · Score: 1

      He cannot even try!
      He is afraid that he will infringe this patent!

    2. Re:question by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Glaven!

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
  2. Something completely different.. by cayenne8 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    What the hell happened to my USER page?

    It has weird new formatting...post my last post in big text at the top of the screen? That can't be good for work usage...

    :)

    I cannot find a way to change it back to the simple mode of just a few minutes ago....anyone?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:Something completely different.. by Yvan256 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I have no idea, it's like someone at Slashdot figured out CSS a few weeks ago and keeps messing with everything since then.

      How about AT LEAST display the "your comments" tab by default instead of the "firehose" tab?

    2. Re:Something completely different.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's not just you, I suspect someone is playing with the stylesheets.

    3. Re:Something completely different.. by cayenne8 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      "How about AT LEAST display the "your comments" tab by default instead of the "firehose" tab?"

      I'll second that one !! But really...if you're gonna screw around with the CSS...at least give the option in the preferences section to turn it off and back to 'normal'.

      Just more crap to mess up on an older laptop. I can't even view the idle pages...they are horrible looking on my firefox on an old mac....and when you try to post...the window to type in is about 1 inch wide...

      I can't even do the firehose anymore...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:Something completely different.. by Yvan256 · · Score: 1, Informative

      FYI, Firehose also looks like crap when using Safari 3 on Mac OS X on a 1280x1024 display, so the problem isn't your laptop nor Firefox.

    5. Re:Something completely different.. by prgrmr · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Myspace and Livejournal both recently reformatted their profile pages, so apparently the Powers That Be at Slashdot felt compelled to participate in a little Monkey see, Monkey do.

    6. Re:Something completely different.. by techno-vampire · · Score: 2, Funny
      I can't even view the idle pages

      Personally, I consider that a feature, not a bug.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    7. Re:Something completely different.. by Loibisch · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Yes, this is complete and utter bullshit. I thought it was greasemonkey acting up, but then I disabled it and wham, still looks ugly like hell. Great, now my user control panel looks like the ugly-ass idle pages.

    8. Re:Something completely different.. by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it's like someone at Slashdot figured out CSS a few weeks ago and keeps messing with everything since then.

      The problem seem to be that they haven't figured out CSS...if they had figured it out, these pages would be usable and non-ugly.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    9. Re:Something completely different.. by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You've unwittingly stumbled upon Idle's plan to take over slashdot... soon ALL of slashdot will look like Idle! Muahahaha!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    10. Re:Something completely different.. by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      "What the hell happened to my USER page?

      It has weird new formatting...post my last post in big text at the top of the screen? That can't be good for work usage...

      :)

      I cannot find a way to change it back to the simple mode of just a few minutes ago....anyone?"

      Ok...it is offtopic...but, how else will you find out what's going on on Slashdot when they change stuff like this? Modding topics like this to oblivion don't help when you're trying to get info out or about happenings within the forum...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    11. Re:Something completely different.. by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Go here to sign the petition.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    12. Re:Something completely different.. by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Truly, this is a two-bag arm-chewingly ugly development. I really don't like it.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    13. Re:Something completely different.. by beav007 · · Score: 1

      AAAaaaahhhh!

      *eee* *eee* *eee* *eee*...

    14. Re:Something completely different.. by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

      What the hell happened to my USER page? It has weird new formatting...post my last post in big text at the top of the screen? That can't be good for work usage...

      Seconded. WTF? The only thing I use my user page for is to get a quick glimpse of what I've posted, if there's any replies I should take care of, and if I scored a +5 anywhere (or a -1 as I'm sure this post will get). If I wanted to Firehose, I'd find the damn marble on my own.

      And using the idle css for every page-- well, up yours, too, Slashdot.

  3. Or... by Zordak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So is this guy all hype with overpriced devices, or is time for someone to take his genius (Segway aside) to the mass market?

    Or is he, as the title implies but the summary fails to make clear, a guy who has made tons of money selling stuff he's invented since the 80s, and has made enough money that he bought his own private island (with its own "navy" and "air force")and then half-jokingly seceded from the United States something like 20 years ago.

    --

    Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    1. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nice segue.

    2. Re:Or... by fprintf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I grew up sailing in Fisher's Island Sound, off the coast of Connecticut. We sailed by North Dumpling hundreds of times over the years. At some point in the 80s we noticed a lot more activity on the island than we had seen before, and this must be the point that Dean bought it. Suddenly there was a nice helicopter atop the island, and a grey amphibious landing craft always on the beach. We *never* saw anyone outside, certainly not any hot young things sunning themselves on the upper deck... this guy is apparently not James Bond, despite his penchant for bondian-type toys.

      Anyway, it is a very cool spread. Personally I think anyone that owns an island like that should be able to seceed from the union, providing he pays for the protection afforded by the Groton sub base and can afford the duties/tariffs on any exports from CT! :-)

      --
      This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    3. Re:Or... by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2, Funny

      We *never* saw anyone outside

      It must be run by Oompa Loompa's

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
  4. Sterling != Stirling by MikeV · · Score: 5, Informative

    C'mon folks, if you're gonna pretend to be geeks, at least get it right - it's Stirling technology, not Sterling.

    1. Re:Sterling != Stirling by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      It will be a Sterling idea once he successfully monetized the Stirling engine. Pardon, could not resist it, wot. H.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    2. Re:Sterling != Stirling by kwantar · · Score: 1

      Rod would be pleased you cleared that up.

      --
      If it were anything else...
  5. Kamen needs to invent a marketing machine by DustyCase · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are a lot of great R&D guys out there who have no idea how to get their product into the consumer's hands. Kamen started out making medical equipment (portable dialysis IIRC), and the Segway is the little brother of one of the best mobility devices (wheelchairs) in existence. But his track record is horrible when it comes to mass market devices. OTOH, you have the iPod, which is a very functional and stylish, yet underperforming, piece of technology, and the sell like mad. If he wants to turn the trend around he needs to spend some of that mountain of cash on a top shelf PR and Marketing firm, as opposed to the stunt publicity that "announced" the Segway.

    1. Re:Kamen needs to invent a marketing machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are very few inventors who have had the incredible mass market exposure that Kamen has enjoyed over the last ten years.

      If his inventions during this interval have met with less than stellar success, it is certainly NOT because they were sheltered away.

      They are super cool, but they just miss the market.

    2. Re:Kamen needs to invent a marketing machine by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Kamen is far from poor, and his products are quite popular in the markets he targets.

      The Segway isn't that popular, but I don't really see that as a problem: it's quite nifty for the people it would help, Segway polo looks fun, but for most people it's simply not worth the cost of owning it and the hassle of moving it around when you're not using it.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:Kamen needs to invent a marketing machine by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what Steve Jobs said about the Segway before it came out.

    4. Re:Kamen needs to invent a marketing machine by AgentSmith · · Score: 1


      There are very few inventors who have had the incredible mass market exposure that Kamen has enjoyed over the last ten years.

      If his inventions during this interval have met with less than stellar success, it is certainly NOT because they were sheltered away.

      They are super cool, but they just miss the market.

      In my very humble opinion, this is one of Kamen's fatal flaws.

      I've met the man personally and saw him speak at the local university where I work. Actually one of his earlier medical inventions
      helped my son through his premie time in a hospital NICU.

      In the informal talk/Q&A he gave this is what I get. Of course he is a hardcore do-it-yourself uber geek. You got a problem? He will solve it. He has more motivation, energy and brainpower in his pinky that I will ever have in my entire being.

      That being said he has the uncanny ability and charisma to surround himself with extremely intelligent people. He values education very highly regardless of how you obtain it. He doesn't feel that governments or organizations can solve problems. Just go out and do it. Like all geniuses, he has a problem dealing with or considering people who are not smart. If you are not smart I don't think he wants to deal with you aside from solving your problem. He's moving and shaking so much in the limelight I don't think he can see and apply things for the average person. In some aspect this is good otherwise he would not have the foresight to invent these devices. He started inventing medical devices. Health insured people can benefit from these devices, since the insurance foots the bill. Other inventions sometimes result in high costs that can't reach the average person to make their life better.

      In the Q&A the topic of invention cost didn't really come up. On slashdot we decry business managers and PHBs, but they sometimes do help in lowering a product's cost that people can actually buy.

      Now the Kamen groupies can proceed in verbally lynching me or burning me in effigy.

  6. Genius? by retech · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Next time you need kidney dialysis you won't need to question his genius.

    And kudos to him for seceding from the union!

    1. Re:Genius? by decalod85 · · Score: 1

      And kudos to him for seceding from the union!

      Yes, it is quite an apt move. Ask South Carolina how that worked out for them...

    2. Re:Genius? by JanneM · · Score: 1

      "Next time you need kidney dialysis you won't need to question his genius. "

      Why? He's not the inventor. Nils Alwall made the first useful, effective dialysis machine, based on earlier experimental work from Kolff and others. Other people improved it further since then. Kamen apparently made a more portable version is all. You want to thank anybody, thank those who actually made dialysis possible.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
  7. Better water purification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, the best new water purification device comes from Seldon Technology. It uses carbon nanotubes and doesn't need electricity.

    1. Re:Better water purification by Tastecicles · · Score: 4, Interesting

      there's a survival kit device that is basically a straw with a filter laminate in it - the claim is that you can stick the end of this thing in raw sewage, suck on it and get a drink of pure water. Not something I'd try myself for gits and shiggles, but I have half a dozen of these in my "End of Civilisation" bag so if it does come down to it, I'm not going thirsty. Caveat: it doesn't filter out radioactive particulates, so sticking it in a river estuary after a nuclear strike would be a no-no.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    2. Re:Better water purification by snspdaarf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Have you ever tried one of these straws? Even with clean water, you will collapse your asshole trying to suck anything through them. I used to think they were a slick idea, until I tried one.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    3. Re:Better water purification by Tastecicles · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've not actually cracked one of these yet (saving them for a real emergency), but I do get the principle by which it works:

      first layer: particle filtration
      second layer: germ filtration
      third layer: chemical filtration

      is basically it. So, using common, all-garden kitchen equipment, and a glass tube out of a barometer, you can build a gravity-fed system using nothing more than a couple coffee filter papers or percolator mesh in a funnel for large particle filtration, a top layer of sand for smaller particles and large monocellular organisms (ie amoebae), crushed charcoal for general germ filtration and mix bed ion exchange resin (available from good camping stores and water treatment specialists; also electrodialysis membrane can be used but that makes life a little more complicated) for finishing and chemical purification. Such a basic system works, doesn't cost a mortgage to set up or operate and *requires no electricity*. Depending on how dirty the water is to begin with, you can reuse filters x number of times before you either have to replace the column substrates or occasionally you can backwash them using distilled water (providing you're anywhere near a source!) and use them again as if from new.

      Commercial water filters such as the Brita range uses only mix bed IER. You can tell the difference if you live in a hard water area as the filter substrate does in fact work to remove base metals (and chlorine!) from solution. I have a filter I bought from ASDA two years ago; it uses the same cartridge it came with, I've never seen the need to replace it as a backwash of distilled water once a month whether it needs it or not is all it takes to refresh the resin and have it working like new again.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    4. Re:Better water purification by IWood · · Score: 1

      That's the LifeStraw, created by Vestergaard Frandsen [http://www.vestergaard-frandsen.com/lifestraw.htm]. Pur's flocculant powder [http://www.purpurifierofwater.com/] is a better solution, particularly for water that's full of particulate contaminants. Kills everything, removes pollutants, and makes the water clear. The LifeStraw's great virtue is its minimal cost per gallon over the lifetime of the unit.

    5. Re:Better water purification by samkass · · Score: 1

      Caveat: it doesn't filter out radioactive particulates

      But it does filter out non-radioactive particulates? I assume there's simply a lower bound to the size of what it can filter and that suspended atoms are well below that size, but that "particulates" would be filtered out, whether they were dirt or little chunks of U-235.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    6. Re:Better water purification by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      that's the one. I'm goingto have a look into the flocculant powder thing as well, sounds interesting. Another thing I have in the kit which no discerning survivalist should be without is a pack of water purification tablets. Good for water which looks clear (but, you know, most bacteria aren't visible to the naked eye) because it kills everything then disperses.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    7. Re:Better water purification by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 5, Funny

      Uhm, trying putting the straw in your mouth instead :-)

    8. Re:Better water purification by c_forq · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What about reversing it? Like make a water tower above it funneling down to a spicket with a fitting for the tube in the end?

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    9. Re:Better water purification by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      there's a survival kit device that is basically a straw with a filter laminate in it - the claim is that you can stick the end of this thing in raw sewage, suck on it and get a drink of pure water.

      It's called the LifeStraw.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    10. Re:Better water purification by d12v10 · · Score: 1

      They don't filter bacteria or viruses either, and you'll rapidly chew up through the predicted lifetime if you attempt to filter large particles (like, say, dirt or very hard water). They're neat and novel devices, but not terribly practical.

    11. Re:Better water purification by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      "I've not actually cracked one of these yet (saving them for a real emergency)"

      Wise, wouldn't want to test things in a non-emergency situation after all.

    12. Re:Better water purification by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      What about reversing it? Like make a water tower above it funneling down to a spicket with a fitting for the tube in the end?

      Possibly. A better solution would be to use a larger filter, as Tastecicles described. Even with a high end filter like those sold by REI and others, I like to use a coffee filter as the first stage to get as much grit as possible out first. But, I still found the straws useless in real life.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    13. Re:Better water purification by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      Of course it was in my mouth. What do you think I was trying to do? Smuggle it into prison? :-)

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    14. Re:Better water purification by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

      Another thing I have in the kit which no discerning survivalist should be without is a pack of water purification tablets.

      Not many survivalists would waste pack space and weight on those tablets. Fire takes care of water purification and so much more. I would save the volume/weight of the tablets to pack wooden matches in a small water proof container affixed securely to my clothing.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    15. Re:Better water purification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      I thought that was a terrible idea too, until I used that theory with the morning after pill just to make sure it would work in case of a burst condom.

      20 minutes later I was chewing through bathroom towels like a moth doing bong hits just trying to staunch the bleeding as internal organs erupted from my anus. Yes, it confirmed that they would work, but I think in hind sight I would have rather risked the need for a coat hanger or a couple punches to the gut than go through that ordeal in the first place.

      To this day, my o-ring still just isn't the same.

    16. Re:Better water purification by HungSoLow · · Score: 2, Funny

      There's a goatse.cx joke looming in your post...

    17. Re:Better water purification by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      wouldn't you need a lot of sand for that to be safe? and the coffee filter seems a little pointless if you have something that can filter germs and bacteria beneath it. it's like putting a pasta strainer above a sieve. with conventional filters you would use a sediment filter to prevent clogging, but if you're using sand and charcoal as your primary filter rather than a microporous membrane you won't need to worry about clogging. though you'll need a lot of sand/charcoal.

      seems like a better solution is just to use:

      • a sediment filter like a piece of cloth that you can easily replace/clean to reuse the filter. you could use a coffee filter, but that wouldn't give any advantage over a more porous material, and it would greatly increase the filtration time.
      • activated (or impregnated) charcoal for filtering out organic molecules. silver impregnated charcoal also has an added antibacterial function, but it's probably not necessary with the next component.
      • a disposable micron filter--a 1 micron filter will remove cryptosporidium, which causes diarrhea and is one of the most common pathogens found in water. however, a micron filter rated for .20 micron or less is recommended. though since the smallest known bacteria measure about .3 micron, you can probably get by with a .22 micron filter, which is what's usually used for medical IV applications.
      • another layer of activated charcoal to capture remaining chemicals.
      • optional UV lamp to disinfect any microbes that manage to slip through

      however, even the best micron filter will not remove soluble pollutants like salt ions. so distillation is still the best way to have guaranteed safe drinking water. another option that is perhaps more portable is a Reverse Osmosis filter, which is what is most often used for drinking water filtration.

    18. Re:Better water purification by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      well, it takes care of germs if you boil it for long enough (3-5 minutes seems to be the majority consensus), but what about other (chemical) pollutants?

      you can probably get away with just boiling water most of the time when you're out camping in reasonably pristine wilderness. but if you go somewhere like China where there's severe industrial pollution, boiling the water won't do you much good. in those situations distillation would be required. or you could bring a reverse osmosis filter and activated charcoal with you, which can also remove most toxic solutes.

    19. Re:Better water purification by BForrester · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah... whoa. That's totally *not* what reverse osmosis means.

  8. Way to go Dean by symbolset · · Score: 1

    If you can get these devices distributed throughout Mexico you can crush their feeble electricity distribution infrastructure.

    Plan, through, think cunning.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:Way to go Dean by Abreu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, I am in Mexico and I can tell you that a lot of small businesses here consist on buying some midsized reverse osmosis/filtration/UV equipment and make money distributing 20 liter bottles of water in a given neighborhood.

      So yeah, a lot of those small stores are already "crushing our feeble electricity distribution infrastructure", so there wouldn't be too much of a difference there. Not to mention that it is a way-too-powerful union what's crushing the electricity distribution here, but I disgress...

      --
      No sig for the moment.
  9. Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by the_macman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...including the Slingshot water purifer that Stephen Colbert made famous but that no one has actually bought yet

    Unfortunately philanthropy won't ever take off unless it's profitable. Just an inherit part of human greed. Sad but true. We have MORE than enough food to feed the entire human population, yet people still starve to death.

    Case in point. For those of you who have seen Charlie Wilson's war, they end up giving millions of dollars in arms money to Afghanistan to repel the Russian invasion then when they ask for a million dollars to help rebuild the schools a US politician says, "Charlie, no one gives a shit about the schools."

    1. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by jfengel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Unfortunately philanthropy won't ever take off unless it's profitable.

      When it's profitable, they don't call it "philanthropy". They call it "business".

      There are plenty of important philanthropists out there, willing to spend money at a "loss" in financial terms. Most notably, Bill Gates is spending more money than the entire network of all of Slashdot's readers to try to cure malaria and other global development programs. Carnegie Mellon University is the result of a massive philanthropic donation.

      I'd say philanthropy has already taken off, despite not being profitable, because a lot of people think that there's more to life than profit. They have to start with the profit to make the money to donate, but they don't end there.

    2. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by SydShamino · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Unfortunately philanthropy won't ever take off unless it's profitable. Just an inherit part of human greed. Sad but true.

      That's one reason why we should bring back massive (i.e. 90%) inheritance taxes. We need to force rich aging people to recognize their own finality. They can then choose four options:

      1) Pass on the money while they still live, giving gifts to family/friends under the tax limits each year for many years.

      2) Pass on the money while they still live, giving it to charity with no limits.

      3) Allow the money to go to charity when they die, with no limits.

      4) Have the government take most of it.

      The option 4) in my list above, brought about by the 90% inheritance tax, replaces the current option 4) Keep a death grip on money and power in their family until the day they die, then have their children reach in and take over that grip.

      Honestly, I'm not sure why we as a society would like the old option four at all. I agree that (living) people have a right to do what they wish with their acquired wealth (with some limits). And, once someone dies, it's nice to be able to respect their wishes. But if people know that the new option four is inevitable if they don't make their own choices while they live, or give it all to charity when they die, we'll all see more philanthropy and a better world.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    3. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm in the middle of going back to school after years of working in order to contribute something more effective than just a monetary donation to the third world. Years of making very good money, and the work I'm putting towards doing this is making me happier than the money ever did.

      Posted anonymously because I'm not trying to brag - I'm just trying to make people think about what would actually make them happy.

    4. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...including the Slingshot water purifer that Stephen Colbert made famous but that no one has actually bought yet

      Unfortunately philanthropy won't ever take off unless it's profitable. Just an inherit part of human greed.

      So, how do you make his things profitable? The water purification process seems pretty good, but there's a serious problem getting it to market.

      Seems like the best way to do it is to make it profitable for the little stores, which means that they need to be able to get the device and power and maintain it for less than they can make selling the water. Maybe through microloans or something like that.

      The real difficult part here is the maintenance and energy costs. If he really wanted to get it everywhere, the thing to do is to design it such that it could be built and maintained in a poor place, then give the plans away, so that small entrepreneurs could make them to sell to the small stores. And then he'd do the same with a cheap, efficient Stirling engine to power it.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    5. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Case in point. For those of you who have seen Charlie Wilson's war, they end up giving millions of dollars in arms money to Afghanistan to repel the Russian invasion then when they ask for a million dollars to help rebuild the schools a US politician says, "Charlie, no one gives a shit about the schools."

      That is an interesting albeit somewhat irrelevant assertion. In "Gone with the Wind", Katherine Hepburne suffers a broken ankle and is immediately assisted by several gentlemen, despite the fact that she is clearly married and hence self-interest would not enter onto their part. Later on she asks, "Dear Charlie, can't you ever care about anything but money?" and Charlie replies "But Lara, it was never about the money, I just wanted someone to love me".

      This proves that people are not truly interested in money, and that they will help freely if given the chance.

    6. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by madsenj37 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Inheritance tax like many other ideas has merit to it, but when implemented is not actually a good idea. I do not stand to inherit much in the scheme of things, but would be pissed if the government took it away. I do chores and general upkeep at my parents house. I save them money and keep the house valuable. They keep money in their pocket, in banks, the stock market etc, and keep the economy going. The same goes for rich people. Just because they are filthy rich, does not mean that their kids have not help maintain some of the parents goings on. How do you judge what filthy rich is and who is deserving? Rich people keep much of their money invested and keep the economy going. That is how they stay rich. That is how Americas stays strong. There is too much bloat in the American government. Reduce that spending, because taxes are high enough. I recommend that you read Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth. The gist of it is this: The rich have a moral obligation to do good while still living, but not a financial one. Hopefully you do not believe in forcing morals on someone else. Otherwise, you stand for man and woman marriage only, no drugs, prudence, etc. and are not much for tolerance.

      --
      Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
    7. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      The taxes don't have to be at 90% for options 1-3 to happen...it's going on right now at 45%.

    8. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by demonlapin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with this, of course, is that if you have enough money, you can create your own charity. Said charity can then employ your descendants to perform not-too-difficult jobs for rather-higher-than-average salaries.

      If you have upwards of $10-$20M, this is a completely valid way to do things The hit in high inheritance taxes falls on those with just enough to be taxable but not enough to fund ways around it.

    9. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by msblack · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sometimes philanthropy has negative side effects that we didn't expect. In the case of the Gates Foundation, medical professionals in Sub-Saharan Africa are bypassing jobs in the local communities where their help is desperately needed. Instead, they are taking cushy well-paid positions with the GF inoculating children against deadly diseases or treating AIDS patients. The downside is that routine medical care is in short supply as workers flock to the high-paying positions to fight sexy epidemics. The big loser is basic health care.

      More from here.

      --
      signature pending slashdot approval
    10. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's one reason why we should bring back massive (i.e. 90%) inheritance taxes. We need to force rich aging people to recognize their own finality.

      I fail to see why wanting to transfer my hard-earned wealth to my children is any of the government's business.

      The problem with your plan is that many of the supposed "rich" are merely people who have been prudent with their money by investing in their retirement from an early age instead of blowing it on new cars and oversized houses. Why should people who are thrifty enough to resist the consumer mentality be penalized?

    11. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad you've defined what morals are. Makes the discussion so much easier.

    12. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by rengav · · Score: 1

      Ah, no. You are out of your gourd. Why should the government get almost all of the money that my parents (and grandparents) worked so hard all of their lives? All that money has been taxed several times already. It was taxed as profit for the companies that my parents hold stock in, then it was taxed again as dividends paid to my parents, and then it was taxed as capital gains when my parents sold the stock.

      THEN you want to take 90% of what's left? I say NO, the government's hand is in my pocket enough, thank you very much!

    13. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by rtechie · · Score: 1

      That's one reason why we should bring back massive (i.e. 90%) inheritance taxes. We need to force rich aging people to recognize their own finality.

      It's a nice idea, but there would be strong (i.e. armed) resistance to the government seizing family homes, so that's not happening. And the really rich can find ways to avoid such a tax. For example but moving most of their assets outside of the United States into a trust that will ignore US tax claims. So you would also basically have to end all foreign investment. Good luck with that.

      A much better way at helping the poor is targeted tax cuts at the taxes that affect THEM, notably sales taxes, alcohol and cigarette taxes, and service fees of all kinds. What to help poor people? Cut their DMV registration from $100 to $50. Cut parking and speeding fines 50%. Eliminate toll roads. Eliminate fees on national parks, etc.

      A better bet is to raise property taxes, they're a LOT harder to dodge.

    14. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by kwerle · · Score: 1

      Ah, no. You are out of your gourd. Why should the government get almost all of the money that my parents (and grandparents) worked so hard all of their lives?

      Fair question.

      Why should you get it?

    15. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      5) Leave the country, or arrange that the money does.
      Forcing people to be charitable isn't going to work.
      That's not charity, it's just theft and people will avoid it.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    16. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's this principle called "equality of opportunity" that most Americans and all American politicians claim to believe in...

      Massive intergenerational transfer of wealth destroys equality of opportunity. Wealth accumulates at the top. You need a large inheritance tax to give a meaningful chance to people who aren't born with a silver spoon. That the government ends up taking the money is arbitrary.

      In reality America is failing at equality of opportunity, and the data shows we're worse than many European countries. In particular Americans are less likely to increase or decrease their social status relative to their parents than Scandinavians, French, and possibly even the classist British.

      The future of the inheritance tax is likely to be option 3, because it's not a "death tax" if it doesn't go to the government (intentionally misleading terminology FTW!) but a charitable legacy.

    17. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4) Have the government take most of it.

      After all, the government always knows best.

      *giggle* Sorry, couldn't keep a straight face.

    18. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      And what do you do when that value is in the form of property, or a company.

      Sorry, son, the family farm/business/house is being given to charity so the government can't get it.

      Not all inheritable wealth is in the form of liquid assets.

    19. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Why should people who are thrifty enough to resist the consumer mentality be penalized

      Because their grandchildren turn out like Paris Hilton.

    20. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well, let's never help anyone in one place because we might make things a little worse somewhere else.

    21. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by Pope · · Score: 1

      Yes, raise property taxes, surely the landlord won't pass that on to his poor tenants, right?

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    22. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      Because the people who earned it presumably want him to have it?

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    23. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      I fail to see why wanting to transfer my hard-earned wealth to my children is any of the government's business.

      And why is it the government's business if you want to transfer your hard-earned money to your employees in response to their efforts? Why is it the government's business if I want to transfer my hard-earned money to McDonald's for a Happy Meal?

      It's the government's business because we have banded together to form a society with a government, and we as a society have chosen to let the government skim off the top of some types of transactions as a way to keep the communal services funded. Money transfers between people is one method that we allow to be taxed.

      It doesn't matter that I paid income tax on the money I earn. When I spend it with or give it to someone else, they are going to have to pay income tax on it, too.

      And, besides, if you want your hard-earned wealth to go to your children, why don't you sit down and write out a check for $30,000 (IIRC) to each of them right now? Then do it again next year, and every year until you die. Voila, no government involvement in the transfer of your wealth to your kids. When they get married, or they have kids, you can write the same check to their spouses and their kids and transfer your wealth even faster.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    24. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by d12v10 · · Score: 0

      Some people call that socialism, and are very fearful of it.

    25. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      See "Hughes Medical Foundation".

    26. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by rcastro0 · · Score: 1

      Well, since you mentioned, here are, imho, the problems with each of your alternatives:

      1) Pass on the money while they still live, giving gifts to family/friends under the tax limits each year for many years.

      This alternative invalidates your alternative #4. In fact, it is exactly what my grandfather did before he passed away in order to avoid inheritance tax: he transfered what he had to the name of his children. Of course then the children would have to register that income and pay taxes over that. But their tax bracket would be much lower than your proposed 90% tax. What, you think you could place limits on how much he could transfer? Watch Mickey Blue Eyes.

      2) Pass on the money while they still live, giving it to charity with no limits.

      Well, this point is really number (3) below. Except it happens before you die.

      3) Allow the money to go to charity when they die, with no limits.

      How fair or efficient is that? You could be perpetuating a rich person's eccentricity. In fact, just recently there was a very interesting debate around a rich woman who donated millions of her money to a charity to support... her dog! (see Rich Bitch). Her white maltese (called "Trouble") will get her own, tax-free, trust fund.

      4) Have the government take most of it.

      Would be a good idea, if the government were such a perfect agent for our society's welfare. Do you really trust the government to spend that money well? Think US$700bn, think US$25bn, think of the cost of the Iraq War. Then think about how much ($20k, $100k?) you parents will be leaving for you.

      If you think your parents would leave a larger sum, you may have less to worry. As Warren Buffet, the 3rd richest man in the world, told us about, the tax system tends to be lighter on the rich.... The rich often pay less taxes, have good lawyers, creative accountants, resourceful private bankers...

      A favorite Murphy Law states: Hard Problems have solutions that are simple, elegant, and wrong. But I am with you: it should be discussed...

      --
      Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.
    27. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As you mentioned in 1), for this to work you have to limit what a person can do with money while they are still alive, or they'll just create a living trust in their children's name or give most of it to them outright.

      Maybe I'm square but I'm not sure I see how telling people what they can do with their own money is a great idea.

    28. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by aneurysm36 · · Score: 1

      because it belonged to my parents and they chose to give it to me.

      --
      ------ hi mom
    29. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by madsenj37 · · Score: 1

      That is my point. Not everyone has the same moral system and yet a inheritance tax to support philanthropy is just that. I gave one view on morals as a counterpoint.

      --
      Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
    30. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 1

      It's the government's business because we have banded together to form a society with a government, and we as a society have chosen to let the government skim off the top of some types of transactions as a way to keep the communal services funded. Money transfers between people is one method that we allow to be taxed.

      Right, skim off the top, not take all of it or mandate what must be done with all of it.

      And, besides, if you want your hard-earned wealth to go to your children, why don't you sit down and write out a check for $30,000 (IIRC) to each of them right now? Then do it again next year, and every year until you die. Voila, no government involvement in the transfer of your wealth to your kids. When they get married, or they have kids, you can write the same check to their spouses and their kids and transfer your wealth even faster.

      There are a number of reasons that one wouldn't want to do that and it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. However, I will give you a couple:

      * Contrary to popular belief, a great deal of the wealthy have gotten that way by saving money and taking advantage of the principle of compound interest. With a person saving long-term, the majority of the wealth will be generated in the last ten or so years. If one gifts the principle there will be exponentially less money at death. If one waits until the money has been earned, it severely limits the number of years that one can give.

      * Oftentimes one's offspring is not in the correct frame-of-mind to receive large amounts of money when they are still young, once again limiting the number of years to gift the money.

      In any event, I guess that I don't see why it matters to you, the government, or anyone else if I give my children $30,000 per year every year or just give them a lump sum when I die. I can't see the advantage to that, other than it seems to satisfy some urge that people have to punish the people who have more than themselves. If you find yourself in that group, it might interest you to know that households how have a total wealth of more 1 million dollars (about 7% of the population of the US) give about half of all of the money donated to charities.

    31. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by theLOUDroom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Rich people keep much of their money invested and keep the economy going. That is how they stay rich. That is how Americas stays strong.

      Do you think having a bunch of useless Paris Hilton's is what makes out economy strong?

      First off, money doesn't disappear. If there's a million dollars when someone dies and 90% of it goes to the gov't, that million dollars doesn't simply blink out of existence.

      Second, labor generates wealth, not money.
      People with money, make money because they own the means of production and society forces us to pay them for the use of this.

      Take your idea to the extreme. Imagine I personally owned every square inch of land on the planet. All I do is sit on my ass and collect rent checks. I inherited this land from my parents and my children with inherit it from me.
      Do you really think that helps society?
      All it really does is suck money out of the economy. I do nothing. I get checks anyways.

      This simple thought example proves how fundamentally flawed your reasoning is. If you admit that it would be bad for me to own every square inch of land on the planet, then you must then open the discussion regarding "How much is too much?" and "What do we do when some hits that limit?"

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    32. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMG, UR a moron.

      As an attorney, I can promise you we have many many many ways around that. Heck, we have ways around almost anything you can dream up. Keep trying though, it keeps us in business.

    33. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inheritance tax like many other ideas has merit to it, but when implemented is not actually a good idea. I do not stand to inherit much in the scheme of things, but would be pissed if the government took it away.

      Circular argument. You're already assuming you're entitled to the efforts of your parents, which is what is being called into question here. In that light, of course you'd be against it. Is it yours to claim, though?

      I do chores and general upkeep at my parents house. I save them money and keep the house valuable. They keep money in their pocket, in banks, the stock market etc, and keep the economy going. The same goes for rich people. Just because they are filthy rich, does not mean that their kids have not help maintain some of the parents goings on.

      Granted, we do things for our parents as they get older. The profit motive behind this gets a bit shaky, though, as is the big disparity in wealth people can accumulate. Simply, it doesn't seem fair that I should have to put myself in debt to take care of my parents in their last years while someone else takes away truckloads of money for the same (or likely, less) work, and society should at least somewhat be enriched by the transfer.

      Rich people keep much of their money invested and keep the economy going. That is how they stay rich. That is how Americas stays strong. There is too much bloat in the American government. Reduce that spending, because taxes are high enough.

      Taxes are the lowest they have been in many decades in America. Bloat is an issue, sure, but it's a separate issue. And I'm disinclined to throw robust support behind "The American economy" when its primary effects at this peak are to further enrich the top 1% and at best keep the rest of us along with a carrot-and-stick routine. The economy would do incredibly well with 1% tax, but those of us who aren't at the top of the pile wouldn't see a thing of it.

      Hopefully you do not believe in forcing morals on someone else. Otherwise, you stand for man and woman marriage only, no drugs, prudence, etc. and are not much for tolerance.

      Aside from the fact that most people here have moral issues about all those issues you list, this isn't a morals issue any more than income tax is a morals issue.

    34. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1

      The Challenge: Name something the "rich" (first gen or inherited) do with their money that doesn't already benefit me and you. (insert Jeopardythemesong.mp3 here) Waiting... See, they are providing me benefits whether they want to or not, and I don't even have to impose on their liberties to get the benefits. It's the nature of the free market. Sheer genius. It's like some hand with, um, I dinno, maybe a Romulan cloaking device, is at work. No tachyon emissions or nuthin'; it's practically invisible, Captain. Why would you want to interfere? Bureaucracy adds inefficiency. Grandma says, "Geek cred is inversely proportional to one's love of inefficiency." Love your Grandma, boy. And don't let your greed (wanting what you have not earned) for their money (you haven't earned it) destroy your love of liberty (which you have earned by virtue of your birth).

      --
      Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    35. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Work my ass off and build an empire with my own two hands, not far off base I'm close to achieving that. I didn't step on anyone on the way up and now when I die you want me to give it all to the government after many years of paying high taxes? If you want to contact me check my off shore forwarding address. I'm all for the rich paying their fair share but I lived on rice and water at one point on my way up and spent most of the last 20 years dead broke with everything going to work towards achieving what I have accomplished. While most people were having fun I was working. While most were sleeping I was working. I hope to start enjoying myself with the several decades I have left but if the government wants to take it all when I die and leave my family nearly broke they can bite me. They'll need a passport and a shovel to find it all. Focus on making the system more balanced so people can't get rich screwing people over like 90%+ do and leave the ones that work hard for it alone.

    36. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by madsenj37 · · Score: 1

      So all of this money you collect, you just sit there with it? Or is it invested and spent? You wipe your ass with it and throw it away? Take Paris Hilton an her family as some other commenter did. Paris Hilton may seem useless, but she will spend money that her family acquired legally and morally. She will invest some, too. As a rich person she will have a huge impact on growing the economy and keeping others in business. Secondly, the Hilton's are business people. They know how to acquire funds. True that taxes do not disappear (and I understand the tax multiplier as well). The government is not and should not be a business. The government should regulate business as to not favor anyone and make sure we have a level playing field. The government is not efficient in business and it shouldn't be. For that reason, the government should not tax. It is too bureaucratic and wasteful. Let those who know how to acquire wealth keep it, or you will not have useful innovators. It is called specialization. Let business people be business people, let those on the government regulate, let the inventors invent. Look at Dean Kamen, brilliant man who does not know business one bit. Oh yeah, if one person owned all the land, he would pay copious amounts of money just to collect rent and pay for protection. Your thought exercise is an exercise in theory, not reality.

      --
      Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
    37. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by Internalist · · Score: 1

      Hopefully you do not believe in forcing morals on someone else. Otherwise, you stand for man and woman marriage only, no drugs, prudence, etc.

      Non sequitur. I can believe in forcing my moral worldview on other people while it includes such things as an uncompromising commitment to gay marriage and legalization of drugs. Remember people, morals are what you believe is right, not what you believe is Right.

      --
      Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing. -- Wernher von Braun
    38. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by darth+dickinson · · Score: 1

      If there's a million dollars when someone dies and 90% of it goes to the gov't, that million dollars doesn't simply blink out of existence.

      I beg to differ. Ever seen our national budget?

    39. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to break it to you, but if the government collects money, a good portion of it DOES essentially disappear (i.e., it never returns to the taxpayer). This is mainly due to inefficiencies and waste--two things that the USG has turned into an art form. In fact, the USG is a byword for waste and inefficiency.

      If you want to collect money from citizens and redistribute it to bureaucrats as a jobs program, that's fine, but don't try and sell it as some class-warfare nonsense.

      Finally, most of this redistribution crap is really based on arrogance--what you REALLY mean to say is that you know better how large sums of money should be spent than the person who earned them. Which, based on the fact that they earned it and you didn't, seems completely misplaced.

    40. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by darth+dickinson · · Score: 1

      You need a large inheritance tax to give a meaningful chance to people who aren't born with a silver spoon. That the government ends up taking the money is arbitrary.

      So that means you are in favor of "spreading the wealth around", right? From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs, and all that rot.

    41. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carnegie Mellon University is the result of Mr. Carnegie fearing that after a lifetime of greedy business practices, he would go to hell.

    42. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by charlesnw · · Score: 1

      Who would pay for the govt to regulate? Where does that many come from?

      --
      Charles Wyble System Engineer
    43. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by sexconker · · Score: 1

      First off, money doesn't disappear. If there's a million dollars when someone dies and 90% of it goes to the gov't, that million dollars doesn't simply blink out of existence.

      You sir, have never dealt with the government!

    44. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're arguing with a leftist, who starts with the basic principle that all money and wealth belongs to the government, and we should be happy that the government lets us keep any of it. Your silly notions of "it belonged to my parents" will have no effect.

    45. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by kklein · · Score: 1

      I'm a pretty big socialist, but even I balk at the idea of a large inheritance tax. People are not individuals; they are the product of many generations. I don't stand to inherit that much, but I'd like all of it, because I'd like to pass part of that on to my heirs myself.

      We do almost everything we do for our children. Taking that away violates a fundamental instinct in the human animal. It's a terrible idea, just as communism is a terrible idea.

      The beauty of socialist capitalism is that it uses the basic greedy, competitive drive of human animals as the engine by which we can improve conditions for all members of a society, allowing them to use their greedy, competitive drives, too, effecting more positive change... Take away one of the basic assumptions--that what you do can be passed to your offspring--and I think you're looking at breaking the system.

      Everyone likes the idea of sharing and of everyone being happy, but you have to be very careful about how you engineer that. People don't like working for those to whom they aren't related, even if they like it in theory. That's why communism fails, and why an inheritance tax is a bad idea.

      To be honest, I don't think there should be any inheritance tax. My parents' assets transferring to me is not really a transaction. It's not income. It's something that belongs to me as the current incarnation of the bloodline.

      The American myth of the individual is dangerous on a lot of levels. If people truly were individuals, then we wouldn't need affirmative action.

    46. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, if the government brought back [even higher than we have now] death taxes, they would severely limit #1, so that you are basically forced to give it to charity or forced-charity (the government).

      If you take away a large incentive -- the idea that you can build wealth in your family/friends, and let them have some of it in the future -- you will shoot yourself in the foot. Unintended consequences.

      I vote for letting people have the freedom to spend their own money the way they see fit, and provide tax incentives for charity.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    47. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by kwerle · · Score: 1

      Because the people who earned it presumably want him to have it?

      Then they should give it to them. Problem solved.

    48. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by kwerle · · Score: 1

      because it belonged to my parents and they chose to give it to me.

      If they choose to give it to you while they're alive, then there's no problem, right?

      Maybe think of it as a penalty for failing to circulate money.

      Keep in mind, most inheritance taxes start at a pretty high number. I'm not suggesting that would be OK to tax 'regular folks' at a very high rate - in such a way that they might lose the family home and reasonable assets.

      But I don't think it is reasonable that the children of the very wealthy should inherit the vast majority of that wealth just because of the accident of their birth.

      See the table at
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States
      under
      Exemptions and tax rates

      We're talking about very large amounts of money.

      * Claimer: I believed my parents' estate *might* be hit with inheritance tax, but after looking at that table I'm doubtful.

    49. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by westlake · · Score: 1
      they are taking cushy well-paid positions with the GF inoculating children against deadly diseases or treating AIDS patients....workers flock to the high-paying positions to fight sexy epidemics.

      .
      There is nothing sexy about an epidemic that claims 1/3 of your population. AIDS in Sub-Sahara Africa

      If a third of your young women and a third of your young men are desperately ill or dying what does basic health care mean?

      They can't care for their own kids, they can't care for their own parents - and there is no one to replace them.

      When did vaccination of children against a broad spectrum of diseases suddenly become "extended care?"

      That kind of argument is worthy of the soon-to-expire, compassionately conservative, Bush Administration.

    50. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by theLOUDroom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So all of this money you collect, you just sit there with it?

      You don't get it.
      Yes I have money I can spend on a 100 foot mega-yach that otherwise could have paid for 1,000 people's college educations. Yes that will "create jobs".

      The thing you just don't comprehend is that I never created any wealth to get that money. Someone else did all the work. I never even managed anything, I just collect checks.

      This is money that someone else had to earn, but that goes to me. If it didn't go to me, it could go to the gov't or to the guy who created the wealth in the first place. The money going to me is a de-motivator for the people who actually drive the economy.

      The thing you haven't shown is that I would do something that is any better for the economy than any or person or the gov't. Your theorizing is all trickle-down economics. Rich people aren't rich because the give their money away in order to stimulate the economy. Rich people horde their money and use it as a tool to get more money. As more and more money is sucked out of the working class, the reward for actually doing work becomes less and less. Everyone then suffers. While college educations for 1000 people would have employed as least as many people as building my mega-yacht, it has far reaching positive impacts into the future as opposted to my yacht which is just a rich man's toy.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    51. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by westlake · · Score: 1
      That's one reason why we should bring back massive (i.e. 90%) inheritance taxes.

      You might want to look at what philanthropy accomplished before there were significant death taxes:

      The Carnegie Libraries. Standford University. The Rockefeller Foundation and the elimination of parasitical diseases in the American South, the reconstruction of Colonial Williamsburg....

    52. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by SageMusings · · Score: 1

      Paris Hilton may seem useless

      If it walks like a duck...

      --
      -- Posted from my parent's basement
    53. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by epine · · Score: 1

      we have MORE than enough food

      Starting with the word "we" this screams moronic.

      The fact of the matter is that any country whose citizens are in need of food aid has a governing class who feels even more greatly deprived. It's an unsolved problem how to distribute food without paying the tin pot tax.

      The only way to be certain about where your aid dollar ends up at the end of the day is to distribute machine guys or lingerie.

    54. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      Not just that. Gates is being a real bastard again, with his monopolistic training at work. Just talk to United Way folks and ask them how they like the way Gates is trying his hands at his new monopoly of trying to be the gateway for all donations to foundations (like United Way). A fraction of a penny per transaction goes a long long way when you're the sole gateway into all philanthropy.

    55. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by the_macman · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why this is an argument against raising taxes. SOMEONE has to pay taxes. Might as well start with the rich and let it trickle down.

      By your logic we should only tax that poor. Tell me how that makes sense.

    56. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right, and when 30-year old Mom and Dad are killed by a drunk driver while coming home from the annual Christmas party, of course the government should take 90% of the money that they have, instead of it going to fund their two kids' housing, care, food, education etc, just because they didn't have the foresight to know exactly when they would die so that they could give all their money away first. Dumkopf.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    57. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      And I'm disinclined to throw robust support behind "The American economy" when its primary effects at this peak are to further enrich the top 1% and at best keep the rest of us along with a carrot-and-stick routine.

      I am 28 years old. In my lifetime I've seen the shift from rotary dial telephones to near universal mobile phone coverage.

      Back when I was in grade school, the state-of-the-art in information distribution involved physically shipping books from library to library. Now most of the accumulated knowlege of mankind is available instantly to everyone, everywhere.

      People are safer, healthier and live longer than ever before. We can communicate with people from all over the world practically for free.

      There has never been a better time to live on this planet than the present. We're living in the golden age of humanity; why do you insist on being so miserable?

    58. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      By your logic we should only tax that poor. Tell me how that makes sense.

      Gives them an incentative to get rich...?

    59. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by mesterha · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I don't think there should be any inheritance tax. My parents' assets transferring to me is not really a transaction. It's not income. It's something that belongs to me as the current incarnation of the bloodline.

      You can call a dog a cat, but it's still a dog. When someone gives you money it's income; your wealth has increased. You might want to redefine the rules, but don't justify it by redefining the words.

      Personally, I think the estate tax is one of the few fair taxes we have in the US. The government spends a significant portion of its resources protecting assets and creating infrastructure that helps people build assets. You would think a fair tax would be based on people paying an amount of tax proportional to their yearly derived benefit. Instead, the primary source of taxation is income. This creates a system that allows rich people to stop working and live off their investments.

      With estate tax, the government finally gets a share of those assets. While not a perfect tax, it at least helps equalize the imbalance. Instead, you think it should be abolished. You think the children should continue the aristocracy and leach off our economic system. For those who qualify for estate tax, the children will still receive a decent amount of money. However, they might need to do a little work to bring their style of living up to Dad's old standards.

      The American myth of the individual is dangerous on a lot of levels. If people truly were individuals, then we wouldn't need affirmative action.

      One purpose of our laws is to protect the rights of individuals. You might be correct that certain aspects of humanity tend to subvert these rights, but that is why we form a government.

      --

      Chris Mesterharm
    60. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by JavaRob · · Score: 1

      Right, and when 30-year old Mom and Dad are killed by a drunk driver while coming home from the annual Christmas party, of course the government should take 90% of the money that they have, instead of it going to fund their two kids' housing, care, food, education etc, just because they didn't have the foresight to know exactly when they would die so that they could give all their money away first. Dumkopf.

      I'm not sure I'd argue for a 90% inheritance tax in the first place, but this isn't an argument against it. Laws are never as simple as "90%, any inheritance", obviously. There are exclusions, exceptions, varying rates, etc. etc. all to address issues like that.

      That's why so many tax lawyers & accountants stay in business, in a way, but all of that complexity had *some* problem it was trying to fix at the outset.

    61. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by JavaRob · · Score: 1

      There is more than one way to look at it.
      A few things:
      * What does "equal opportunity" mean? How hard should the government work to support it?
      * Do you think the money people earn should correspond with how hard they work and how intelligent they are? I.e., merit-based reward.

      To answer a few things directly:

      Contrary to popular belief, a great deal of the wealthy have gotten that way by saving money and taking advantage of the principle of compound interest.

      That *is* popular belief: "it takes money to make money". If you have a lot of money already and aren't stupid, you pay clever financial advisers to make *more* money with it. The key here is *having* the money in the first place. If you don't have disposable income to invest, you won't get richer this way. If you gift this money to your offspring, they can invest it per your instructions, BTW.

      In any event, I guess that I don't see why it matters to you, the government, or
      anyone else if I give my children $30,000 per year every year or just give them
      a lump sum when I die.

      It forces a limit on the amount you can give them to something reasonable. You probably won't successfully transfer tens of millions of dollars this way. I believe the current estate tax in the US won't affect them anyway if your estate is worth less than $2 million.

      Oftentimes one's offspring is not in the correct frame-of-mind to receive large amounts of money when they are still young, once again limiting the number of years to gift the money.

      There are lots of options other than "your allowance today is 30K in small bills".

      I can't see the advantage to that, other than it seems to satisfy some urge that people have to punish the people who have more than themselves.

      1) There's an idea of fairness that is violated when the simple fact of your parentage means your life is utterly different; the idea of America as the land of rugged individualism and opportunity doesn't line up very well with the vast difference of opportunity available to two randomly selected infants.
      2) It's not about punishing the "over-privileged" so the "under-privileged" can gloat; it's about trying to partially even the playing field.

      If you find yourself in that group, it might interest you to know that households how have a total wealth of more 1 million dollars (about 7% of the population of the US) give about half of all of the money donated to charities.

      That makes me wonder: what percentage of their disposable income (outside of basic living expenses) do people pay on average at different income levels? I.e, people in debt who still give to charity are spending 100% or more on charity. Obviously there's a range on charitable giving, and people who don't have much disposable income won't give much. How does that range match up with the enormous income gap?

      It seems rather more impressive when someone actually sacrifices something significant for charitable reasons, as opposed to simply moving some money around ('cause there's still plenty left over for that 4th car they've had their eye on).

    62. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Pass on the money while they still live, giving gifts to family/friends under the tax limits each year for many years.

      The Estate Tax covers the sum total of inheritable wealth AND gifts over your lifetime, for precisely this reason. There's an exemption for the first $X (250k, IIRC, not quite enough to pass on a middle-class home), and then everything else is taxable at a not-insignificant rate.

    63. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by sp3d2orbit · · Score: 1

      Paris Hilton is an excellent example of why a 90% tax isn't needed. Stupid, worthless children will squander away any inherited wealth quickly and the problem will fix itself.

      The money returns to the economy in the form of the purchase of products and service, no government entity needed.

    64. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by sp3d2orbit · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      In general the rich are rich because they contribute a lot of value to society and invest their money to generate future returns. In general the poor are poor because they don't contribute much value to society and tend to squander their income on disposable goods (like alcohol, cigarrettes, and lotto).

      There are exceptions. If you collect checks for no work, and create no value to society, those checks will eventually stop and the problem will fix itself.

      The reason wealth tends to cluster in families is because intelligence is a heritable trait.

    65. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...has been banged to hard?

    66. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by sp3d2orbit · · Score: 1

      The unspoken reason the GPP believes that 90% of your money should go to the government is that he thinks you don't deserve it. He thinks you didn't earn it.

      I'm not rich, and I'm not poor. I am smart enough, though, to realize that some people are way more productive than others. Some people feed the herd and some people simply consume.

    67. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by sp3d2orbit · · Score: 1

      Just because a system exists doesn't make it right.

      The problem with communal services is there is never an end to the need. Everyone on Earth could benefit from $1 million / year in free health care. That doesn't mean we should do it.

      If it were trivial to get around the inheritance tax then no one would pay it.

    68. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do chores and general upkeep at my parents house. I save them money and keep the house valuable. They keep money in their pocket, in banks, the stock market etc, and keep the economy going. The same goes for rich people. Just because they are filthy rich, does not mean that their kids have not help maintain some of the parents goings on. How do you judge what filthy rich is and who is deserving?

      Nothing prevents your parents, or rich parents, from passing their wealth on during their lifetime. They could, for example, reimburse you for the effort you expend on their behalf. They can gift you $10k/year tax free, and any amount at all as long as you pay income tax on it. That makes it trivial to transfer wealth, during one's lifetime, with no more than 35% tax (over $350,000). Inheritance tax is intended to encourage people to transfer their wealth to the younger and more active generation, rather than hoard it. If you have so much money that you can't transfer it to the kids and the grandkids and the cousins and your friends during your own lifetime, then it's extraneous money, anyway.

      Rich people keep much of their money invested and keep the economy going.

      Many of those dollars would keep the economy going better if they were circulating. Being used to buy goods and services so they pay salaries. Dollars invested represent the hardware of business, amortized over decades, and a relatively small part of almost all business endeavors.

    69. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 1

      That *is* popular belief: "it takes money to make money". If you have a lot of money already and aren't stupid, you pay clever financial advisers to make *more* money with it. The key here is *having* the money in the first place. If you don't have disposable income to invest, you won't get richer this way. If you gift this money to your offspring, they can invest it per your instructions, BTW.

      What an absolute load of bull. Investing $40 per week for 40 years at 10% interest would result in nearly $1,000,000. If one started with $40 per week and contributed more as he or she earned more, then there would be many times that. The key is to begin investing *early* and delaying gratification. Also, who needs a financial advisor? Mutual funds, 401K and IRAs should be sufficient for anyone willing to educate themselves.

      1) There's an idea of fairness that is violated when the simple fact of your parentage means your life is utterly different; the idea of America as the land of rugged individualism and opportunity doesn't line up very well with the vast difference of opportunity available to two randomly selected infants.

      There's an idea of fairness that is violated when the simple fact that you have worked hard, been thrifty and delayed gratification means that the government can mandate what you can and cannot do with the money you earned.

      2) It's not about punishing the "over-privileged" so the "under-privileged" can gloat; it's about trying to partially even the playing field.

      My mother and brother and I came to this country penniless in the 1960s. We accessed the opportunities that are available to everyone, worked hard, saved and sacrificed. My wife (who also came from a similar background) and I work a lot, save a lot and donate a lot. Even though we have the means to drive new cars and live in a big house, we drive older, less prestigious models and live in the same modest home we bought years ago. We have never asked, nor wanted anyone to "even the playing field" for us.

    70. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The rich have a moral obligation to do good while still living, but not a financial one. Hopefully you do not believe in forcing morals on someone else. Otherwise, you stand for man and woman marriage only, no drugs, prudence, etc. and are not much for tolerance.

      So by your argument, society shouldn't punish (or even criticise) murderers and rapists, as they're just pursuing their own verison of morality that you don't happen to agree with?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    71. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except it does not work. The really rich are broke on paper - they own nothing. They control big bucks, but the ownership is foundations or trusts that they just control. When they die, control goes to the next of kin, no money exchanges hands.

      Inheritance taxes hurt the middle and upper middle class, and people like farmers who have a single high value asset that can not be passed on, as it has to be sold for the taxes.

    72. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by AgentSmith · · Score: 1

      There has never been a better time to live on this planet than the present. We're living in the golden age of humanity; why do you insist on being so miserable?

      Because this good life has a price tag. And it's our generation that has to pay for our share and the previous
      generations share. Upset yet? You should be.

    73. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, who exactly is it that is taking care of these "kids"? If they are old enough they can take of themselves, if not (in the 30 year old parents case) they are infants and will in all likelihood become wards of the state. So you want to pay to raise them via your taxes and then they have a trust fund at age 18? I'm not sure how a family which isn't incredibly rich to begin with ends up having any wealth at age 30 with kids or what the point of your question was.

    74. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      Because this good life has a price tag. And it's our generation that has to pay for our share and the previous
      generations share. Upset yet? You should be.

      Yes, the Baby Boomers should hurry up and die already.

      But I still think that it's not that bad in objective terms. It's just that everything is sensationalized today (one of the downsides of instant global communication).

    75. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by madsenj37 · · Score: 1

      No. I gave an example where half the USA seems to be divided. Very few people seem to be divided on murder and rape. I also believe in freedom from harm done by others as do may people. I do believe that there is no right and wrong, only consequences if that helps.

      --
      Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
    76. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      Ok, so we just need an exception for "didn't know I was going to die just yet, and hadn't managed to give away as much of my wealth as I wanted to," and one for "knew when I was going to die, approximately (eg doctor said you have six months to live), but didn't find out soon enough to give away as much of my wealth as I wanted while still staying under the maximum untaxed gift amount." Then everyone will fall under these exceptions and we can do away with the whole stupid idea. Even if there were a way to do the exceptions so that some people would still be taxed, this wouldn't solve the purported problem of money dynasties, because rich money-grubbing bastards would still pass their wealth off to their now rich, money-grubbing kids. They'd just do so a few years earlier.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    77. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      If you collect checks for no work, and create no value to society, those checks will eventually stop

      No, actually they don't. You keep can keep collecting interest checks and dividends indefinately. You don't have to do any work.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    78. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by JavaRob · · Score: 1

      I think a simpler solution would taxing the recipients, and using a calculation that will make sure the government isn't snatching away someone's college education, etc.. If the recipients already have a ton of money, they don't need a ton more.

      I believe the current estate tax in the US won't touch anything under friggin' $2 million, anyway... and if you can't finish your education for that amount of money, you've got other problems. I personally think that floor could be lower, and/or the tax percentage could be much higher over that floor. (90% seems overkill, though).

    79. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by JavaRob · · Score: 1

      Investing $40 per week for 40 years at
      10% interest would result in nearly $1,000,000.

      Where exactly can I deposit $40 and get a 10% return? Seriously, that would be fantastic. If you had a really good credit card, that would even make it worth it to take money off the *credit card* and invest it.

      Come on now, talk real numbers. If you have debt at all (how many Americans have debt?) and your investment will pay lower interest than you pay on your debt, you cannot logically invest anything.

      The key is to begin investing *early* and delaying gratification.

      I absolutely agree with this; delaying gratification is the key to almost all of the good things in life. This is part of the "unfairness" aspect that I was getting at -- the "delayed gratification" requirements are enormously, impossibly different between children of different classes in America. The gap from the lowest to the highest is almost impossible to bridge. You can't earn enough to save anything on minimum wage jobs; higher education is quite expensive even with piecemeal financial aid programs and often unfeasible loans. So you have:
      * some people who are poor and not really trying to do anything different -- that's fine; I think they should have reliable access to health care and quality education (they don't currently) but they will stay poor.
      * some people who are constantly denying gratification but (particularly if they aren't over-average clever) don't get anywhere (this is the group I'm focusing on, and the next one)
      * some people who never have to deny themselves anything, because their excellent private education, money earning interest from the start, valuable business connections, etc. come as a birthright. And it takes actual work to throw away that free ride -- you have to be fairly actively stupid to burn through it.

      I think it would be a disaster to "even the playing field" *completely* -- what's the point of working hard if it doesn't earn you anymore than the slob who just phones it in? Why work hard to give your children a better life than you had if you can't actually pass on anything to them? -- but the current situation in the US is not good.

      There's an idea of fairness that is violated when the simple fact that you have
      worked hard, been thrifty and delayed gratification means that the government
      can mandate what you can and cannot do with the money you earned.

      Those opportunities you mentioned "taking advantage of" are not free. If you want to drive on public roads, be protected by the police/fire dept/military, get a public education and govt loans for higher education, use *currency* and so on, you have to give at least some of your hard-earned money to the government.

      Then it's a question of how much money, how you want them to use it, and *how* you will pay it. E.g., sales tax, income tax, estate tax, import tax, and so on (and it's worth some study to sort out how all of the different options affect different people, and how taxes shape behavior).

      My mother and brother and I came to this country penniless in the 1960s. We accessed the opportunities that are available to everyone, worked hard, saved and sacrificed. My wife (who also came from a similar background) and I
      work a lot, save a lot and donate a lot. Even though we have the means to drive new cars and live in a big house, we drive older, less prestigious models and live in the same modest home we bought years ago. We have never asked,
      nor wanted anyone to "even the playing field" for us.

      Kudos to you for not falling into the "beating the Joneses" race to the bigger house & newer car... which then require security systems ('cause the more stuff people collect, the more could be taken away...), expensive upkeep, and paranoia about the first scratch on the car, etc. etc..

      But again, those "opportunities that are available to everyone" are not free,

    80. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by sp3d2orbit · · Score: 1

      Nope, you're wrong. Its called the Law of Diminishing Returns. Overtime any investment in anything will diminish to zero as the product or service becomes a commodity.

    81. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by sp3d2orbit · · Score: 1

      The fact that the parent is marked as flamebait generally reflects the hostility and lack of understanding tech-types have towards economics and business types.

      The only alternatives to my assertion, that the rich are more productive than the poor, are luck and malice.

      Certain people at certain times may get lucky via a lotto ticket or being at the right place at the right time. But, in general, luck cannot account for gross disparity between the very rich and everyone else. If luck were the driving force behind wealth, then the wealthiest people in the world would be lottery winners.

      Malice. Sure, many rich people are malicious, as are many poor people. But, malicious individuals tend to reveal themselves eventually and alienate those loyal to them. Without the devotion of a workforce there is no opportunity for further wealth creation. Malice, like luck, may work in the short term and for certain outliers -- but it can't explain everything.

      As an engineer and a business owner, I never understood the hostility that a lot of my engineering co-patriots have towards business. Engineers should rule the world. We're smart, motivated, and founded in reality -- all things necessary for running a business.

      If you're sitting around cursing the rich, yet go to work for someone else, you're a hypocrite. Take the plunge, create your own company, and create your own wealth. If you're smart enough, people will soon be cursing you.

    82. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      But by doing so, the government takes as much. Isn't that interesting?

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    83. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      Nope, you're wrong. Its called the Law of Diminishing Returns. Overtime any investment in anything will minish to zero as the product or service becomes a commodity.

      #1 This does not appy in this situation, since it requires a stipulation that all money has to be invested in a specific service. This law does not guarantee that a managed portfoio of assets, owned by a useless billionare, will disapper.

      #2 Your interpretation of this law does not match wikipedia's description.
      "In economics, diminishing returns is also called diminishing marginal returns or the law of diminishing returns. According to this relationship, in a production system with fixed and variable inputs (say factory size and labor), beyond some point, each additional unit of variable input yields less and less output."
      To translate:
      Each additional unit of investment yields a smaller amount of return than the previous unit.
      This statement is nothing at all like what you claim, which is that a fixed investment is guaranteed over time to lose money.

      What you were actually arguing is the "Tendency of the rate of profit to fall" hypothesis.
      This argument is far from being a well-tested, widely-accepted law of economics.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    84. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      The only alternatives to my assertion, that the rich are more productive than the poor, are luck and malice.

      As much as you want to believe that, it's not actually true.

      That statment would require that capitial itself cannot generate money, which would require the interest rate to be zero.

      The reason you're modded flamebait is that your views are both offensive and poorly backed up with anything resembling a rational argument. You'd *like* to believe certain things, but you are unable to respond to the obvious arguments against your key assumptions. Your statement regarding luck and malice is nothing less than intellectual dishonesty. A rational person thinking for two minutes can come up with additonal alternatives.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    85. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by sp3d2orbit · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the last horse drawn buggy maker was the best in the world. Still, without innovation and continued investment, that buggy maker's checks have long stopped flowing.

      Even cash in the bank is eroded by inflation.

      I would love to know of an investment in which I can put my money and be guaranteed a steady return for the rest of my life, my children's lives, my grandchildren's lives...

    86. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by sp3d2orbit · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on the alternatives?

    87. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      I would love to know of an investment in which I can put my money and be guaranteed a steady return for the rest of my life, my children's lives, my grandchildren's lives...

      What you've done here is a classic straw-man argument.
      I never argued that there was somewhere you could put your money where it would make money for all eternity.

      What I argued is that it is possible for a person to live off interest essentially indefinately. There is no specific mechanism that guarantees this person will run out of money.

      When the sun burns out, I'm sure all earth-based investment are going in the crapper, but for practical purposes right now, a person can take a big chunk of money, place it in investments and do nothing useful to society for the rest of their life.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    88. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by sp3d2orbit · · Score: 1

      Instead of answering the question, you've turned it into a circular argument. Here's a reminder of my original assertion:

      The rich are rich, because, on average, they are more productive than the poor. Some people may win the lottery and live off the interest, but, in general that is not the case.

      I have an open mind to alternatives but you've yet to provide one.

    89. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      You've missed the point. This is a discussion regarding inheritance. See my first post here.

      There are many people who are rich because their parents were rich.
      It is possible for a person to be rich, not because the personally have contributed anything to society, but because their parents were rich, and their parent before them, etc.

      Your arguments simply ignore this.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    90. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by sp3d2orbit · · Score: 1

      You still haven't shown how. I'm sure there were many people who were rich before the French Revolution, they probably aren't now. I'm sure a lot of people made money in during 1920's whose families aren't now.

      Even if inheritance grows based on interest, families grow at a geometric rate.

      The reason you can't name an alternative to the rich being rich because they are (on average) more productive, because there isn't one.

    91. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by sp3d2orbit · · Score: 1

      Your excellent debate skills have convinced me. You're right. The rich are rich because they're all living off interest and the person who originally made the money did so out of luck. The rich do not provide more to society and the poor are poor because they've had a long stroke of bad luck. Why I couldn't see such a logical conclusion earlier I have no idea, must have been a stroke of bad luck.

    92. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      Your repsonses have been very dishonest.
      It you choose to be ignorant, that is your decision.
      I've tried to educate you, but you refuse to acknowedge a single point, even when you were clearly misinterpreting the law of diminishing returns.
      You have yet to show how it is simply not possible for a rich kid to do nothing and live off his inheritance.

      You choose instead to pose a bunch of strawman arguments and beat around the bush, but you simply are unable to address the fundamental issue.

      Sarcasm and misdirection are not a substitue for reason.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    93. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by sp3d2orbit · · Score: 1

      I find it hard to believe that someone who isn't familiar with basic economics can afford a "mega-yacht". But, lets assume for a minute that you did stumble into money.

      So you invest it. In a savings account, at N%. Inflation runs at M%, so your net return is (N-M)%, lets say K%.

      The first problem I see is that historically M has been greater than N. The rate of inflation is almost always higher than the rate of return from a savings account. Even inflation adjusted T-bills are set so that M = N. Best case scenario you make nothing in the long run and most of the time K is negative meaning that your money is slowly dwindling in real inflation adjusted terms.

      But, so that we don't divert onto another tangent, I will ignore the first problem. I'll assume you've found an incredible savings account that always pays better than inflation. In this scenario K is positive and you make more money in real dollar adjusted terms every year. I'll also assume that K% of your initial investment is so high that you can live off it exclusively and never draw down the investment.

      The second problem I see here is that to achieve a positive K, your money has to do something. It has to provide mortgages or start businesses and provide a return on the investment for the bank providing the savings account. So, even if you aren't doing the productive work directly, someone you trust has to. There is no magical interest fairy that adds cash to your bank account. That money has to come from somewhere. It has to be made.

      But, I'll ignore the second problem also, since you didn't explicitly rule out other people using your money for productive uses. You're still sitting around doing nothing even if your money is working for you.

      Time goes on and you breed. I have to assume this one or there will be no kids to inherit the money. And here's where it breaks down, and I can't find a way around it. You have kids. Your kids marry. They have kids. They marry. Ad infinitum. The progression here is geometric. If you know your math then you know a geometric progression grows more quickly than an exponential one, like interest. Your family will always grow to overwhelm the growth of your investment -- it is just a matter of time.

      Of course, you can extend the "do nothing" mentality in your family by having less kids or hoping to God that all of them spend the money wisely and that the bank never collapses and that your currency never undergoes a devaluation. But, even in a perfect world, your offspring will eventually have to start contributing to society no matter how large the initial "lucky" investment was.

      See, even in a perfect world, your kids can't live of your money forever. And, in the real world, it will run out much more quickly.

      I think your logical failure stems from your assumption that investing is not real work and provides no value to society. If you actually have money, I think you'll see how difficult it is to achieve that positive K. People spend their whole lives trying, and failing to achieve a positive K.

      Investing is incredibly difficult. Everybody thinks that if they just had a million dollars they'd be set for life. I think the fact that most lottery winners go broke within a few years speaks very loudly that this isn't the case.

      Investing is an individual trying to predict the future. That is the most difficult job I can imagine. And the most useful to society.

      So, even if you sit around on your ass living off your investment, you are still providing an extremely valuable service to society by deciding which ideas get funding and which are left to die. And, even if you do great at this job, your kids will have to continue your legacy if they hope to sit on their asses also.

    94. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see your economics credentials since you still haven't acknoledged what the law of diminishing returns actually means.
      You made a clear obvious error here and you refuse to admit it or even respond with your own source.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    95. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by sp3d2orbit · · Score: 1

      I don't dispute the points you made about the law of diminishing returns. I think if you read the points you posted carefully you'll understand why you can't live off your checks forever without doing anything.

      I spent quite some time trying to simplify things into a form you could understand. I would suggest rereading my last comment very carefully. Perhaps if you have specific questions I can clarify further, but I really don't know where your logic is failing for you.

    96. Re:Sadly philanthropy isn't profitable. by rtechie · · Score: 1

      If it becomes a problem we have this thing called "rent control".

  10. Seceded? Secluded? by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    Agh

  11. But is his water-maker better? Cheaper? by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you want to get clean water from non-clean water, there are plenty of systems available. Here's a small watermaker that runs on salt water. It's a reverse osmosis device, with the prefilters needed to get rid of the solid crud. Here's a simpler one for non-salt water. The U.S. military uses reverse osmosis units heavily. They work fine. They scale down to straw-sized things for survival use, and scale up to city-sized desalinization plants.

    So why is Kamen's system better? Lower power consumption? Lower initial cost? Fewer consumables? The article doesn't tell us that. It's not like he's the first person to build a packaged water purifier.

    1. Re:But is his water-maker better? Cheaper? by sagneta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You hit the problem I've always had with him. In fact, I could add to the list a device that extracts water right out of the air with very little power. That could be powered by electricity and solves the issue of actually getting water at all which the other devices do not. Did he ask "Is the issue lack of technology or lack of access to technology?" He never asks that question. So everything is a technological solution which is not really what the world wants nor needs.

    2. Re:But is his water-maker better? Cheaper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      IIRC, his device requires no filters or additional chemicals, and also can filter practically everything out (including heavy metals). It's essentially a vapor distiller.

      One of the big parts is that combined with the engine, you can run the distiller on practically any fuel source (including.... methane from dung)

    3. Re:But is his water-maker better? Cheaper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the third world, it seems a solar still would be better. And the solar heater part could also be used for cooking. And maybe even driving a Stirling engine to make a small amount of electricity,

    4. Re:But is his water-maker better? Cheaper? by TellarHK · · Score: 1

      The problem with reverse osmosis, is that the membranes for RO systems are very, very difficult to maintain and store in the kind of conditions you'll find in third-world nations without a supply chain following along. Membranes need to be kept refrigerated, properly sealed, and replaced on a fairly regular basis. Something that pulls off the same task with a lower level of support requirement would be a big hit in many markets, I'm sure.

      I just have zero idea how to do it.

    5. Re:But is his water-maker better? Cheaper? by hey! · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, but capacity isn't the only dimension on which a water purification system has to "scale". How long it can operate it without resupplying filters is a relevant factor.

      One of the reasons that poor people are poor is that they have to buy things in more expensive packages. We in the US have fabulously expensive infrastructure that that allows us to "buy" a teaspoon of clean water by turning the tap. Water filtration is a much more expensive, but it doesn't take the millions of dollars of investment a city water supply would. It may well be a cheaper solution in situations where people share a well and carry their cooking and drinking water home. Not cheaper per gallon, just a cheaper way to get people the minimum amount of clean water needed for health.

      The sticking point, as far as I can see, is there isn't enough money dedicated to any kind of solution, whether the fabulously expensive to build but cheap per gallon first world solution, or the relatively cheap to install but expensive per gallon approach of water filtration.

      If there is a place for Kamen's invention, it would be in a world that is willing to invest up front in some kind of filtration system for everybody. We do not, I suspect, live in such a world, but if we did we might be interested in ways of reducing the cost per gallon of filtered water, say by installing a system like this with solar panels.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  12. work safe link by eleuthero · · Score: 1

    Is there a copy of this article on a site that doesn't immediately flag problems at work--something tech oriented perhaps?

  13. typo in headline by Sleepy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Inside Dean Kamen's Seceded Island of Greekery
    There, fixed it for you.

  14. Dean Kamen should stick to medical devices by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    My understanding of Sterling-cycle engines is that the greater the delta in temperature between the heat source and the heat sink, the greater the efficiency. Mobile applications have only air for a heat sink, and thus are non-ideal. Where Sterling-cycle makes since is in a stationary generator, preferably on the coast, where you can pump up cold water from the depths to get your greatest heat differential. The ideal location would be the Hawaiian islands, with geothermal heat and deep ocean in close proximity. Obviously Dean Kamen has put more research into this than I have, but I really don't see this as a practical means of powering a car. As far a the Segway, at $5000 it is 10 times the price point at which it would catch on. Also, any rational mechanical engineer would simply have added a third wheel to the Segway to balance it, rather than relying on the sensors and computationally expensive methods the Segway uses.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Dean Kamen should stick to medical devices by TellarHK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thinking like that is exactly _why_ the world needs people like Dean Kamen.

      Irrational engineering has led either directly or indirectly to many, many of the world's great advances. Guys like Kamen are out there on the "crazy edge" of bleeding edge, for a good reason.

    2. Re:Dean Kamen should stick to medical devices by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      My understanding of Sterling-cycle engines is that the greater the delta in temperature between the heat source and the heat sink, the greater the efficiency. Mobile applications have only air for a heat sink, and thus are non-ideal.

      This is true of any heat engine, not just Stirling engines. If internal combustion engines have done fine with only the air as a heat sink for the past 100 years or so, I don't see why it would suddenly become a show-stopper for a Stirling engine.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
  15. Water Filtration by TellarHK · · Score: 1

    What I'd love to see Kamen work on would be some kind of mass-market home water purification system for use here in the US, simply because that way he'd be able to make a profitable killing. There are so few companies that manufacture equipment out there now, that they would not be difficult at all to supplant with a better product.

    US Filter, Culligan, etc, are all designed to support an infrastructure of independent distributors and not really intended for personal maintenance. The technology in these things is seriously old-school in most cases, while the science behind them is fairly simple.

    Radon removal - simple as hell. Just push air in and out of water to clear it. I've seen it lowered just by putting a valve on the water lines for low levels. Or by using carbon filters. Water softening - simple as hell, but requires filtering media cleaning which goes through bag after bag of salt, which then goes into groundwater or sewage systems. Iron removal - again, simple but requires filter media. pH balancing - simple, but requires chemicals.

    If Dean can come up with ways to do those items without the grossly excessive media requirements they have these days, he'll really be on to something to revolutionize an industry.

    I lived in Manchester working for my brother's water company for a few years, I may not know all the details, but I know that it's an industry based on some really simple principles that could benefit from some serious technological leaps beyond "Hey, the timer that says to use 10 pounds of salt to clean a water softener is now digital instead of an analog timer!"

  16. Genius and marketing not necessarily hand in hand by kaizendojo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So, is this guy all hype with overpriced devices, or is time for someone to take his genius (Segway aside) to the mass market?"

    Speaking as someone who has met Dean and worked with him on more than a few FIRST competitions, he's someone who is truly geek and lives to discover and improve things. That skill set isn't necessarily the same skills that would serve marketing and promotions people, and once Dean is set into motion he's a hard cat to stop - something you definitely want in an R&D genius.

    At some point, Dean needs to do the market research before the announcement phase but if you spend even a few minutes with the guy, you can see how excited and dedicated he is to wanting to change the world in positive ways. I imagine that when you see the world in that framework, it becomes hard to contain your excitement to the meeting rooms....

    Still, for one of the smartest and richest guys I've ever had the pleasure of meeting, he's extremely down to earth. Rare breed.

  17. Re:Genius and marketing not necessarily hand in ha by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

    As another former FIRST member, I agree 100%.

    Guy give the most *depressing* speeches, though.

  18. Reminds me of John Harrison by gelfling · · Score: 1

    And his lifelong quest to solve the Longitude problem. Being a genius isn't enough, you need superhuman tenacity.

  19. more background info in CODE NAME: Ginger by microcars · · Score: 0

    for those that want to know more about how things operate "behind the scenes" at DEKA, check out CODE NAME: GINGER

    absolutely fascinating look at DEKA from an insider during the development of the Segway.

    --
    I like microcars
  20. Re:Genius and marketing not necessarily hand in ha by nate_in_ME · · Score: 1

    I've been involved with FIRST since '98, and actually work for FIRST now, and think that the GP post sums things up nicely...eccentric might be another fitting word to describe Dean...Yes, there may have been better ways to do some things(like the segway), but I'm guessing the whole discussion went something like this..."OK, we just got the balancing to work(with the iBOT wheelchair), now what can we use this in that's FUN?"

  21. Not "Segway aside," but the same marketing pattern by CadmannWeyland · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think mattnyc99 (the poster) misses one of his own points by saying "Segway aside."

    mattnyc99 points out that Kamen is trying to leverage the distiller side of the market to help fund / drive down costs to get the Stirling side of the product to market.

    The technology in the Segway comes originally from a wheelchair system that Kamen and company designed and produced. The Segway was an effort to popularize the technology to drive down costs, so that the wheelchair would be much less expensive, and widely available.

    At least, that's the way I see it.

  22. Use your arms by Nerdposeur · · Score: 2, Informative

    People who camp often use hand-pumped versions of this to make creek water drinkable. The advantage is that you can use the muscles in your arm to pump the water instead of sucking on a straw until your face implodes.

    1. Re:Use your arms by Tastecicles · · Score: 3, Funny

      ah screw it, I'll just strain it through my moustache like I usually do.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    2. Re:Use your arms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flanders?

  23. Cult of the Armchair Zeroes by copponex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Please, don't take this personally. I know you're just making a post on Slashdot. But why can't you even read one article about this before you make useless guesses?

    After two minutes of Googling, I found this diamond in the rough, a patent application secretively titled "STIRLING ENGINE THERMAL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS", submitted by Dean Kamen. Though you may dislike the Segway, and I can't blame you for it, the technology came from his iBot wheel chair, which is the closest thing I've seen to offering someone who doesn't have use of their legs a chance at full mobility. This has improved the lives of thousands of people. Unless you're an aid worker or another genius inventor, your comparable contributions to society are far less, without even touching his more traditional medical inventions.

    So, with all due respect, before you pat yourself on the back for shooting down an idea you are totally ignorant of, stop typing and read about the idea first. Then, if you have something useful to say, the world will be glad to read about your idea, and then reply.

  24. not impressed by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    so this guy can design $26,000 wheelchairs that no one can afford. $12,000 electric mopeds that no one buys.

    Call me not impressed.

    And now he has some water filtration system, cost unknown, but probably pricey.

    And a Stirling engine of unknown efficiency and reliability.

    If you read between the lines of TFA you might get the impression that investors are not clamoring to invest in another expensive set of gadgets that are over-designed and over-priced and under-powered.

    1. Re:not impressed by SlowMovingTarget · · Score: 1

      You'll be really impressed when he's flying around in a super-high-tech suit of armor powered by a Stirling engine stuck in his chest to keep the exploded Segway shards out of his heart. Although, judging from the design aesthetics of his wheelchair and the Segway, he'll look more like a greenish Michelin Man than Iron Man.

    2. Re:not impressed by 2short · · Score: 3, Informative

      You seem to have left out his first significant invention: the portable infusion pump that is now bolted to every iv stand in the industrialized world. Leaving him in a financial position where I don't think he much cares how impressed you are with his subsequent efforts.

    3. Re:not impressed by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What have you invented for humanity? At any price?

      Kamen has invented the portable dialysis pump, the iBot and related technologies (segway), a water filtration system ($1500 to purify 1000 liters a day), this slingshot device, and apparantly some stirling tech for developing nations.

      Should the man give everything he makes away for free, or might it be OK to continue giving him another incentive to build some of these awesome devices?

      You really know how to take the fun out of things, I'll bet.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
  25. Read the Document by copponex · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Carnegie at his best:

    Thus is the problem of Rich and Poor to be solved. The laws of accumulation will be left free ; the laws of distribution free. Individualism will continue, but the millionaire will be but a trustee for the poor; intrusted for a season with a great part of the increased wealth of the community, but administering it for the community far better than it could or would have done for itself.

    So, a rich man knows what to do with your money, but you do not. That's individualism and freedom according to Carnegie, and not coincidentally, everyone who is sitting at the top of the caste instead of the bottom.

    Well, you can stick that kind of freedom up your ass, for all I care. If the wealth belongs to the community, let the community decide how to spend it. What Carnegie describes is tyranny exerted by corporate power instead of state power, which is better in some ways, but still not good.

  26. i met him one time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he is lord dumpling.

    im involved with FIRST, one of his best projects to date and he is a great guy, he is nice, funny, and all around a good guy.

  27. The Three. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    I read a quote somewhere. I think it might have been Lee Iacoca. Anyway, it advised that it takes three people to change the world.

    1. A Genius, able to see the world in fantastic new ways, a quality which negates the ability to function within or understand the workings of mundane society.
    2. A Banker, skilled in making the factories and marketing work, but who as a result cannot be anything more than incrementally innovative.
    3. A Communicator, who is too grounded to be a Genius, and too loose to be a Banker, but lives just enough in both those worlds to connect the halves together and complete the equation.

    It sounds like Dean stumbled into his own source of money, but could still use a conservative mover and shaker to bring his ideas to fruition more effectively.

    -FL

  28. The real best water purification technology. by davolfman · · Score: 1

    For low incomes I thought the best was actually sticking water in discarded plastic bottles and slinging them onto the roof to cook out the nasties with free and plentiful sunlight.

  29. Iconoclast: Isabella Rossellini + Dean Kamen by ImNotAtWork · · Score: 1
    --
    open source sub sim. I might start coding again for this. http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/contribute/
  30. Stirling engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yet, I've not seen his engine for sale.

    And where can one buy his 'slingshot'? Again, talk - and no objects for sale.

  31. Re:Genius and marketing not necessarily hand in ha by J-1000 · · Score: 1

    Still, for one of the smartest and richest guys I've ever had the pleasure of meeting, he's extremely down to earth. Rare breed.

    I get excited just reading about what he's working on. He's like a living work of fiction. What an inspiration!

  32. Does not go into much more detail by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    this piece goes into much more detail about how that engine works -- he got the original idea from the upmodded Henry Ford artifact in the basement of his insane island lab

    Actually,

    * The article reveals precious little about how Kamen's Stirling engine works. If he has truly come up with a workable design, I would love to hear a few details about how he overcame the glitches that previous experimenters had with the Stirling engine (such as leaky seals being unable to contain the working gas).

    * Ford's steamboat engine is in Kamen's New Hampshire mansion, not on his Connecticut island, and nowhere does the article say that Ford's engine inspired Kamen to improve the Stirling engine.

    Bad summary.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.