Slashdot Mirror
Why Warren Buffett Is Poorer Than Mark Zuckerberg (inc.com)
Facebook's soaring stock price isn't the only reason 34-year-old Mark Zuckerberg is now richer than 87-year-old Warren Buffett. An anonymous reader quotes Inc:
There's another, more important reason that Zuckerberg is now worth more: Buffett has been doing a great job of giving his money away, something that he, Zuckerberg, Gates, and most of the world's most well-known billionaires have pledged to do.
Buffett has given Berkshire Hathaway stock now worth more than $50 billion to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation alone. When it comes to giving, Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan have a lot of catching up to do. They appear to have devoted well under $10 billion so far to philanthropy... On the other hand, Zuckerberg, is more than 50 years younger than Buffett, so they likely have a lot more time in which to do their giving.
Three years ago the couple pledged to give away 99% of their net worth within their lifetimes.
Buffett has given Berkshire Hathaway stock now worth more than $50 billion to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation alone. When it comes to giving, Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan have a lot of catching up to do. They appear to have devoted well under $10 billion so far to philanthropy... On the other hand, Zuckerberg, is more than 50 years younger than Buffett, so they likely have a lot more time in which to do their giving.
Three years ago the couple pledged to give away 99% of their net worth within their lifetimes.
He's just less incredibly incredibly incredibly fucking rich.
The ends justify the means. Find the 30 richest people and take 99% of their money and redistribute it to everyone equally. Problems solved.
... and then give it to the gateses.
Really now.
Buffet is richer in non-monetary ways and is certainly more respected. Buffet has given away more than $46 billion since 2000. Comparing monetary richness against someone who's given away a massive amount of his fortune is just meaningless.
The ends justify the means. Find the 30 richest people and take 99% of their money and redistribute it to everyone equally. Problems solved.
Zuckerberg would be left with only $810,000,000! I mean come on! Think of how little he has contributed to society, after all. The World needed another advertising platform! Another place for people to waste their lives away! And he helped get Trump elected!
And realize that the Forbes 400 is made up with quite a few billionaires. I think you need to expand your scope.
Eisenhower era income tax rates (inflation adjusted of course) and a 1% tax on capital over say 2 million dollars.
more than anything - way more than the fast cars and mansions and yachts - I would love to have my own charitable foundation.
Not sure what higher purpose anyone could ever aspire to in life.
Why does anyone care?
With these valuations of things based on stock prices, remember that the listed prices are based on what it last traded for, or sometimes what the offers are for buying or selling some are at the moment (bid and ask). But if push came to shove, and he wanted to realize the value of that stock and sell a bunch of it to get cash, the price he'd get would go down, how much depending upon liquidity and how deep or shallow the demand for the asset was.
So the composition of their holdings really matters to tell how much their wealth really means if they actually want to do something with it or are faced with downward pressure. $10 billion in Tesla or Facebook stock is a lot more precarious than $10 billion in cash or well diversified holdings, even though the topline number is the same.
... I haven't seen one goddam motherfucking difference.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Now you're criticizing that he has only given ten billion dollars away? Go FUCK yourself, asshole!
It's tax deductable and AIPAC can legally meddle all it wants. In fact, if Israel doesn't want to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty like every other counrty on the planet, they don't have to! So there! Or here rather, take some more money.
More billionaires should be using their money for good (see Buffet, Musk and Gates) instead of using it to further line their pockets with more money by derailing our government (see Trump, Murdoch, Adelson and the Cock Bros).
These charitable foundations that are set up by these billionaires are to avoid taxation upon the billionaires' death. Rather than transfer the wealth directly to their children when they die, which would trigger death tax, they instead give the money to the foundation, and then make sure the foundation will be under their children's control. No death tax, they get to write the 'gift' off on their ongoing taxes, and it's all legal smegal. The children then skim off the foundation for all their lives.
Yeah, they actually do some real charity work, as part of the cover. But it sure as hell is less money going out for real charity works than they'd lose to taxation if they didn't set up the foundation.
So-called 'philanthropy' from wealthy Westerners and Western nations has been disastrous for Africa and the global environment. This has allowed Africa to have a current population that's far beyond its natural carrying capacity. This distortion is bad enough on its own, but the high rate of reproduction there means that the population is ballooning extremely quickly, amplifying the situation. This is forming what will eventually be the worst humanitarian disaster ever. The next time there's an economic depression, or even just a severe recession, affecting the American and European economies, and the foreign aid from such places dries up, things will go very badly in Africa. There will be nowhere near enough food, nevermind the other necessities of life. If these Africans try to flood Europe and the US, which we're already seeing happen, it will just make the situation worse. Europe and the US are starting to have trouble supporting their own native populations; they just don't have the resources to support hundreds of millions of Africans who can't make any valuable economic contribution in Europe or the US. It saddens me to think of the suffering that so-called 'good intentions' will cause.
So, his current worth is 81 billion dollars - and it's still growing. Even if he have away 99% now, he'd still have 810 million dollars.
Yea, big sacrifice.
His kids will never have to worry about money ever.
Some charity is good. Other charity you're better off keeping your money. Zuckerberg, Buffet, and Gates are all manipulative, scheming, and arguably evil men. The difference is that Buffet and Gates are older and wiser, and have moved from buying fortunes to buying hearts and minds. They've donated to a lot of good causes but they've also donated and supported a lot of bad globalist and statist causes that make the world a worse place and to shut the door of the elite rich club behind them. There is no difference between their pattern of behavior and that of a very smart psychopath who wanted to buy his sainthood for entirely selfish reasons. But because they throw money in your face they've got you fooled. Zuckerberg in fact took notice and has recently been cynically attempting to burnish his philanthropic cred after much criticism. Gates especially did an amazing con. His fortune was built on crushing and stealing from others. Its like a bank robber donating to charity yet nobody cares anymore. Maybe all the people he crushed who earned and deserved this money would have been the ones donating if not for him. All his entirely life he was a ruthless businessman crushing all opposition and buying out what he needed to rise to the top and all of a sudden you think he's found secular religion and changed? Gimme a break...
When they all have a special place in hell waiting for them.
even with the shit facebook got caught doing and all the negative news reports about it (privacy issues, sharing data with the russians and chinese and unethical entities, etc), and people 'supposedly' fleeing the site in droves, its stock still goes up, and up, and up.
The parent comment should be modded up. It's the most insightful one yet, and shouldn't be at -1.
In a proper free market economy, one that's relatively free of distortion, profit essentially gets driven down to nothing. That's because any surplus will entice new entrants to the market, driving down prices, and cutting into profit margins. In the long run, capitalists wouldn't be able to collect excess profit, and thus wouldn't become exceptionally wealthy.
Of course, things aren't ideal in the real world. We have excessive government regulation that limits competition, for example. It's distortion like this which enables economic inefficiency that results in some market participants becoming extremely wealthy, despite not being significantly more productive than others who are far poorer.
The parent is correct, in a sense: billionaires shouldn't exist because free market competition should drive their profits down to a much more reasonable level, simultaneously leaving more resources and capital with their customers.
You, would have, a lot more time, if you didn't, put a comma, every three words, or, so.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Buffet is transferring control of his massive wealth to another guy with massive wealth. Just what the world needed, concentrating wealth even more. How about actually GIVING it to something? Pick something. Anything. Just not some foundation controlled by rich people. Actually distribute the wealth to the other 90%. Or even just write a giant check to the treasury. He is always saying he does not pay enough taxes.
> In a proper free market economy, one that's relatively free of distortion, profit essentially gets driven down to nothing.
That's true, for the 99.9% of people who have a normal attitude about work and money, normal intelligence, normal levels of drive and dedication, etc.
There will always be a few people who are willing to give up everything else - family relationships, time off, weekends, social life, etc to compete in the "make money" game. They'll tend to make more money than people who lead a more balanced life. A few such people will also be extraordinarily intelligent. Some will be very gifted at hiring and motivating great people. Those who do their job extremely well, and put aside other priorities, will do a better job than others, and make more money. That comes at a cost to them, social life etc.
how do you prevent the people who collect surplus from erecting insurmountable barriers to entry? you probably need to regulate them. no regulations just means people hoard wealth and defend it more egregiously unbridled free market is not good for the community
Mr Buffet has a conscience.
He (Jesus) sat down opposite the treasury and observed how the crowd put money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. A poor widow also came and put in two small coins worth a few cents. Calling his disciples to himself, he said to them, 'Amen, I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury. For they have all contributed from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had, her whole livelihood.'[
#DeleteChrome
Girl: "Hey Elon! Are you going to give all your money away like those press-release-loving-aw-shucks other billionaires?"
Elon: "No way! I need every penny to build my DeathSt.... Er. Yeah. Giving away every dime!!!"
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
Did you just accuse Mark Zuckerberg of overcharging for a free service? This has to be one of the most ridiculous comments I've seen in a while. First of all, the stock price is not directly related to profits. Some companies that consistently lose money still have large market caps. You buy stock because you expect it to be worth more at some future date. The company might have negative profits for the entire time you own it and you could still potentially make a ton of money. In Zuckerberg's case he didn't "accept" stock, he is the founder so his stock was issued to him when the company incorporated and it represents his controlling share in the company. Warren Buffet (generally) purchases shares of stock in undervalued companies.
Maybe someone who made it past the intro to economics course would be more qualified to comment here.
All the billionaires mentioned seem like pretty skeevy guys.
First of all, the stock price is not directly related to profits.
Unless it's Tesla.
When you're Elon Musk your company's stock price is supposed to be related to profits.
(on Slashdot at least)
No sig today...
Zuck steals our data. Buffett respects customers.
Stealing pays more.
Now I have the top 5 billionaires in the world pestering me to give them money.
FFS
Let my ramen noodles get soft before you expect me to invest like guys who have been doing this for 40+ years.
Not a Zuck fan, but on this issue he gets a pass from me.
They should GIVE it to me. Waa, waa, waa
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
You are so phenomenally ignorant that you haven't heard the root word of capitalism. Commodities have most certainly been driven to roughly that point, but some things are so capital intensive that they tend towards natural monopolies. Additionally, in a reasonably, or under-regulated environment, capital will be pulled out of low profit sectors and put into high profit sectors.
The aviation sector is a prefect example of an over-regulated sector, where only huge players can get through the bureaucracy and startups are routinely crushed by the costs of regulatory delays. Medical to, where we have the stupid situation now of Canon narcotics being unavailable because the one manufacturer had a problem and now it's taking months to get regulatory approval for each step in fixing the manufacturing process.
"Give away" from these self-serving douches is intriguing to me. If we give the benefit of the doubt and suppose Gates and Buffet are $250 billion in providing give-aways. And there are 7 billion of us on Earth.
Then I want my freaking $35 today. In CASH, not flippin' BitCoin or whatever you folks deal in!
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
And then we don't need "philanthropy" (AKA rich people stroking their own egos).
Still, THEY decide. This is unelected power that we not tolerate! I want a billion dollars a controlled substance - more than crack cocaine or heroin or weapon-grade plutonium. By the act of accumulating a billion dollars or more is a crime against humanity - these more money that anyone need in a lifetime. It takes is all about power and that power need to to be in the hand of democratically elected official, chosen in fair elections (not like the mess we have now).
THOU SHALT NOT SUFFER A BILLIONAIRE TO LIVE!
You mean he might only get $1 billion for all his paper holdings? My God, how will he pay the electric bill on his 14 mansions!
"Three years ago the couple pledged to give away 99% of their net worth within their lifetimes."
Hey, there is an easy way to do that EVERY YEAR. There's is a line on your 1040 form that lets you pay as much extra tax as you want. I dare them to put that 99% down there and stop bitching about how the rich don't pay their fair share.
Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
Facebook made $5 billion in profit in Q1, 2018. Tesla lost $709 million in Q1, 2018. And yet somehow Tesla is still worth 10% of Facebook? How does that make sense? Facebook is overpriced, at a P/E around 25-26. Tesla is just stupid with a P/E around -73.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Because Buffet is a human being with a soul while Zuckerberg is a soulless sociopath.
In a proper free market economy, one that's relatively free of distortion, profit essentially gets driven down to nothing.
Fortunately for those seeking to profit, there is no such thing as a "proper free market". A truly free market is unstable - it will always devolve into a state of equilibrium in which big players have incumbent advantages that allow them to suppress competition, and thus raise prices such that they profit. That's why it's so essential to have governance capable of maintaining a level playing field, breaking up trusts, and curtailing the worst excesses of the market.
Facebook was already worth a lot before it made any profit at all. Ditto Google, Amazon, and many other tech companies. The stock value of a company is based not only on current performance but on future potential.
Tesla inventors are betting that the company will successfully become a high volume car maker, and become one of the major brands in our electric car future. To a lesser extent they're also betting on Tesla's other product lines like solar roofs and the Powerwall. If they are right they stand to make a lot of money. If they're wrong and Tesla fails, they could lose most or all of their investment.
Buying Facebook stock is not without risk. Previous social media have succeeded for a while and faded away. (How is that investment in MySpace looking right now?) Or the company could sink due to a scandal. Facebook also has the problem that younger people are not engaging with it in the same numbers as in the past. (So far it's not hurting Facebook all that much because they're using Instagram instead, which is another Facebook property, but who knows what the social medium of choice of the next round of teens will be?) That leaves Facebook with an older user base that is less desirable to advertisers.
nice try mr anonymous... there is corruption in the manner of the "gift" itself... Once a flim-flam man (g8z, buffet -- Mr "burlington northern won't buy double walled tank cars himself", motherzukerberg -- "does jack-squonk about war criminal min aung hliang having a facebook page with a million likes from fellow reavers inciting hate"..), always a flim-flam man, or so it very much seems...