A few months back, maybe even more than a year ago, FLG and Alan got into a discussion about rich people not needing that much money. (Alan also has a theory that no American house should be bigger than Mount Vernon, which FLG can't say he completely disagrees with.) If memory serves, a news report that Oprah had over a billion dollars was the impetus. FLG forgets the specifics of the discussion. Therefore, he's not going to dwell on it, but today he heard somebody say that Bill Gates doesn't need 40 billion dollars. It reminded him of the conversation.
Besides the obvious point that Bill Gates has given away most of his fortune to charity (it's his own charity, but a charity nonetheless), most of the wealthiest people, you know the super-rich ones, started their own companies and grew them. Don't get him wrong, FLG is sure they like being rich, but it's not simply about them being greedy. If FLG starts a company, let's call it FLGCO, and builds it up while keeping control, then he needs to own a large portion of the stock. If FLG owns 51% of a $100 billion company, then he's a billionaire 51 times over, but it's not like he can just give that money away and maintain control. In fact, to keep control of the company he does need that money.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
There are several houses in Georgetown bigger than Mount Vernon. (It looks bigger on the outside than it is inside.)
Shall we rally the people and tear them down? (Rather like those Soviet villagers who raided a neighboring village to destroy its well because they themselves were without one. "It is only just!")
Well, there'd be a grandfather clause...
While I was in Alaska this summer, I watched a television channel that featured environmentally oriented programs. Several times, I was asked to ooh and ah over the energy- and water-saving ideas incorporated into 4,000 and 5,000 square-foot homes that housed two or even as many as five people. (You can imagine the crowding!)
I am suggesting that individuals control their appetites, that they be modest or even humble, and that pride in solar panels on a roof that uses the same amount of material as the neighboring seven houses is misplaced. What is modest? My argument is, if you do more for your country than G. Washington, you deserve a bigger estate. Otherwise, you might consider being embarrassed if your contributions do not measure up to your square footage. Or, you might look back to the average homes of your grandparent's days and compare that to what you have now. How much more do you deserve than your grandparents? More importantly perhaps, considering constraints in resources, how much more do you deserve than your grandchildren?
I have three houses -- one built in the mid-eighteenth century in Virginia, one built in 1800 in Georgetown, and one built in 1880 in the Adirondacks. One is bigger than Mount Vernon, and the other two are very large.
But I see my way through Alan Howe's objections -- as they are all smaller than my great-grandparents' houses.
(There are grandfather clauses, and then there are grandfather clauses.)
Post a Comment