Steve Jobs refused to talk philanthropy with biographer - Page 3

Unless divulging his philanthropic policies exposes his wife's activities.

Let's say the couple jointly decided to keep their charitable activities anonymous. By not blabbing about these activities with Isaacson, he upholds his agreement with his wife who is free to continue charitable activities, just as would have happened if he were still alive. Thus, one thing from his life with Laurene is preserved intact after death.

I have not read the book myself. How much does he go into his family? His wife? His kids with Laurene? His illnesses? Was Jobs highly selective about what to disclose to Isaacson or was philanthropy the only topic off limits?

If you donant to an organization silently it is expected that you will actually remain silent. Revealing these sorts of donations can have a negative effect on many charities. Mainly the problem is public perception, if people think an organization has a big time patron they will have a tendency to donate to alternative charities. This can be very bad especially if that big time donor was financing a special project.

You're being an idiot here. You know nothing about jobs' view of charity, or capitalism, or anything else. You think this and you think that, but you know nothing. You're just inserting your politics, and trying to tell us that Jobs believed the same thing.

You also haven't researched what Gates' foundation has done - their projects are for long-term, sustainable help in curing diseases, stopping hunger, increasing education, etc. You really live in a fantasy world.

You both speak to the same issue, so I'll answer together. I've noticed that a lot of people who support Big Philanthropy, like they support Big Government, value the intent of the philanthropic act as much as they value the end results of that act. When I talk to people about hugely wasteful and destructive government programs (like welfare, or school bussing, etc. etc. etc.) I've heard people say "at least they're trying", as if hugely failing in the endeavor is acceptable because the government was at least "trying" to help.

And that's why I think people like you ultimately value what Bill Gates and his ilk do. Unfortunately, people don't actually bother to measure their true impact on creating a better world, because they're simply satisfied that the intent was there and that money was spent. It's like the old pagan ritual of sacrificing a lamb on the alter while asking for a good crop. You really have no idea if the crop will be good or not, but by making the sacrifice, you've done all that you can do.

Regarding Gates efforts, here's what I think on a case-by-case basis:

MEDICINE
Ending malaria and polio seem incredibly misguided to me, and Gates' billions will go down the drain like previous billions of dollars in foreign aid spent on Africa and other third world ditches. Really, why is he investing his effort in the shit-hole third world, where even if he cured malaria and polio, we'd still have incredibly backward societies that can't take care of their people? Those societies aren't backwards because they suffer from malaria and polio, they're backwards and dysfunctional largely for cultural reasons....ie, attitudes towards human rights, towards strongmen/leaders, towards religion, towards the value of the individual and most importantly, respect for a true free market (most shithole third world countries are practitioners of command-and-control socialism). The Western world had polio and malaria and a lot of other diseases, and they solved them how? Not by one of the world's richest men giving them cures, like mana from heaven. It was the energy and industry and ingenuity of Western society that solved those problems, and was able to solve countless others that even the richest men in the world couldn't afford to solve by throwing their money around. Honestly, you solve polio and malaria in the third world, and you'll simply have more people waiting to be killed off by famine or civil war or some other tragedy. I'd be more impressed if Gates were trying to invent a time machine to reach back through time and haul the British Empire back to the present day. People in Africa were better off under the British than they have been since the British left.


EDUCATION
Please. What is the Bill Gates Foundation going to do about the pathetic state of public education? Public education isn't working precisely because it's free for everybody, and is required to be given to everybody, whether they take it seriously or not. Can you imagine how crappy a phone, a car, a house, a TV, etc. would be if it had to be free for everyone, and where people that abused/neglected the free product they were given could always get another free replacement, no questions asked? Would any of you want a product like that? Probably not, but that's what public education has become. A free product that's designed for the lowest common denominator, and people wonder why it doesn't have good results, despite throwing more and more money at the problem. Free public education worked earlier in our society because people could remember what it was like when they didn't have access to education that directly led to them acquiring useful skills that led to economic growth, and so they valued what was suddenly given freely to them and used the opportunity wisely. It took a few generations for that "memory" to wear off, to become muted, and now, free education is taken for granted. That's why you see more and more education watered down by elective courses that don't produce economically useful learning for most kids. It's also why more and more colleges are coming up with economically useless majors like "Peace and Conflict Studies" and "African American Studies" and "Communications", but graduating fewer and fewer kids that can think critically, write/speak clearly, and that are actually prepared to start working in a job that requires real skills, and creates real economic growth.

P.S. If Gates really wanted to haul kids out of poverty through education, he would create a business of boarding schools that get kids out of their deadbeat neighborhoods and households from an early age, that teach technical subjects that have economic value in the real world (along with English and History), and that take a 10-20 % cut of all the kids' earnings for the first 20-30 years of their working lives (to repay the earlier investment made in the kids). That creates true motivation on everyone's part--the business is motivated to mint competent people that can earn good livings, and the kids are motivated to earn good livings that leave plenty of money left over for them. The kids also emerge with an appreciation of how acquiring hard-to-come-by skills really affects their lot in life, which they then pass on to their own families.


SCIENCE
Again, Bill Gates' freebie giveaways to science research are not going to come close to having the impact on society that scientific developments by the private sector have. I look at all the science/technology in my house, at my office, and at my doctor's office, and I don't see much that came through philanthropic munificence. If there's something to be invented, it's far more likely to be invented by people pursuing good old fashion profit, and operating under the limits of a for-profit enterprise.


So that's what I think of the stuff that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are going to do with their money. In other words: waste it, for the most part. Their money will get spent. It will have short term impact that looks good in press releases, but do very very little that's lasting. If Bill and Warren and their ilk were wise (they're clearly smart, but I don't think they're wise), they would fund a ton of new for-profit businesses that, when successful, would actually increase their wealth, not water it down. But of course, increasing their wealth would not look good for the newspapers and liberal masses whining about 1-percenters.

It is totally asinine to imply that Jobs was given his wealth. If anything he is a prime example of a person starting out from zero and becoming an American success story.


You sir need to engage in a little self analyse. There is nothing I've seen that indicates that Steve was ungrateful. As for society we gave him nothing that was even remotely related to his success.

You are very sick! Using your logic everyone should enjoy the same success that Steve enjoyed. Rather one has to look at what drove him internally as factors in his success.

He also had a wife that could handle that effectively. Beyond that little good comes from making donations public, unless such donations are there to engage the public.

Well this I agree with. As ive gotten older I'm much more careful with respect to personal donations. Many charities these days actually have a negative impact on society, drain money to finance worthless causes.

This on the other hand is simply ignorant. You can't spread wealth out because there are to many people out there that can't effectively do anything constructive with it.

As to bake sales there is more than simple charity going on there. It is called education, there are multiple lessons for children to learn in activities like bake sales. It certainly isn't begging for book money as you seem to think.

Actually that is an extremely important part of philanthropy. Like it or not you have to have somebody making decisions with respect to a charities benefit to society. As you note above many do more harm than good. Sadly a lot of people have lost control over where their donations go, this has resulted in a lot of donation going down the drain so to speak. The United Way is a prime example of charity done wrong.

Well this is demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of reality. First do you really expect public money to go to rebuilding a church? Second the whole point of a church is fellowship and mutual support. Third you never want to be in a situation where you depend upon one source for good.

This is a bit twisted because you are right about the misty eyed. In general people should be very distrustful of charities. Especially those that spring up suddenly.

However your promotion of big government is idiotic. Big government can not fix everything and it can seldom do so cost effectively. Even wasteful charities do more good epithet ever dollar they collect than the government ever has a chance of doing. Unfortunately many government organizations are built around managers that see or measure their success by growing their organization not by doing good through that organization.

That's not FAIR!

Walter has several mistakes in the book but I'll chalk that up to his rush to getting it out and not cross-referencing more.

There are also major gaps in how the Apple/NeXT merger came together. That in itself could cover an entire book.

Thanks for hurling personal insults in what was otherwise a normal forum conversation!

In light of that, you RETARD, I'd like to point out that this entire thread is conjecture....ie, people expressing their opinions and guesses about Jobs' view on philanthropy. Nobody here claims to have known him. Nobody claims to know what he thought lately on the matter....

I certainly didn't claim that. I said "Personally I think..." which is a pretty good signal that I'm not putting words in the guy's mouth, or saying with certainty that he thinks X or Y. I threw my opinion in like everyone else. I think the real problem is that you didn't like my opinion (a faith in capitalism over philanthropy), and so you attacked me, saying that I didn't know Jobs (although you couldn't know that) and offering no evidence that my opinion was wrong, or that you knew Jobs any better.

You've got a puny little intolerant mind. Perhaps you're one of those do-nothing types that cling to big, bloated philanthropies, which almost always have lower standards for productivity and efficiency than for-profit companies. A little insecure in your cushy "job" this holiday season?

Connect the dots ... or speculate .... We are all allowed speculate.

One thing is 100% certain - neither you nor I know his initial motive for starting his donations. But if we are connecting dots, we can conclude it does not take nearly the amount of dollars or time he has given to his foundation to build his image. He did not have to quit Microsoft to dedicate most of his time to confronting TB, malaria, polio, education ... He did not have to hire some of the most accomplished scientists in the world to manage dispersion of funds to various labs around the world. His initial motives don't matter. His ongoing actions do. And boy, do they matter.

The rolling eyes (and previously sarcasm punctuation) is the hint.

When people donate for charity they don't spend all their time being anonymous, because that's not the point of charity. If someone gets publicity for doing charity and if it encourages them to do more then it's good, because what's important is that they donated. I prefer someone donating and getting a lot of attention than someone not donating and being treated like an anonymous. When someone donates, people get to know. Because if you want to do something, when you have all that money, you find ways to spend your money in a good way.

If you have faith in capitalism we can see how well that worked in the us, where everyone is rich...

There are Buddhist teachings that say pretty much the same thing. Teachings that Jobs likely learned when he was studying said religion/philosophy

it's actually a valid response. Jobs wouldn't want there to be any implication that Apple got the permit ( even if perhaps they shouldn't have) because they agreed to do the free wifi.

[QUOTE=igxqrrl;2008709
Except that... He *sought out* a biographer to write the story of his life. [/QUOTE]


Because he knew he was dying. ANd he had zero reason to believe that folks would stop gathering page hits and issues sales after his death given the evidence of how they acted during his life. This bio was his way of having a word out there. His side of things.

and it doesn't mean that he has to talk about everything. His right to privacy isn't abolished because of his death, this bio or anything else.

I know Steve was not a Christian believer but he seemed to follow the words of Jesus Christ about giving. I think these words would be well followed by all who give regardless of religious persuasion.

So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

The same logic applies to you pal.

I have PROOF.

Steve Jobs never cared about charities in the first place.

It was Tim Cook who started the recent charity program.

I know, truth is hard to swallow as a fanboy like yourself.

Dont get too emotion pal. Its only the internet.



http://www.redmondpie.com/the-struct...obs-departure/

It doesnt matter whether I've met the guy in person or not. Quite frankly, I could care less. Besides, he is dead anyway.

A lot of nonprofits are extremely inefficient. Some serve mainly to provide cushy jobs for their own workers.

It is not certain that donating your money to charity is "good" compared to other things an extremely talented person like Jobs might do with his time and money. Giving money to charity doesn't automatically help ANYBODY.

Jobs helped A LOT OF PEOPLE. Probably more than United Way ever has, or ever will. Just as an example. United Way is great. But, we are not all inferior to the charity sector in terms of helping people.

A lot of f**ing people, including poor people, were helped by Apple, GUI, and will be helped by Apple. And they will enthusiastically mention that. That is why I kind of feel this Jobs / charity santimony has always been a bit of a crock.

Steve was always very frank about his ideals. Had he hated philanthropy he'd probably have said so to Isaacson. Instead he chose to remain silent about the subject.

After reading the bio I get the impression philanthropy is something Steve wanted to do perfect, so he put it off, just like how he had very little furniture in his house. I suppose his wife and family will sort it out. (Not saying he didn't donate lots anyway).

...your generic "people" only counts for those whom you actually know do that. Having worked for a time for a trust management organization, I know for a simple fact that there are many, many wealthy people who have both public charitable giving AND private/anonymous charitable giving - the second of which is by far the larger of the two categories by the way. Public charitable giving is largely used to provide an example for others or to incentivize giving. BUt in terms of dollars it is the much smaller part of the charitable giving picture.

Interestingly, a survey some time ago demonstrated some very revealing facts about giving: by class, the wealthy/very rich and the poor were the best in terms of giving to others. The middle class was miserably bad at giving by comparison.

I expect most of the people who complain about this do not give to charity themselves.