For all those folks that berate and denigrate the "billio-nayahs" and "millio-nayahs", I hope they can pause a bit and reflect on -- heck, perhaps even thank? -- all those Bs and Ms that have stepped up to already fund almost half a billion euros for the reconstruction and restoration of Notre Dame. With possibly more to come.
Except that's like you and I donating $20 or so and not getting the notoriety (or free marketing) that these guys are getting.
Since they’re now funding the restoration of historical monuments, maybe they could kick in some money to restore the monuments torn down by Antifa in the South. American history matters, too. Even the unsavory parts. Especially the unsavory parts, since history forgotten will become history repeated.
I’m not sure why Apple or anyone else is donating to rebuild Notre Dame. The cathedral, along with 70 other churches are all owned by the French state. So these donations are simply reducing the bill the French government will have to pay to repair it.
Because France is more or less incapable of doing anything on their own, including defending themselves.
You'll regret more the things you don't do than the things that you do.
In 1992, my (now ex-)wife and I were at Notre Dame, and I watched the kids while she went inside, and I thought, "I'll do this the next time..."
Well, 27 years later, I never got back to it, and I won't get to see it how it was prior to the fire. She offered to watch the kids while I went inside, but we were having too much fun playing in the kids area on the side of the cathedral, and, well, they were getting hungry too.
While the Notre Dame is a World Heritage Site, the cynic in me questions Apple's motives.
I don't believe they have donated anything towards the rebuilding of heritage sites damaged by ISIS in Syria and Iraq have they? Perhaps that's because they don't sell a lot of iPhones there...
Why can't Tim just donate his own money and not having to donate Apple's? If he were a real mensch he'd do it anonymously.
Cook plans to give $800 Million to charity and has already made progress on that, some anonymously. It’s also up to him if they want to donate from the massive cash pile they’re sitting on.
I’m not sure why Apple or anyone else is donating to rebuild Notre Dame. The cathedral, along with 70 other churches are all owned by the French state. So these donations are simply reducing the bill the French government will have to pay to repair it.
Because France is more or less incapable of doing anything on their own, including defending themselves.
For all those folks that berate and denigrate the "billio-nayahs" and "millio-nayahs", I hope they can pause a bit and reflect on -- heck, perhaps even thank? -- all those Bs and Ms that have stepped up to already fund almost half a billion euros for the reconstruction and restoration of Notre Dame. With possibly more to come.
Doesn't make up for decades of poor economic policy that favors the billionaire class and creates an ever-widening wealth gap where there are more billionaires minted every year and the middle-class shrinks and the poor get poor. A few good deeds (tax write-offs to boot) aren't a course correction.
True, but it's Congress that makes that policy, although admittedly at the push of lobbyists who represent the rich. We're never going to get out of that situation until we get money out of politics and the current Supreme Court is never going to do that. If the B's and M's would do more like this (and pay their fair share of taxes), I would have less of a problem. The Gilded Age rich were largely horrible people, but at least they left us with some great public spaces: libraries, museums, opera houses, railroad terminals, parks, university buildings, etc. And most of the big tech companies pay most employees quite well (although a lot of that high compensation goes into ridiculously over-priced housing).
Without Congress getting money out of politics, I don't know what the solution is to restore a strong middle-class in the U.S. At least unemployment levels are relatively low and for the poor, at least many states and cities are taking action on their own to raise the minimum wage. In NYC, the minimum wage is now $15/hr for almost all employees. With two people in a household making that wage full time, that's about $60K a year and while still tough, they can live okay, especially if they're already in affordable housing. I believe that when housing is built for the rich, the developers should have to build X units for the middle-class and poor. And the real middle class - an $800,000 2 bedroom condo is not viable for the middle class as I define it. I'm sure plenty here who only believe in letting capitalism and the markets define pricing will strenuously disagree, but all the homeless living along California highways says that our current system doesn't work anymore. Every new building constructed in NYC is only for the rich and sales prices on old units are also only for the relatively wealthy. Archie Bunker would be a rich man today because he could have sold his little crappy house in Queens for close to $1 million. Of course after selling, he would have had to move to somewhere where housing is a lot less expensive.
Direct democracy (the end of political parties and mandate system) would be the solution.
The Founders considered this, and decided that it was the worst form of government:
[A] pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. - Madison, Federalist No. 10
"Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." - John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
"That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity." - Alexander Hamilton, some guy that a musical was written about
However, for small communities within a Constitutional Republic that protects the rights of each person, I don't see a problem that said Constitution would remedy. But then again, Ben Franklin is misattributed to have said in 1759, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." (Gary Strand). I guess with that, the size of that group will have to be, at most, two with equal votes.
For all those folks that berate and denigrate the "billio-nayahs" and "millio-nayahs", I hope they can pause a bit and reflect on -- heck, perhaps even thank? -- all those Bs and Ms that have stepped up to already fund almost half a billion euros for the reconstruction and restoration of Notre Dame. With possibly more to come.
Except that's like you and I donating $20 or so and not getting the notoriety (or free marketing) that these guys are getting.
Did you donate at all?
In any event, speak for yourself. It's their money. They can donate $0, $20, or $200M, that's up to them. They can do whatever the heck they want, since it's their money. People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett will do many multiples of the good that you and I possibly (or some inefficient government bureaucrat) could, so I say, more power to them. And more wealth.
I’m not sure why Apple or anyone else is donating to rebuild Notre Dame. The cathedral, along with 70 other churches are all owned by the French state. So these donations are simply reducing the bill the French government will have to pay to repair it.
Because France is more or less incapable of doing anything on their own, including defending themselves.
Says someone with a great deal of knowledge of history, I am sure.
Why can't Tim just donate his own money and not having to donate Apple's? If he were a real mensch he'd do it anonymously.
Cook plans to give $800 Million to charity and has already made progress on that, some anonymously. It’s also up to him if they want to donate from the massive cash pile they’re sitting on.
I’m not sure why Apple or anyone else is donating to rebuild Notre Dame. The cathedral, along with 70 other churches are all owned by the French state. So these donations are simply reducing the bill the French government will have to pay to repair it.
Because France is more or less incapable of doing anything on their own, including defending themselves.
ORLY? You know France has nukes, right?
No, it's up to the board of directors and ultimately the stockholders if they want to donate from their massive cash pile. Cash should be used on something that gives an ROI or be given to shareholders.
Of course they have nukes now, but they lost to Germany 3 times and got annihilated in Vietnam among other defeats. They've been going downhill ever since Charlemagne .
For all those folks that berate and denigrate the "billio-nayahs" and "millio-nayahs", I hope they can pause a bit and reflect on -- heck, perhaps even thank? -- all those Bs and Ms that have stepped up to already fund almost half a billion euros for the reconstruction and restoration of Notre Dame. With possibly more to come.
Except that's like you and I donating $20 or so and not getting the notoriety (or free marketing) that these guys are getting.
Did you donate at all?
In any event, speak for yourself. It's their money. They can donate $0, $20, or $200M, that's up to them. They can do whatever the heck they want, since it's their money. People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett will do many multiples of the good that you and I possibly (or some inefficient government bureaucrat) could, so I say, more power to them. And more wealth.
Didn't know I was obligated to donate after every disaster. Of course, I am speaking for myself. Keeping $1B and donating $99B is not a huge sacrifice. But, keep kissing their a$$es.
I’m not sure why Apple or anyone else is donating to rebuild Notre Dame. The cathedral, along with 70 other churches are all owned by the French state. So these donations are simply reducing the bill the French government will have to pay to repair it.
Because France is more or less incapable of doing anything on their own, including defending themselves.
Says someone with a great deal of knowledge of history, I am sure.
For all those folks that berate and denigrate the "billio-nayahs" and "millio-nayahs", I hope they can pause a bit and reflect on -- heck, perhaps even thank? -- all those Bs and Ms that have stepped up to already fund almost half a billion euros for the reconstruction and restoration of Notre Dame. With possibly more to come.
Doesn't make up for decades of poor economic policy that favors the billionaire class and creates an ever-widening wealth gap where there are more billionaires minted every year and the middle-class shrinks and the poor get poor. A few good deeds (tax write-offs to boot) aren't a course correction.
True, but it's Congress that makes that policy, although admittedly at the push of lobbyists who represent the rich. We're never going to get out of that situation until we get money out of politics and the current Supreme Court is never going to do that. If the B's and M's would do more like this (and pay their fair share of taxes), I would have less of a problem. The Gilded Age rich were largely horrible people, but at least they left us with some great public spaces: libraries, museums, opera houses, railroad terminals, parks, university buildings, etc. And most of the big tech companies pay most employees quite well (although a lot of that high compensation goes into ridiculously over-priced housing).
Without Congress getting money out of politics, I don't know what the solution is to restore a strong middle-class in the U.S. At least unemployment levels are relatively low and for the poor, at least many states and cities are taking action on their own to raise the minimum wage. In NYC, the minimum wage is now $15/hr for almost all employees. With two people in a household making that wage full time, that's about $60K a year and while still tough, they can live okay, especially if they're already in affordable housing. I believe that when housing is built for the rich, the developers should have to build X units for the middle-class and poor. And the real middle class - an $800,000 2 bedroom condo is not viable for the middle class as I define it. I'm sure plenty here who only believe in letting capitalism and the markets define pricing will strenuously disagree, but all the homeless living along California highways says that our current system doesn't work anymore. Every new building constructed in NYC is only for the rich and sales prices on old units are also only for the relatively wealthy. Archie Bunker would be a rich man today because he could have sold his little crappy house in Queens for close to $1 million. Of course after selling, he would have had to move to somewhere where housing is a lot less expensive.
Direct democracy (the end of political parties and mandate system) would be the solution.
The Founders considered this, and decided that it was the worst form of government:
[A] pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. - Madison, Federalist No. 10
"Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." - John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
"That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity." - Alexander Hamilton, some guy that a musical was written about
However, for small communities within a Constitutional Republic that protects the rights of each person, I don't see a problem that said Constitution would remedy. But then again, Ben Franklin is misattributed to have said in 1759, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." (Gary Strand). I guess with that, the size of that group will have to be, at most, two with equal votes.
True. I once heard the purpose of government is to protect the minority from the majority.
Such a shame there is so much economic illiteracy. FYI, the rich pay far more than their fair share in taxes. The United States has one of the most progressive tax systems in the entire world. Further, the increase in the income of the upper end of the income spectrum is nearly entirely explained by an increase in the usage of performance pay, reflecting inequality of productivity, not the "evil rich" stealing the wealth from middle America. If you pay employees by their productivity rather than paying them by the hour, you're going to have more inequality because some employees are more productive than others. There is absolutely nothing unfair about this. It rewards those that put in the effort instead of rewarding those that sleep at their desks.
The greed of some people to steal what isn't theirs is quite something.
Such a naïve view of how wealth is attained at the highest income levels. Please go into detail about how someone is "working harder than others" when they attain wealth simply by having the value of the investments they hold (which are often inherited) go up?
For all those folks that berate and denigrate the "billio-nayahs" and "millio-nayahs", I hope they can pause a bit and reflect on -- heck, perhaps even thank? -- all those Bs and Ms that have stepped up to already fund almost half a billion euros for the reconstruction and restoration of Notre Dame. With possibly more to come.
Doesn't make up for decades of poor economic policy that favors the billionaire class and creates an ever-widening wealth gap where there are more billionaires minted every year and the middle-class shrinks and the poor get poor. A few good deeds (tax write-offs to boot) aren't a course correction.
Of course, I should have expected nothing different from you!
For all those folks that berate and denigrate the "billio-nayahs" and "millio-nayahs", I hope they can pause a bit and reflect on -- heck, perhaps even thank? -- all those Bs and Ms that have stepped up to already fund almost half a billion euros for the reconstruction and restoration of Notre Dame. With possibly more to come.
Except that's like you and I donating $20 or so and not getting the notoriety (or free marketing) that these guys are getting.
Did you donate at all?
In any event, speak for yourself. It's their money. They can donate $0, $20, or $200M, that's up to them. They can do whatever the heck they want, since it's their money. People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett will do many multiples of the good that you and I possibly (or some inefficient government bureaucrat) could, so I say, more power to them. And more wealth.
Didn't know I was obligated to donate after every disaster. Of course, I am speaking for myself. Keeping $1B and donating $99B is not a huge sacrifice. But, keep kissing their a$$es.
Ah, a donation matters to you only if it is a “sacrifice”, damn the good it does.
I fail to understand that mindset. You’re welcome to wallow in it! I feel sorry what you must go through every envy-ridden day, though.
I’m not sure why Apple or anyone else is donating to rebuild Notre Dame. The cathedral, along with 70 other churches are all owned by the French state. So these donations are simply reducing the bill the French government will have to pay to repair it.
Because France is more or less incapable of doing anything on their own, including defending themselves.
Says someone with a great deal of knowledge of history, I am sure.
Such a shame there is so much economic illiteracy. FYI, the rich pay far more than their fair share in taxes. The United States has one of the most progressive tax systems in the entire world. Further, the increase in the income of the upper end of the income spectrum is nearly entirely explained by an increase in the usage of performance pay, reflecting inequality of productivity, not the "evil rich" stealing the wealth from middle America. If you pay employees by their productivity rather than paying them by the hour, you're going to have more inequality because some employees are more productive than others. There is absolutely nothing unfair about this. It rewards those that put in the effort instead of rewarding those that sleep at their desks.
The greed of some people to steal what isn't theirs is quite something.
Such a naïve view of how wealth is attained at the highest income levels. Please go into detail about how someone is "working harder than others" when they attain wealth simply by having the value of the investments they hold (which are often inherited) go up?
I was specifically referring to income, not wealth. Nonetheless, I will entertain your question.
Increasing wealth inequality is entirely explained by rising housing prices, caused by foolish local land use regulations and zoning laws. Further, the myth that the 1% have predominantly inherited their wealth is just that, a myth. 80% of millionaires in the United States are first generation. 62% of billionaires are self-made. And your solution to inherited wealth is? There is no need for a solution because it's not a problem, it's a feature. This country is a family society. The only way to redistribute the wealth is to destroy the incentive attain it, which leads to a great deal of more spending and not enough saving. Savings are lent out by banks for the purpose of increasing opportunities, productivity, and prosperity, to businesses and families. And if a country promotes laws that sharply elevate the velocity of money at the sharp expense of saving, they will find themselves less prosperous.
Comments
I don't believe they have donated anything towards the rebuilding of heritage sites damaged by ISIS in Syria and Iraq have they?
Perhaps that's because they don't sell a lot of iPhones there...
ORLY? You know France has nukes, right?
In any event, speak for yourself. It's their money. They can donate $0, $20, or $200M, that's up to them. They can do whatever the heck they want, since it's their money. People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett will do many multiples of the good that you and I possibly (or some inefficient government bureaucrat) could, so I say, more power to them. And more wealth.
Says someone with a great deal of knowledge of history, I am sure.
Of course they have nukes now, but they lost to Germany 3 times and got annihilated in Vietnam among other defeats. They've been going downhill ever since Charlemagne
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-notredame-axa/frances-axa-provided-insurance-cover-for-two-notre-dame-contractors-idUSKCN1RS27D
I fail to understand that mindset. You’re welcome to wallow in it! I feel sorry what you must go through every envy-ridden day, though.
Increasing wealth inequality is entirely explained by rising housing prices, caused by foolish local land use regulations and zoning laws. Further, the myth that the 1% have predominantly inherited their wealth is just that, a myth. 80% of millionaires in the United States are first generation. 62% of billionaires are self-made. And your solution to inherited wealth is? There is no need for a solution because it's not a problem, it's a feature. This country is a family society. The only way to redistribute the wealth is to destroy the incentive attain it, which leads to a great deal of more spending and not enough saving. Savings are lent out by banks for the purpose of increasing opportunities, productivity, and prosperity, to businesses and families. And if a country promotes laws that sharply elevate the velocity of money at the sharp expense of saving, they will find themselves less prosperous.
I'm afraid it is not I who is naive.