Why is that bad?
-
-
Replying to @roybahat @paigeleskin
The article? Instead of talking about a heroic act by one of the most successful women on the planet, it focuses the attention on bashing her former husband. Those two things are quite literally not related, and puts a negative light on philanthropic efforts.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
It's an opportunistic, click-optimized hit piece with zero insight or thoughtfulness targeted at stoking the flames of our worst impulses.
1 reply 0 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @zackkanter @paigeleskin
Oh I agree. I just thought you meant the headline, which is all I ever read there these days because the content doesn't justify the paywall most of the time. So I am habituated.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Though I also agree that Jeff should give and it is not OK that he hasn't.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @roybahat @paigeleskin
It seems to me that one of the worst things that the best capital allocator in the world could do is give too early.
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
wouldn't that skill apply to solving market failures as well? especially for problems that are irreversible…
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Giving ≠ addressing market failures. Giving = enabling others to address market failures. Great capital allocators reliably compound capital at astonishing rates. The argument against giving it away early is that it curtails the ability to compound.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zackkanter @jasonwbade and
E.g. what if Buffett gave it all away when he had $20B?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
That presumes that his $20b wouldn’t have compounded in social returns in the same way it has financially.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes.
5:23 PM - 29 May 2019
0 replies
0 retweets
0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.