Reddit reviews More Than Money: A Guide To Sustaining Wealth and Preserving the Family (Bloomberg)

>Americans who make minimum wage are some of the wealthiest humans on Earth by global standards.

I agree, but it has not much to do with the point i made.

>They money for welfare states in Europe came from colonialism, genocide, and slavery in places like Africa, Asia, and South America.

No, the wealth of the west is based on that. The money for welfare comes from taxes. Every country with a certain level of wealth can create a welfare state. It is not important how that wealth was created.

>As long as people provide informed consent, there's nothing immoral about it. That applies to sexual partnerships, and it applies to business partnerships as well.

So doing something immoral is not immoral if the person knows that she is doing something immoral? Thats not how ethics work.

>Even if consumers just want cheaper stuff, the best way to make things cheaper is to use fewer resources.

Wrong, the best way is to use cheaper resources. Cheaper resources does not equate fewer resources.

>Which problem do you solve? The capitalist focuses on the biggest problem because that means they make the most money.

My friends in Biotech would cry if they red that. Treating a disease by treating symptoms without treating the underlying cause is far more profitable than treating the underlying cause. There are a 1000 medications that are not used because they can be found in nature and can therefore not be patented. Thus, nobody invests the money to get these medications approved.

>Can you provide any data to support your view?

"Nutrition is the main cause of death and disease in the world." - https://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/world-food-day-2019-malnutrition-world-health-crisis/en/

I also worked for Plan International and traveled around Asia and South America.

​

>I don't care about an equal playing field.

Says a rich guy from a rich country. I don't care what you care about. I care about doing the right thing.

>I want to maximize innovation and growth on Earth because that increases the standard of living for all humans, especially the poorest ones.

What makes you think that? We are living in the fucking future and there are people dying of starvation. Capitalism, by nature, favors the rich, so they are the ones profiting. Pleas elaborate how the next generation of quantum computers will help to feed people in Africa.

>And currently, giving someone like Elon Musk another billion dollars would improve the standard of living for humans much more than giving a billion humans $1.

Would you say the same if that one dollar would make you able to afford food or medication, so that you can live another day? Your problem is that you simply cannot imagine absolute poverty, because you have never seen it and it is so far out of reach.

>This is explicitly the reason why we have to innovate more and faster.

But then again, your premise that money = innovation is wrong. Great minds and the freedom to create what you want to create = innovation.

>It's very easy to have a good idea. But 99% of success is execution. Capitalism ties everything to successful outcomes, not just creativity.

This is simply wrong. A good ideas in the terms you are referring to are rare. Furthermore, if 99% of success is execution, you can sell shitty stuff as long as your advertisement is good. This is the sole reason companies like apple exist. 0% Innovation, 99% marketing, 1% suicide nets.

​

>It's very easy to have a good idea. But 99% of success is execution. Capitalism ties everything to successful outcomes, not just creativity. And it's essentially a do or die system. If you don't come up with something special, there isn't much of a safety net.

I don't see how this is an argument against the point I made. If 99% is execution, you can have a completely useless thing that sells very good because its advertisement is good. #fidgetspinner

>Furthermore, capitalism incentivizes people who would normally lose because of your innovation to support you.

Besides the fact that this sentence does not make any sense whatsoever, I get that capitalism is not normal. Looks like you are making progress.

​

>You aren't locked into a given worldview, because you can always sell your stock in your company and invest in something completely new.

This isn't an argument either.

> The only way to make more money is to keep investing in new, better ideas. That's why 70% of wealthy families lose their money by the second generation and 90% lose it by the third.

" Specifically, Cole, whose new book “More than Money” is out today, says he believes that about 60% of the wealth disintegration is due to a lack of communication and trust, 25% to a lack of preparation for how to handle the money; and about 10% to a lack of a shared vision about family goals around money.

It is advisable to read the articles you link.

​

>For these reasons, innovation and economic growth has been far more common in capitalist countries than in socialist or communist ones.

The fact that the cat eats the mouse is only an argument for being a cat if there are cats around. If there are only mouses, there is no need to favor being a cat over being a mouse.

On a planet on which people compete for live and death, obviously the person that reaches their hand will get slaughtered.

" In a globalized world a change to socialism could only work globally. This is why the "socialist" countries you are mentioning are not socialist. "