= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Mark Zuckerberg plans to give away 99% of his facebook wealth over his lifetime - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (50)
If I understanding correctly, he just pledged to donate to himself, in the form of a for-profit company set up in the closest thing to tax haven you can find in the US.
Where is "effective" part? Where is the "giving" part?
They have an incentive to appease the elected officers who put them in that position, who in turn have an incentive to appease their electorate. Not terribly strong incentives, but that's what keeps democracy up and running.
What incentives does a billionaire without accountably to the users of the school system have?
No, they don't. They only have an incentive not to screw up so greatly as to get fired. You overestimate the influence that elected officials have over civil servants.
More importantly, you can just look at the outcomes. They are... not great.
Legacy.
And if by "users of the school system" you mean the kids or the parents, no one is accountable to them. Their only effective choice of influencing the system is Exit.
Why would people hired by Mark Zuckerberg to fix the school system do any better? It's not like they are making him any money.
Their incentive is just to spend the money allocated to them while pretending to be doing something useful. Civil servants have similar incentives, but at least civil servants need to please elected official who in turn answer to the populace, while Zuckerberg's employees only need to please their employer who answers to no one.
As opposed to the outcomes of charity-funded school systems?
Aren't school boards elective in the US?
Because he, presumably, would select them by different criteria and because he can fire them much much easier than a politician can fire a union-entrenched educrat.
This is precisely what creates an opportunity for him to be effective.
So do tell, what do you think is the problem?