Welcome to Cooperman-ville
cramer said:
I mentioned Andrew Carnegie. Yes, he was a robbber baron, but
"But, proclaimed Carnegie, the rich had a high social obligation to spread their money—while still living—“for noble aims.” A decade later, Carnegie would follow through on that belief after selling his steel company to J.P. Morgan in 1901 for some $480 million, of which he retained $225 million (more than $6 billion in today’s dollars). He then spent the rest of his life giving money away—an estimated $350 million in total to a variety of causes. He became “a national treasure and not a robber baron,” wrote Peter Krass in Carnegie, and a model for latter-day moguls such as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, who have pledged to put most of their fortunes to beneficent use before they die."
"Andrew Carnegie: Robber Baron turned Robinhood"
https://www.historynet.com/andrew-carnegie-robber-baron-turned-robin-hood.htm
eta - I'm from Pittsburgh and cherished the Carnegie Library and Carnegie Museum.
btw - We still have a large painting that we purchased at an art auction at Carnegie Museum in 1971. It was painted by the head of the Carnegie Mellon art department.
yet again, you're just proving my point about whitewashing.
Joe D vs Cooperman - compare and contrast. Am I correct in saying that Cooperman is at least using his own money to plaster his name? Maybe his face in a few places but not as much as Joe D.
PeterWick said:
Joe D vs Cooperman - compare and contrast. Am I correct in saying that Cooperman is at least using his own money to plaster his name? Maybe his face in a few places but not as much as Joe D.
Is Joe D. having things named after him for perpetuity?
db - Do you think Carnegie was trying to whitewash his reputation or really believed that the money he accumulated should go towards philanthropic projects? If you read about him, you'll see that he believed that the first half of one's life should be spent towards accumulating wealth and the second half towards using it for the betterment of others. You may disagree with his philosophy, but he wasn't trying to whitewash his reputation. In this respect he was different from the other robber barons whose goal was only to accumulate wealth.
Now, I'm out of here. I've spent way too much time on this thread.
btw - Carnegie was in favor of an income tax.
cramer said:
db - Do you think Carnegie was trying to whitewash his reputation or really believed that the money he accumulated should go towards philanthropic projects? If you read about him, you'll see that he believed that the first half of one's life should be spent towards accumulating wealth and the second half towards giving it back to society. You may disagree with his philosophy, but he wasn't trying to whitewash his reputation. In this respect he was different from the other robber barons whose goal was only to accumulate wealth.
Now, I'm out of here. I've spent way too much time on this thread.
btw - Carnegie was in favor of an income tax.
does it matter what he really believed (and who is to know what that was anyway?) The effect is the same.
and if he was mostly concerned with giving his wealth away, he wouldn't have had his name plastered all over the place commemorating his wonderful beneficence.
you see that, right?
Jasmo said:
There are different levels of charitable giving described in the ancient texts. Roughly speaking, giving anonymously is the highest form, giving unanonymously is below that, but certainly better than not at all. Splashing one's name around in gifts certainly sounds egotistical, but what about the feelings of moral superiority In secret giving?
URL: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/45907/jewish/Eight-Levels-of-Charity.htm
I believe that Maimonides' Eight Levels of Charity is the ancient text to which Jasmo is referring..
Excerpt from link above:
[1] The greatest level, above which there is no greater, is to support a fellow Jew by endowing him with a gift or loan, or entering into a partnership with him, or finding employment for him, in order to strengthen his hand so that he will not need to be dependent upon others . . .
[2] A lesser level of charity than this is to give to the poor without knowing to whom one gives, and without the recipient knowing from who he received. For this is performing a mitzvah solely for the sake of Heaven. This is like the “anonymous fund” that was in the Holy Temple [in Jerusalem]. There the righteous gave in secret, and the good poor profited in secret. Giving to a charity fund is similar to this mode of charity, though one should not contribute to a charity fund unless one knows that the person appointed over the fund is trustworthy and wise and a proper administrator, like Rabbi Chananyah ben Teradyon.
[3] A lesser level of charity than this is when one knows to whom one gives, but the recipient does not know his benefactor. The greatest sages used to walk about in secret and put coins in the doors of the poor. It is worthy and truly good to do this, if those who are responsible for distributing charity are not trustworthy.
[4] A lesser level of charity than this is when one does not know to whom one gives, but the poor person does know his benefactor. The greatest sages used to tie coins into their robes and throw them behind their backs, and the poor would come up and pick the coins out of their robes, so that they would not be ashamed.
[5] A lesser level than this is when one gives to the poor person directly into his hand, but gives before being asked.
[6] A lesser level than this is when one gives to the poor person after being asked.
[7] A lesser level than this is when one gives inadequately, but gives gladly and with a smile.
[8] A lesser level than this is when one gives unwillingly.
drummerboy said:
PeterWick said:
Joe D vs Cooperman - compare and contrast. Am I correct in saying that Cooperman is at least using his own money to plaster his name? Maybe his face in a few places but not as much as Joe D.
Is Joe D. having things named after him for perpetuity?
As I said, compare and contrast.
I read that you did not like the new wing, DB. Personally, I thought it was wonderful and I appreciated the single rooms they have transitioned to. It was a great comfort to my sister when she was sick, and dying. She was not one to quarter with garrulous folk, although she herself could be defined as such. I thought the rooms quite lovely and accommodating to family--at least before the pandemic.
PeterWick said:
drummerboy said:
PeterWick said:
Joe D vs Cooperman - compare and contrast. Am I correct in saying that Cooperman is at least using his own money to plaster his name? Maybe his face in a few places but not as much as Joe D.
Is Joe D. having things named after him for perpetuity?
As I said, compare and contrast.
Joe D. and Cooperman are both corrupt.
Interesting article about Leon Cooperman in the Washington Post yesterday:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/01/30/moral-calculations-billionaire/
Jasmo said:
Interesting article about Leon Cooperman in the Washington Post yesterday:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/01/30/moral-calculations-billionaire/
Interesting article. Is Mr. Cooperman an evil man? No. Has he worked hard for his money? Yes. Can we create a system more rational & humane than one in which a billionaire sits at a computer screen & makes millions while people nearby go hungry? We must. https://t.co/5VLq9VB452
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) January 30, 2022
I’m thinking one very efficient way to help poor people is building affordable house. Instead of giving billions to charities that take a huge percentage, why don’t they buy land and build houses for poor people? Or is that socialism? That would create jobs in the construction industry, and really help people in a tangible way. Housing is the greatest expense. Second is health insurance.
If someone is a billionaire, they have exploited others. They are not nice people. They may have worked hard, but did they work harder than the person with two jobs earning minimum wage? No.
What struck me from the article, which is mostly a whitewash, was the fact that a billionaire is so insecure about his fortune and whatever else that he moves to another state to lower his tax rate, and then alters his lifestyle to make sure that he maintains a legal residence there.
That's pretty screwed up if you ask me.
I agree in part, but also he probably doesn't miss the wonderful winter we've been having in NJ while swimming in his pool in 77 degree weather. Also, many people have have an engrained value system, where they they get satisfaction saving money and paying less taxes, even if they could afford to do otherwise.
drummerboy said:
What struck me from the article, which is mostly a whitewash, was the fact that a billionaire is so insecure about his fortune and whatever else that he moves to another state to lower his tax rate, and then alters his lifestyle to make sure that he maintains a legal residence there.
That's pretty screwed up if you ask me.
Jaytee said:
I’m thinking one very efficient way to help poor people is building affordable house. Instead of giving billions to charities that take a huge percentage, why don’t they buy land and build houses for poor people? Or is that socialism? That would create jobs in the construction industry, and really help people in a tangible way. Housing is the greatest expense. Second is health insurance.
You'll need to set aside a significant amount to fight the local homeowners who will certainly oppose such building.
PVW said:
You'll need to set aside a significant amount to fight the local homeowners who will certainly oppose such building.
I am thinking more along the lines of an entire development, not building a few houses in established neighborhoods. An entire town with affordable housing for lower middle class people. Like the blue collar neighborhoods that were built. I’m not thinking of giving free houses away. Not to be competing with government run projects. But the working class are finding it difficult to afford even a small house these days.
Jaytee said:
I am thinking more along the lines of an entire development, not building a few houses in established neighborhoods. An entire town with affordable housing for lower middle class people. Like the blue collar neighborhoods that were built. I’m not thinking of giving free houses away. Not to be competing with government run projects. But the working class are finding it difficult to afford even a small house these days.
The challenge with that is that the places with the best jobs and most opportunity are generally also among the most built up -- places like the NYC metro or the SF Bay area. So any significant increase in housing is, pretty much by definition, going to have to be in established neighborhoods. There's a lot of resistance to that, so instead housing gets built farther and farther out, with all sorts of negative consequences, eg building in areas at higher risk of wildfires in CA, longer and longer commutes that place great emotional and financial strain on individuals and families, etc.
That's not as true in some economically growing areas like parts of Texas, for instance, but that's also just a matter of time. Already places like Austin have tipped into increasing unaffordability.
"The New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency (NJHMFA) has awarded over $5 million in tax credits to fund the development of the South Orange Commons affordable housing project to be located at 41-45 West Third Street in downtown South Orange. The project, a partnership between JESPY House, the Township of South Orange Village, Bergen County’s United Way/Madeline Housing Partners, LLC, and Penwal Affordable Housing Corporation will provide affordable housing for low-income families and adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
“When I heard the news I screamed for joy and started calling our partners. We have been working on this for years,” said South Orange Village President Sheena Collum. “This is our very first 100-percent affordable housing project in town and augments the long list of current redevelopment projects underway with mandatory affordable housing set-asides consistent with the Village’s Housing Element and Fair Share Plan. We also quintupled developer contributions into our Affordable Housing Trust Fund which enabled us to donate the land and parking to this project at no cost to our taxpayers.”
The South Orange Commons project arose because JESPY House clients advocated for South Orange to develop more affordable housing due to skyrocketing rents. JESPY House is a nonprofit organization that has helped adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities to live independently in South Orange for more than 40 years. Clients live in South Orange, work locally, and shop and socialize in downtown businesses."
Meta Platforms' market cap is down $200 billion so far today, and Zuckerberg owns 29%. His net worth, which was $113 billion before today, dropped $58 billion.
eta - I was wrong about how much Meta stock Zuckerberg owns. He owns about 12.8% of Meta stock and his loss today is $29 billion. What's a few billion among friends?
btw - Amazon's stock is down 27% from its high - 7% today. It's earnings are out after the close today. Should be interesting. Don't worry about Bezos (as if you were.) He's been a huge seller.
Cooperman is a small player compared to these guys. Zuckerman has committed to the Giving Pledge, as has Cooperman. He has has pledged to give away 99% to charitable causes. Bezos hasn't.
I mentioned Andrew Carnegie. Yes, he was a robbber baron, but
"But, proclaimed Carnegie, the rich had a high social obligation to spread their money—while still living—“for noble aims.” A decade later, Carnegie would follow through on that belief after selling his steel company to J.P. Morgan in 1901 for some $480 million, of which he retained $225 million (more than $6 billion in today’s dollars). He then spent the rest of his life giving money away—an estimated $350 million in total to a variety of causes. He became “a national treasure and not a robber baron,” wrote Peter Krass in Carnegie, and a model for latter-day moguls such as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, who have pledged to put most of their fortunes to beneficent use before they die."
"Andrew Carnegie: Robber Baron turned Robinhood"
https://www.historynet.com/andrew-carnegie-robber-baron-turned-robin-hood.htm
eta - I'm from Pittsburgh and cherished the Carnegie Library and Carnegie Museum.
btw - We still have a large painting that we purchased at an art auction at Carnegie Museum in 1971. It was painted by the head of the Carnegie Mellon art department.