The Homeless Billionaire | Hacker News Reader

The Homeless Billionaire

blogs.wsj.com

33 pointsjlhamilton27 comments

From the article:

And of course it’s easy for a billionaire to say “money and things aren’t important.”

The important thing that they always miss is why its easy. It goes beyond just being able to afford to hotel hop. In a very real sense everything belongs to him. At least everything that is mass producible. This guy doesn't need a car because wherever in the world he is, he can simply say "get me a car" and one will appear. Substitute boat, plane, ham sandwich, whatever and its still true. When you have that much money, "ownership" becomes entirely a matter of semantics.

When you have US$1,000, you can buy any item that costs up to US$1,000. When you have US$1,000,000, you can buy any item that costs up to US$1,000,000. When you have US$1,000,000,000, well, there aren't many items that have a price tag like that.

369 003 690 Big Macs?

If you really wanted that many Big Macs then you'd get a discount. However, why would you want that much junk food?

I just like the Big Mac index.

yes, that's true. on the flip side, if the meaning of wealth is to have what you want when you want it (apart from ownership), then we're getting closer to an understanding of wealth apart from having $$$, and sometimes this is worthwhile to remember.

Is there not as much ego as wanting to have museums named after you as there is in having fancy cars and houses. This determination to leave a legacy can often be just as conceited. Its not enough to be rich, people want to have a stamp on history like the Rockefellers or Carnegies.

Donating to a museum may seem altruistic but don't be so foolish, you can never really know people's true motivations.

Too true, but I'd rather have him spend his money on a museum or library that I can enjoy than a pair of private jets that I cannot. The original motivation matters very little to me.

I think in some sense we're all moving towards this model of "ownership", in one way or another.

For example, when it comes to the most easily mass producible thing in the world--information--we're all "billionaires" now. I can ask Google to get me all kinds of information, and it just appears. Even 15 years ago some fairly trivial Google searches would have required privileged access to sources of knowledge (libraries, universities, etc... stuff not always available everywhere in the world) and lots of free time.

There are very few limits (or if there are, we haven't reached them yet) on the reproducibility of information. The marginal cost of reproducing information for another ten or twenty billion human beings is fairly negligible. Will it ever be the case that we can overcome the limits on the reproducibility of material goods? Or are there fundamental constraints on material goods that don't exist for information? If we can overcome them, then one day we will all be "billionaires", in this sense.

EDIT: Amazon Web Services is a good example of this kind of transformation; it's made all of us "millionaires" when it comes to computing. A few years ago, "get me a thousand servers" would have required millions of dollars, a fair amount of time, and a lot of technical expertise. With EC2, it requires $100/hr.

> Will it ever be the case that we can overcome the limits on the reproducibility of material goods? Or are there fundamental constraints on material goods that don't exist for information?

Yes, in a sense: see reprap.org, and further along in the future, molecular nanotechnology. However, there will always be a (small) cost for the raw materials that go into the finished product.

I think I'm fundamentally a pessimist on this front.

I think, for example, that the rising price of oil is a symptom of the absolute physical limits that material resources face.

Some raw materials have a small cost, others have a high cost.

The major difference between information and material goods is that material goods also serve as indicators of status. If we evolve toward some other way of indicating status, then one day stuff will be just as free as information is now. But if not, people will continue to spend money on ridiculously overpriced stuff that has no added utility over "regular" stuff, just to show that they're better than those who can't afford it.

And they are better, in a sense. This seemingly childish game of status shouldn't be discounted. It's evolutionarily very important.

By "homeless" they mean "living in 5 star hotels year round".

Was that not obvious from the article?

True, although I suppose if they put "houseless" you probably wouldn't have read it...

Anyone really serious about being humble would pay his laywers big money to make sure he never appears on the WSJ. I mean seriously this is what they call "substract to add". You give the impression that you dont care for material goods, although ou have spent a lifetime acquiring them. aS a result you become even more famous and richer.

Meh. I think that spreading the meme of reducing consumption, if you believe it, is worthy of the article. Maybe it isn't about impressing everyone by seeming humble--maybe it's about spreading a better way of thinking about wealth.

If you call living in high class hotels reducing consumption then I totally agree with you, And they simply said he is letting his houses, cars... go, but they are not saying he is giving them away. Want to impress? Commit half of your fortune to charity NOW and the second half gradually for the next n years. 3 billion? End Malaria, Darfur or something. In my opinion having 3 Billion in the bank or tied up into businesses doesn't make you so different then having cars, houses and boats that are worth 3 billion.

giving away money doesn't solve problems. in the best case scenario it removes roadblocks to other people solving them. in the worst case scenario it is simply a stop gap that leaves the people you're trying to help in the exact same situation once the money runs out.

I think the point I was making that he isn't necessarily trying to impress. In my book, conspicuous consumption is wasteful, and making a stand against it is worthwhile.

Quite the contrary. Only someone who was serious about appearing humble would try to prevent publicity. While the article might not make him appear humble, true humility does not require the appearance of humility.

I consider W. Buffett humble. Leaving in the same house you purchased when you were not even a millionaire, let alone the second richest person on earth. Seriously there is not one person on earth who needs more than 5 million to survive. I say pledge the remaining 2.995 billies. And finally is it truly humble to say that you stay in 5 star hotels across the planet.

yeah, those people with 4 million have it pretty tough.

you can live very comfortably the rest of your life off of 500,000 even in some of the richest counties in the US if you know how not to squander money.

Does he ever claim to be humble? He only claims to be sensible -- owning a house is a waste of time and effort when you're rich enough to stay in a different hotel suite every week.

But his perspective seems to be increasingly common among today’s superwealthy — and even wealthy — who are looking for more lasting meaning in their lives beyond their possessions.

I suspect that this is not increasingly common, but rather as common as it ever was. People with money who learn that it doesn't convey lasting meaning will inevitably look for it elsewhere.

Here we see the demand side of the equation decreasing. If this spreads, is it actually bad?

Depends. Are you in the real estate business or the luxury hotel business?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com