"Here's a softball example. Pinterest, or Doctors Without Borders: which one is more likely to be having a real, positive impact on the lives of people around the world? In terms of money and exposure, Pinterest is more valuable than Doctors Without Borders. Is that the right conclusion that we should be drawing then, that Pinterest is worth more to the future of humanity than an organization dedicated to sending medical talent into parts of the world where it's otherwise unavailable?"

If the author could put together such an argument it would be 'smart and thoughtful' writing, but they don't and it wasn't. I am all in favor of taking a hard look at what we're doing with our time and money, and economics is simply a way of allocating resources.

There was a very approachable, if somewhat flawed, documentary called "A World Without US" (no not Weisman's book, but Ferguson's documentary [1]) which talked about political ramifications of the US Foreign Policy interventions. The interesting take away here was first, the US becomes the world's largest political entity, then two what do they do about it. And the documentary basically goes on to say "some good stuff which other people don't appreciate."

And the strange connection that made for me was from a Jon Stewart Daily Show routine about Apple knocking down the door of the Gizmodo writer who leaked the iPhone prototype and pointing out that Bill Gates is ridding the world of mosquitoes and Steve Jobs is out breaking down peoples doors.

So bringing it back to Doctors without Borders and their funding. They exist today in part because some of those crazy money grubbing web sites give them money [2], Google over $500K, Expedia $200K, Microsoft, and a number of trusts which were created by people who got 'rich' doing startups. And when Pinterest has a huge exit and the founders go out and start building clean water wells in Africa (like a couple of Googlers I met did) how does that change the evaluation?

So this is where it comes together, you can't tell someone who is working to build value for their employees and their community 'meaningless pursuit of profits' and you certainly can't imply that the people who can turn a photo sharing site into a billion dollar acquisition could have created a billion dollars of humanitarian aide if they had only been focused on that problem instead of pictures.

It would be smart and thoughtful if you looked at the economic forces that are allowing people to build a financially secure base from which they make great contributions to humanity. You want to compare the amount of good done in the world by a dozen tech entrepreneurs that first made it 'big' and then turned that into a force for good? You can compare that to the resources people working for NGOs have created (not just steered) for those activities.

I get irritated when I read people dismiss the efforts of smart people to turn their ideas and smarts to large chunks of cash as being vain, shallow, and selfish, when I have seen so many of those very same people turn around once they don't have to worry about money any more and devote their efforts to doing great things. Sorry, but its a sore point with me.

[1] http://www.theworldwithoutus.com/theworldwithoutus_tvstation...

[2] https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/publications/ar/MSF%20...

Henry Ford made a fortune by delivering automobiles to Americans -- especially those that could not have afforded them otherwise -- and in the process, he forever transformed American culture and landscape (whether for better or worse is perhaps another debate).

Elon Musk made a fortune by transforming payments online, and in the process, helped to create a new global marketplace. Paypal may not be my favorite company anymore, but I wouldn't argue that they haven't made a huge positive difference in the way that people buy things from each-other around the world.

And now he's making another fortune by advancing space technology, with no lesser vision than opening up an entirely new frontier in his lifetime.

So I think there's room for an argument that it would be nice to have more of that, and I usually find myself nodding my head in agreement every time it comes up. For example, I'd point out that investors are often quoted as "looking for the next Facebook"; shouldn't we also be "looking for the next SpaceX"?

And yet, I don't think I've ever read that.

But maybe I just hang out in the wrong places.

Google , which is relatively generous, gave 2.1% of it's profits in 2010 to charities, which is $180 million.

So i wouldn't say google or larry page "devote" their life to doing good.

And i wouldn't say that there's a trend of ex entrepreneurs trying to help others. maybe donating here and there.

Google didn't create all that wealth. They took a large part of that wealth from other advertising companies - primarily newspapers. And that money came from companies which in turn came from consumers. A good part of the wealth of companies is from arbitrage, monetising previously non-tradable items and digging stuff up - you know, externalities. A good portion from consumers is intergenerational. Very little actually comes from wealth creation.

Wealth is for all practical purposes, finite. This does not mean it is fixed. As a previous commenter pointed out, global economic growth is increasing at 3-4%.. at least some small portion of this is due to wealth creation rather than the monetisation thing. Understand also that monetisation usually transfers wealth rather than creates it, but sometimes can actually reduce wealth overall (take say, tobacco companies as a non-controversial example.. a controversial, though equally true, example might be BP or Shell).

Then you start asking yourself, if wealth is largely finite.. and some companies are making money hand over fist, then surely someone must be losing out? Why exactly do you think there are people living around the world who cannot afford good healthcare or clean water? You think they are just lazy? You actually believe all that BS in the doco you watched?

It also amazes me when people point out how generous US companies and people are in philanthropy - generally 1-2% of profit - while completely turning a blind eye to the very low levels of tax they pay. The democratic-capitalist-welfare state has a bigger positive impact worldwide to population health than all the charities put together, and it can be cheaper to run.

And another thing, you think google giving the doctors 500k is actually significant? In addition to the $400m / 80% figures already pointed out, think about the individual contributions - peoples life work. Also from wikipedia, in 07 there were 26,000 professionals who helped MSF. I don't know if you are aware, but people who work for charities don't get paid as much.. and that is if they are not just volunteering their time. Say 26,000 x 10% pay cut x ave wage (in aus dollars with aus wages this would be about $130m, you can adjust elsewhere if you like).

130 million a year in wealth donations from ordinary people.

I am all for wealth creation, which I think was the crux of the OP - if you are not contributing value to people's lives, you are not creating wealth, just taking it from someone else. And I don't discount the efforts of the people you mention. I think companies like google have helped in other ways with more impact than just their cash. Just want you to see these efforts in context, and maybe think a bit deeper. Because it is a very long rabbit hole.

And because it irritates me.

"A surprising number of people retain from childhood the idea that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world. There is, in any normal family, a fixed amount of money at any moment. But that's not the same thing."

That is a great essay, I've read it several times. I particularly appreciated the how he points out what money is and what it isn't. I bought this course on Economics http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.asp... (sometimes you can check it out from the library) and listened to it in my car over the course of a couple of months. Dr Taylor has a very easy to listen to delivery for a lecturer. And it really helped illustrate how the economy both works and how it can be reasoned about effectively.

I can't fly around Africa in a bush plane and give out medical advice, I can build a successful business here and then fund a doctor who volunteers to do that. If I'm smart and thoughtful I would look at how much solid humanitarian work is funded by folks in the US, and I would note that there is more funding going into humanitarian aid from the US than any other country in the world [1], and while it did take a hit during the Great Recession it is recovering. And if I was smart and thoughtful I would know that like the aphorism "a rising tide lifts all boats" that anything that generates economic growth in the US results in more humanitarian aid for the world. And then I would note all those awesome tech companies in the top 500 list that are driving creating the GDP which is coming out of the #1 source of humanitarian funding in the world and I would say "Go tech! Go tech!"

[1] http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/wp-content/uploa...