[samsamsam]

I thought this was a pretty good writeup. He has been divorced three times, on wife #4. But he is passionate about creating and solving problems. What I found interesting is how he calls his kids. It has been discussed a few times on RVF but how you teach your kids about money does have an impact on their lives. He is going to give almost all of it away.

It is a really good read, he has started so many successful companies.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-al...tml#page=1

But to be driving hard at 88, creating and building, that is my goal.

Quote:

Mann's personal life has sometimes suffered while his businesses thrived. He has been divorced three times. He has spoken openly about his disappointment with some of his six children, whom he identified by birth order, rather than name, in an interview with The Times.

"My No. 5 kid has never worked. No. 6 has never worked," he said. "No. 3 ran a restaurant and retired."

[RawGod]

Damn, that's alpha for an 88 year old. Suited up and taking up maximum space. Not sure about the serrated pocket square, but full marks for putting it out there.

[Little Dark]

I can't open the article but from what I'm seeing he's just another prick who doesn't care about his own children. Fuck him.

If somebody could quote the article or the highlights then maybe I can make a proper comment.

[samsamsam]

(09-18-2014 10:21 PM)Little Dark Wrote:  

I can't open the article but from what I'm seeing he's just another prick who doesn't care about his own children. Fuck him.

Seriously? The guy cares about trying to help people, creating solutions for problems and making their lives better. Maybe he was obsessed with trying to solve problems, but many of us can't relate to his world, we don't have the insight and talent.

His kids sounded like they were spoiled, maybe he didn't parent ideally. But they seem to have no hunger. The kids fucked themselves.

I think you should read the whole article, so I pasted it. Below is a little side bar and then the full article. It isn't that his kids are getting nothing, they just aren't getting most of it. Why give it to people who would piss it away?

Quote:

I'm trying to help people. How else would I have been able to work until I'm almost 90, if I didn't have something to motivate me?
- Alfred Mann

Quote:

Many executives would have given up after sinking a decade and $1 billion into an unsalable product.

Wall Street had hammered the company's stock after regulators issued yet another round of safety concerns. Analysts piled on, some declaring the product would never reach the market. Shareholders sued.

But Alfred Mann's motivations went far deeper than money.

The Los Angeles billionaire already could claim a stunning array of medical advances: His companies had created a rechargeable pacemaker; an implant that enables deaf people to hear; a prosthetic retina that helps blind people see; an insulin pump that transformed the treatment of diabetes; a device that enables amputees to control prosthetic fingers with their brains.

It was 2011, and Mann had his sights on inhaled insulin — a breakthrough that could spare millions of diabetics the pain of billions of daily pinpricks.

Mann ordered his executives to cancel all the company's other projects, make painful job cuts and focus on the future of the drug, Afrezza.

The effort paid off. In June, the FDA blessed the drug, which led French pharmaceutical company Sanofi to pay MannKind Corp. $925 million for marketing rights, plus 35% of profits.

The deal could generate billions of dollars for MannKind. But for its chief executive — an 88-year-old physicist, inventor and entrepreneur who has launched 17 companies in five decades — it marks the capstone of a singular crusade.

"I know what motivates him," said Keith Markey, a Griffin Securities analyst who covers MannKind. "He'd like to do as much as he can for humanity."

Today, Mann walks a little slower than he once did. He's recovering from two recent surgeries. But during an interview at his 17,000-square-foot estate in Beverly Hills, Mann said he still routinely works 70 hours a week, managing a portfolio of companies and a charitable foundation that he hopes will continue his efforts to find solutions for unmet medical needs long after he is gone.

"I'm trying to help people," he said. "How else would I have been able to work until I'm almost 90, if I didn't have something to motivate me?"

Business associates say it's Mann's tenacity — some call it stubbornness — that has fueled his companies' success.

"He's unwilling to give up," said Robert Greenberg, chief executive of Second Sight Medical Products Inc., the company Mann co-founded to search for a cure for blindness.

During two years of testing for Second Sight's "bionic eye" device, engineers had been unable to solve a significant problem: It kept tearing the eye tissue of animals on which it was tested.

A board member told Mann: Maybe this is just too hard. Maybe it's impossible. Maybe we should quit.

Mann wouldn't hear it.

Alfred Mann, who has founded 17 companies in five decades, demonstrates the device used to inhale Afrezza, a powder form of insulin. Afrezza, which gained FDA approval in June, was developed by Mann's company MannKind.

"No way. This is just an engineering problem," Greenberg recalled Mann saying. "And it's solvable."

In 2013, the Food and Drug Administration approved Second Sight's Argus II System, a prosthetic retina that has helped some blind people see. Last month, the company filed for an initial public stock offering, touting Argus II as its most promising source of revenue.

"It was that recognition of when to quit — and when not to quit — that separates Al from others," Greenberg said.

Mann was born and raised in Portland, Ore., the middle son of immigrants: his father from England, his mother from Poland. He graduated from high school at age 16, spent a couple of years in college and then joined the Army Air Corps during World War II, but didn't see combat duty.

After the war ended, Mann settled in Southern California and helped his father tend to a lemon orchard before enrolling at UCLA, where he earned a degree in physics.

His first business breakthrough came in 1956, when the U.S. military hired him to improve guidance system technology for missiles, leading him to launch his first company, Spectrolab Inc. A few years later, he won a contract with Aerospace Corp. designing solar cells for spacecraft, leading to a second company, Heliotek Corp.

Mann sold both companies for $10 million in 1960, the equivalent of about $80 million in today's dollars, plus a piece of future sales. In 1969, Johns Hopkins University researchers asked Mann if he could use space technology to help create a longer-lasting pacemaker.

Mann, whose father had died of a heart attack, responded with Pacesetter Systems Inc. It would become the nation's second-leading supplier of pacemakers.

It also, unexpectedly, led Mann to take an interest in diabetes.

Related story: MannKind wins long sought FDA approval for insulin inhaler
W.J. Hennigan
While running Pacesetter, Mann visited the cardiac intensive care unit at the University of Alabama in Birmingham. His host on the trip was heart surgeon Dr. Richard B. Shepard, who told him that every patient there recovering from heart surgery also had diabetes, including a man and woman who each had both legs amputated.

Shepard told him, in strong terms, that he should put his talents to work on diabetes.

"He must have taken this to heart," Shepard said.

After selling Pacesetter to Siemens in 1985 for about $150 million, Mann began to focus on treatments for diabetes. His company MiniMed Inc. developed a small insulin pump that automatically delivers insulin throughout the day.

In 2001, Mann sold MiniMed to Medtronic Inc., a medical device giant, for more than $3 billion. The sale enabled Mann to focus on MannKind's inhaled insulin — and on his own nonprofit charitable foundation, which researches and licenses medical products.

Mann also founded a company, Advanced Bionics, that manufactured cochlear implants to help deaf people hear. In 2004, he sold the company to Boston Scientific Corp. for $740 million, plus unspecified future payments.

"His passion, as he's gotten older, is to try to eradicate as many terrible medical conditions as he can within his lifetime," said David Hankin, chief executive of the Alfred Mann Foundation. "At the age of 88, the guy is prolific. He's still inventing. We had a meeting a few weeks ago at his house to talk about some different forms of a device he's thinking about. He had this amazing passion and gleam in his eye.

"His mind is as sharp as it's ever been," Hankin said. "I think he wakes up thinking about new devices every day."

Last year, Mann teared up as he embraced retired Marine Corps Staff Sgt. James Sides at the Mann Foundation's annual dinner.

Sides lost his right hand when a roadside bomb exploded on a dusty Afghanistan road in July 2012. Several months later, doctors at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center told him about a prosthetic hand that had been developed by the Alfred Mann Foundation. The device includes electrodes, implanted into arm muscles, that would enable him to intuitively move his prosthetic fingers. It was the most advanced prosthetic hand ever developed.

Surgeons implanted the new device in June 2013. Sides, now a student at Santa Monica College, said it has dramatically improved his life.

"It's a whole new world," he said. "I'm much more fluid with my daily tasks. I can pull money out of the ATM. Essentially, I'm acting as though I have a hand."

Mann said meeting Sides was memorable.

"I get so much satisfaction out of helping people," Mann said. "It's not for money. My kids are well taken care of."

Mann's personal life has sometimes suffered while his businesses thrived. He has been divorced three times. He has spoken openly about his disappointment with some of his six children, whom he identified by birth order, rather than name, in an interview with The Times.

"My No. 5 kid has never worked. No. 6 has never worked," he said. "No. 3 ran a restaurant and retired."

Mann has said he intends to leave most of his fortune to his foundation and other charities.

"I've already given them too much," he said, "so they're not really motivated."

Mann and his fourth wife, Claude Mann, have been married 10 years. They spend most of their time at their home in Las Vegas, where Mann works out of a home office. The couple spend quiet nights eating Claude's home-cooked dinners — his favorite dish is chicken a l'Orange — and playing French rummy.

"He beats me most of the time," she said. "That's just the way his brain works."

Claude forces her husband to take two weeks of vacations a year, one to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. She'll catch him reading business documents, checking emails, or quietly taking business calls when they're supposed to be relaxing.

"I love him so much, so I don't complain," Claude said. "I know I will be first in his heart, but not his first priority. His first priority will always be work and doing what he does best."

Recently, Alfred Mann has been focused on inhaled insulin. It's been a long, expensive journey to get Afrezza to this stage. MannKind has spent about $1.8 billion developing Afrezza, with nearly $1 billion of that coming from Mann's personal wealth, the entrepreneur said.

Investors have rewarded Mann's persistence. MannKind shares, which sank as low as $2.25 in 2011, closed Friday at $6.68.

MannKind was a bystander in 2006 when Pfizer Inc. introduced the world's first inhaled insulin product, Exubera, which it later yanked from the market because of poor sales, absorbing a loss of more than $2 billion.

Mann says Afrezza will succeed where Exubera failed because Afrezza has another benefit: It's much faster-acting than insulin injections, in addition to being more convenient.

The drug is a powder that is inhaled with a device about the size of a whistle. It would be most often used to help control blood-sugar levels at meal time, a quick puff replacing an injection before a meal.

Those who know Mann are not surprised that he pushed Afrezza through.

"The guy is unrelenting," said John Mastrototaro, who spent eight years working for Mann at MiniMed. "He recognizes that along the way you're going to have certain setbacks."

Still, Mastrototaro said he was concerned when he first heard of Mann's plans for inhaled insulin.

"I actually thought it was a bad idea for him to get into the pharmaceutical space after all his success with devices," he said. "Pharmaceuticals are just a different beast in terms of the time and money involved. But if anyone could get it done, it's Al."

[Little Dark]

(09-18-2014 10:24 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 10:21 PM)Little Dark Wrote:  

I can't open the article but from what I'm seeing he's just another prick who doesn't care about his own children. Fuck him.

Seriously? The guy cares about trying to help people, creating solutions for problems and making their lives better. Maybe he was obsessed with trying to solve problems, but many of us can't relate to his world, we don't have the insight and talent.

His kids sounded like they were spoiled, maybe he didn't parent ideally. But they seem to have no hunger. The kids fucked themselves.

I've edited my previous post.

[El Chinito loco]

I can understand this trend of billionaires not allowing their children to inherit most of their wealth. It's a wise decision because wealth does ruin and corrupt offspring. You can see it with families like the DuPonts and others. I bet even the Waltons have lots of weird eccentricities we don't hear about. In SE Asia the kids of the elite running amok is pretty visible too. These kids become a burden on the rest of society and can cause incredible damage with their wealth too.

[spokepoker]

He's a 90yr old billionaire. He can do whatever the fuck he wants without a care in the world.
He chooses to give a ton of his money to charities and continue developing medical device tech.

[Captain Gh]

Quote:

"I love him so much, so I don't complain," Claude said. "I know I will be first in his heart, but not his first priority. His first priority will always be work and doing what he does best."

If bitches would still have the same mentalities we'd be living like Kings!!

[Feisbook Control]

I can't get behind this idea of giving your money away. Your blood is your blood. If kids turn out to be spoilt little idiots, then that's a failure on the part of the parents. Raise them well. Let them think that they are stewards of the family wealth, not idiot playboys. Create a dynasty. I will probably inherit a reasonable amount of money from my own parents. I won't need it, but I also won't refuse it. Frankly, I would be offended if I didn't inherit it. That's not because I want to go out and blow it on crap. I won't even see it as my money. I don't even see my own money as my money. I see it all as my descendants' money. If you have a house, you don't go and trash it. If you have some land, you don't go and poison it. You leave such things at least as good as you got them, if not better, for the next generation, and they do the same in turn. This is how civilisation is built. This is how a family becomes a clan and a clan becomes a nation. Is this attitude really that hard for most people to grasp?

I teach kids and almost without exception, the sins of the parents are the sins of the kids. The kids who don't finish their homework have parents who can never pay tuition on time. The kids who can't show any initiative in class or just get on with their work and instead expect someone to tell them all the answers have weak, lazy parents who approach life the same way. The kids who never want to take responsibility for themselves have parents who make every excuse under the sun. Conversely, the kids who have their shit together have parents who have their shit together.

[El Chinito loco]

(09-18-2014 11:46 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

I can't get behind this idea of giving your money away. Your blood is your blood. If kids turn out to be spoilt little idiots, then that's a failure on the part of the parents. Raise them well. Let them think that they are stewards of the family wealth, not idiot playboys. Create a dynasty. I will probably inherit a reasonable amount of money from my own parents. I won't need it, but I also won't refuse it. Frankly, I would be offended if I didn't inherit it. That's not because I want to go out and blow it on crap. I won't even see it as my money. I don't even see my own money as my money. I see it all as my descendants' money. If you have a house, you don't go and trash it. If you have some land, you don't go and poison it. You leave such things at least as good as you got them, if not better, for the next generation, and they do the same in turn. This is how civilisation is built. This is how a family becomes a clan and a clan becomes a nation. Is this attitude really that hard for most people to grasp?

I view this in the same way as I view royalty. There's a possibility you will have a long line of succession that is decent if you have a strong alpha male in control to guide his kids properly. However, chances are very good all that power and wealth will corrupt somewhere down the line. Once it corrupts one heir then it's pretty hard to pull out of that tailspin. These people become a liability in their own way especially if they have the money and power to corrupt entire societies.

This is why dynastic wealth in regions like SEA is a problem. Their family wealth is also used to secure footholds into government with kleptocractic results. They monopolize and engage in rent seeking behavior and before you know it entire regions are controlled by a few elite.

Inheriting a million or even a few million from your parents is of course quite different than billions.

I'm not a proponent of redistribution of wealth either so i'm not sure what safeguards society has to keep the corrupting influence of this sort of family/tribal centralized power in check. Maybe it starts with cultural responsibility and political controls but it is quite hard to rely on this in some parts of the world..ie. Latin America/SEA.

[samsamsam]

(09-18-2014 11:46 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

I can't get behind this idea of giving your money away. Your blood is your blood. If kids turn out to be spoilt little idiots, then that's a failure on the part of the parents. Raise them well. Let them think that they are stewards of the family wealth, not idiot playboys. Create a dynasty. I will probably inherit a reasonable amount of money from my own parents. I won't need it, but I also won't refuse it. Frankly, I would be offended if I didn't inherit it. That's not because I want to go out and blow it on crap. I won't even see it as my money. I don't even see my own money as my money. I see it all as my descendants' money. If you have a house, you don't go and trash it. If you have some land, you don't go and poison it. You leave such things at least as good as you got them, if not better, for the next generation, and they do the same in turn. This is how civilisation is built. This is how a family becomes a clan and a clan becomes a nation. Is this attitude really that hard for most people to grasp?

I teach kids and almost without exception, the sins of the parents are the sins of the kids. The kids who don't finish their homework have parents who can never pay tuition on time. The kids who can't show any initiative in class or just get on with their work and instead expect someone to tell them all the answers have weak, lazy parents who approach life the same way. The kids who never want to take responsibility for themselves have parents who make every excuse under the sun. Conversely, the kids who have their shit together have parents who have their shit together.

I am sure if his kids viewed it as a responsibility and your descendants money (like you do), then I am sure he would pass it along to them. I know we want to blame parents for everything but sometimes even people with bad parents know what is right and wrong and make something of themselves.

I agree with you it would be nice to be a caretaker responsible for generations to come, but his kids don't seem to think like that. If I was a fuck up, I would understand. Or maybe I wouldn't because I was a fuckup.

But his kids won't starve they will get enough it seems to be alright when he is gone.

In this hypothetical situation, I politely disagree. It is interesting that you would be pissed off. No offense, you didn't earn it, your parents did, they should decide to do what they want with it.

Edit 1: Let's say it was bad parenting, lets just blame the parents for the disasters (the kids). Would it be good parenting to then give it to irresponsible people? Also, these disasters then have kids, will your generations really be in good hands? I am sure his kids had plenty of opportunities to have some realizations in their adulthood when they may have thought, "wow I am a bum, I haven't demonstrated any capacity to be a good steward of my father's wealth, maybe I should get my shit together." And because they never had that realization, they are not getting most of the coins.

Edit 2: As far as parents failing, this is a general RVF question, do some of your parents feel like they have failed? Maybe they paid for your college education and provided all the resources for success but all you (general hypothetical you) decide that all you want to do is make enough to live in the Philippines or some other similar place and bang 18 year old pussy. So they failed?

[Feisbook Control]

(09-18-2014 11:59 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:46 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

I can't get behind this idea of giving your money away. Your blood is your blood. If kids turn out to be spoilt little idiots, then that's a failure on the part of the parents. Raise them well. Let them think that they are stewards of the family wealth, not idiot playboys. Create a dynasty. I will probably inherit a reasonable amount of money from my own parents. I won't need it, but I also won't refuse it. Frankly, I would be offended if I didn't inherit it. That's not because I want to go out and blow it on crap. I won't even see it as my money. I don't even see my own money as my money. I see it all as my descendants' money. If you have a house, you don't go and trash it. If you have some land, you don't go and poison it. You leave such things at least as good as you got them, if not better, for the next generation, and they do the same in turn. This is how civilisation is built. This is how a family becomes a clan and a clan becomes a nation. Is this attitude really that hard for most people to grasp?

I view this in the same way as I view royalty. There's a possibility you will have a long line of succession that is decent if you have a strong alpha male in control to guide his kids properly. However, chances are very good all that power and wealth will corrupt somewhere down the line. Once it corrupts one heir then it's pretty hard to pull out of that tailspin. These people become a liability in their own way especially if they have the money and power to corrupt entire societies.

This is why dynastic wealth in regions like SEA is a problem. Their family wealth is also used to secure footholds into government with kleptocractic results. They monopolize and engage in rent seeking behavior and before you know it entire regions are controlled by a few elite.

Inheriting a million or even a few million from your parents is of course quite different than billions.

I'm not a proponent of redistribution of wealth either so i'm not sure what safeguards society has to keep the corrupting influence of this sort of family/tribal centralized power in check. Maybe it starts with cultural responsibility and political controls but it is quite hard to rely on this in some parts of the world..ie. Latin America/SEA.

Except that royalty has a really bad reputation, unfairly so when compared to the oft touted alternatives (especially democratic/republican rule). They weren't all running around doing stupid stuff. Here and here, someone has done analyses of the Austrian, Prussian, French (Bourbon) and Polish royal lines. It's well worth the read, but here is his summary:

Quote:

Analyzing Abu Dhabi’s excellent assessment of Polish Kings, I get 250 out of 835 years of bad monarchs, or a 30% failure ratio by time. 18 individual monarchs out of 48, or a 37.5% failure rate by person.

Previously, in Monarchy FAQ, I estimated a 12% failure rate by time for Austrian monarchs, a 10% failure rate by time for Prussian monarchs, and a 9% failure rate by time for French Bourbon monarchs.

Corrupt idiots with short term thinking are generally more a feature of elected politicians with no long term stake in good governance, or skin in the game, pandering to voters. Those who don't have to deal with such considerations can plan longer term. Think of it being the difference between how Buffett runs Berkshire Hathaway and other companies where the CEO needs to keep the quarterly reports looking good to keep the share price high, often doesn't have a significant amount of his wealth tied up in the business (or if he does, has an incentive to pump and dump it), and is guaranteed a golden parachute. Furthermore, if there is one idiot within a family, those other members of his family who saw that he would lead the entire family to ruin would usually step in and solve the problem, deposing or assassinating him if necessary, though it actually didn't come to that that often.

[Switch]

I think it works best for the ultra rich to give their kids the best opportunities possible--private education at the best schools, travel, etc, but just straight up giving them tons of money at a young age, won't work. His kids are fuckups. Probably means he's a fuckup parent, but he's made millions of lives way better so it probably balances out.

[Saladin]

This dude's a boss. Very inspirational and shows how important it is to have a purpose especially as you get older. At this point its not about the money but about the love of creating value and helping others.

What he does with his money is his own business. If he doesn't want to give it to his kids, who are we to judge. As for branding him a bad parent.... he probably did what many good intentioned parents do and gave his kids too much.

[bojangles]

This guy is inspirational. What he does with his money of course is up to him, personally I'd always pass on my wealth to my kids.

[roberto]

(09-19-2014 03:01 AM)Saladin Wrote:  

This dude's a boss. Very inspirational and shows how important it is to have a purpose especially as you get older.

Amen. I've often thought those who retire on the day they turn 65 are condemning themselves to a far higher chance of degenerative disease than those who continue to work.

This guy is what I'm talking about:

http://pmpaspeakingofprecision.com/2012/...on+Blog%29

I can't imagine ever retiring. Folk say 'You'll feel different when you get to my age'. Yeah, really? Anyone who's ever told me that has been a pathetic, 9-5 worker who's greatest ambition in life was to make it to 65 and play golf. Fuck that. Just fuck that. This is something I feel very strongly about. Man needs purpose.

Locally we lost a good guy back in the spring. He only made it to 76, but he was working up to the day he died. Self employed, a talented engineer. Finished work, went shooting, dropped dead of a heart attack. I couldn't have wished for a better passing for him.

[Feisbook Control]

(09-19-2014 12:49 AM)samsamsam Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:46 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

I can't get behind this idea of giving your money away. Your blood is your blood. If kids turn out to be spoilt little idiots, then that's a failure on the part of the parents. Raise them well. Let them think that they are stewards of the family wealth, not idiot playboys. Create a dynasty. I will probably inherit a reasonable amount of money from my own parents. I won't need it, but I also won't refuse it. Frankly, I would be offended if I didn't inherit it. That's not because I want to go out and blow it on crap. I won't even see it as my money. I don't even see my own money as my money. I see it all as my descendants' money. If you have a house, you don't go and trash it. If you have some land, you don't go and poison it. You leave such things at least as good as you got them, if not better, for the next generation, and they do the same in turn. This is how civilisation is built. This is how a family becomes a clan and a clan becomes a nation. Is this attitude really that hard for most people to grasp?

I teach kids and almost without exception, the sins of the parents are the sins of the kids. The kids who don't finish their homework have parents who can never pay tuition on time. The kids who can't show any initiative in class or just get on with their work and instead expect someone to tell them all the answers have weak, lazy parents who approach life the same way. The kids who never want to take responsibility for themselves have parents who make every excuse under the sun. Conversely, the kids who have their shit together have parents who have their shit together.

I am sure if his kids viewed it as a responsibility and your descendants money (like you do), then I am sure he would pass it along to them. I know we want to blame parents for everything but sometimes even people with bad parents know what is right and wrong and make something of themselves.

I agree with you it would be nice to be a caretaker responsible for generations to come, but his kids don't seem to think like that. If I was a fuck up, I would understand. Or maybe I wouldn't because I was a fuckup.

But his kids won't starve they will get enough it seems to be alright when he is gone.

In this hypothetical situation, I politely disagree. It is interesting that you would be pissed off. No offense, you didn't earn it, your parents did, they should decide to do what they want with it.

Edit 1: Let's say it was bad parenting, lets just blame the parents for the disasters (the kids). Would it be good parenting to then give it to irresponsible people? Also, these disasters then have kids, will your generations really be in good hands? I am sure his kids had plenty of opportunities to have some realizations in their adulthood when they may have thought, "wow I am a bum, I haven't demonstrated any capacity to be a good steward of my father's wealth, maybe I should get my shit together." And because they never had that realization, they are not getting most of the coins.

Edit 2: As far as parents failing, this is a general RVF question, do some of your parents feel like they have failed? Maybe they paid for your college education and provided all the resources for success but all you (general hypothetical you) decide that all you want to do is make enough to live in the Philippines or some other similar place and bang 18 year old pussy. So they failed?

I must have missed your reply when I was editing my own post.

Yes, I would be pissed off if my parents didn't pass it along to their grandchildren and so on. Some strangers didn't earn it either. Who the hell are those people when compared to your own biological offspring?

Also, many people here seem to be fairly annoyed at what the Baby Boomers have done to our societies. We didn't create the august institutions and traditions of the West, so why should we be pissed off if someone wants to piss all over them? That way leads to nihilism though.

[Nemencine]

@samsamsam @feisbook control

I am with samsamsam on this.

I strongly believe in individual self-determination, rights and privileges. Your parents = their money = their privileges. An angry sense of self-righteous entitlement on the part of the offsprings to his or her parents efforts, violate these individual, conservative principles: his parent's self-determination, rights and privileges. How so?

The only person entitled to the wealth are the people who created it, anything else is a tax: government tax, divorce rape tax, entitled children tax, etc. After you've taken care of the basics, extra cultural moral obligations of any kind-- to wife, government, entitled children, charity, or whatever, are completely arbitrary and simply not cardinal or fundamental. Cultural obligations are tertiary and arbitrary, hence they are in the realm of individual choice and should be decided as such.

It is not a question of you(biological off-springs) versus charity case strangers-- stop making this about YOU. Attacking the liberalism of donating the money to charity, as a way to making a case that you should get the money instead, is a red-herring. It distracts from the core point: That this is a question of the parents making their own choice with their life efforts, regardless of political leanings. It is about the principle of choice -- your parent's.

The charity case strangers are not entitled to the money, neither are you. Your parents have already provided for your education, clothing, food, etc, that is supremely enough as moral obligations go. They are not morally required to bequeath millions or billions to you.

Besides, the sense of entitlement/anger to something you didn't earn on your own-- with your own blood and sweat-- is feminine and it is beta. Isn't this what we whine against all day in the 'everything else' section of RVF?

A man is proud and goes to conquer. A man builds a solid, respectable life/future for himself independent of others, and certainly, without a sense of entitlement/anger to other's labour. A man wants to stand on his own achievement. This is primal to man.


regards,

Nemencine

[tomtud]

If his kids were failures I would bet that they probably lived with their mothers as you all know how divorce laws are in the USA. God knows what values their mothers have taught them. Him working 70 hours a week also doesn't help raise children. Maybe I am wrong.

[Seadog]

Forget who said it, but it was "Give your kids enough money that they can do anything, but not so much that they can do nothing".

Shirt Sleeves to Shirt Sleeves in 3 generations.

There are heaps of quotes, stories, and anecdotes about people who didn't earn and make true sacrifices for their millions being total clusterfucks. Look at Paris Hilton. Basically all of Hollywood. In a real sense these people can operate with impunity, basically do whatever they want without consequences. Unless they have some sort of higher honour code to live by that was developed through hard work and sacrifice, you can see how it's easy to go off the rails.

[samsamsam]

^^ Seadog I think that was Warren Buffet. Good quote.

[Feisbook Control]

(09-19-2014 09:52 AM)Nemencine Wrote:  

@samsamsam @feisbook control

I am with samsamsam on this.

I strongly believe in individual self-determination, rights and privileges. Your parents = their money = their privileges. An angry sense of self-righteous entitlement on the part of the offsprings to his or her parents efforts, violate these individual, conservative principles: his parent's self-determination, rights and privileges. How so?

The only person entitled to the wealth are the people who created it, anything else is a tax: government tax, divorce rape tax, entitled children tax, etc. After you've taken care of the basics, extra cultural moral obligations of any kind-- to wife, government, entitled children, charity, or whatever, are completely arbitrary and simply not cardinal or fundamental. Cultural obligations are tertiary and arbitrary, hence they are in the realm of individual choice and should be decided as such.

It is not a question of you(biological off-springs) versus charity case strangers-- stop making this about YOU. Attacking the liberalism of donating the money to charity, as a way to making a case that you should get the money instead, is a red-herring. It distracts from the core point: That this is a question of the parents making their own choice with their life efforts, regardless of political leanings. It is about the principle of choice -- your parent's.

The charity case strangers are not entitled to the money, neither are you. Your parents have already provided for your education, clothing, food, etc, that is supremely enough as moral obligations go. They are not morally required to bequeath millions or billions to you.

Besides, the sense of entitlement/anger to something you didn't earn on your own-- with your own blood and sweat-- is feminine and it is beta. Isn't this what we whine against all day in the 'everything else' section of RVF?

A man is proud and goes to conquer. A man builds a solid, respectable life/future for himself independent of others, and certainly, without a sense of entitlement/anger to other's labour. A man wants to stand on his own achievement. This is primal to man.


regards,

Nemencine

I understand all of that. You're missing my point though. I'm talking about natural law. It goes against the deep conservatism of natural law to favour strangers over one's offspring. I get that it's his money and he can do what he wants with it. I am not saying that anyone should force him to do anything. I still think that's fucking stupid on his part though. It is, at its heart, nihilistic because it says that there is nothing beyond him, that his kids are like anyone else, really. At some deep, biological, cellular level, I find myself screaming out against this way of thinking. As I also wrote, there are lots of other things we didn't build or create either, from institutions to buildings to artwork to the environment. If I bought a Rembrandt tomorrow and then decided to use it for kindling, would that be okay? At one level, yes, because it would be mine so I could do whatever I wanted with it. At another level, however, it would be both perverse and degenerate to do so. Just because we might be free to do something does not mean we should do something.

We may have a different perspective on this, and I can understand where you are coming from since it was this kind of individualistic tendency beyond the in-group that created the greatest civilisation the world has ever seen. I disagree with you regarding this decision though. I wish that you could see that what I am suggesting -- a dynastic model stretching into the future -- is hardly either feminine or beta, and as such, there's no need to use such shaming language. The entitlement that comes with inheriting anything -- if you understand that it is only temporarily yours -- also comes with a heavy burden/responsibility to pass it on to others at least as good as it came to you. I believe you have overlooked this.

Seadog: We could also cherry pick lots of family wealth that hasn't corrupted anyone, families that have held wealth, businesses, etc. for centuries. Again, if a person raises his or her children well, there's a pretty good chance that they will turn out okay. In most cases -- and I'm speaking partly from experience here, having known some children from very wealthy families -- the kids don't turn out that much differently to most kids. Yes, there are rich dickheads. There are also rich people who are pillars of the community. Most fall somewhere in between.

[berserk]

I also find it weird when these guys don't want to pass their wealth on. It's nihilism and narcissism to the extreme. They blame their kids for not turning out like they want, but take no responsibility for it.

We don't know the story of course, but did he try to get his kids job in his businesses from a young age? Or did he just give them money.

There's a reason why the elites have all kinds of weird traditions, which doesn't make a lot of sense to us, such as sending young boys to boarding schools and very hierarchical places. Remember that Rugby was invented in upper class Britain, not working class Britain who preferred the far more fun football. Rugby was meant to build character through enduring hardship. The violent boarding schools with older students almost abusing younger students were meant to keep them in line, so they understood how privileged they were and got used to not being able to get away with everything all the time. It seems brutal yes, but there is probably a reason why the elites - not the working classes - have chosen to raise their children like this historically.

It seems to me that the new rich, don't have much experience - for good reasons - with raising children in wealth.

[Nemencine]

(09-20-2014 04:41 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

I understand all of that. You're missing my point though. ...

Most of your points are already addressed by samsamsam in this post of his. i am not sure i could put it any better than he already did.

those children lack vision or drive or any initiative. that is why he didn't want them wasting his money on drugs, stupid parties and inane materialistic crap when he can donate it to scientific research. If his children are competent, they will run the dynastic wealth; they are not, so alfred mann made the right decision.

I am willing to bet that in 95% of the cases where the parent didn't hand over the wealth to their children, is because those children are a disappointment. they are failures. I am willing to bet that if one of the children is ultra-capable, 95% of the time, the parent will hand over the wealth. feel free to try and find historical examples that contradict me.

In fact, i have read biographies where the parent will hand over part of the wealth to the son-in-law, rather than their own sons or daughters.

Take the case of Sam Walton -- the creator of sam's club and walmart. He was soo ambitious and driven, that his father-in-law(a wealthy rancher named Mr. Robson) helped Sam Walton jumpstart his business multiple times, sometimes secretly going behind Sam Walton's back. That is how much he believed in Sam Walton, that is because the man recognize talent. Did mr. Robson(the father-in-law of Sam Walton) did the same thing for his children? No. He didn't hand over loans to his own children, on the contrary, he handed it over to his son-in-law because he recognize the fiery ambition/drive of sam walton. This decision proved correct: the waltons family, through walmart, are one of the richest on this planet.

Take the case of Ron Perelman of Revlon cosmetics. the man is currently worth $14 billion. At the age of 35 he decided he had learnt everything he could from his father, and against his father's wishes, he decided to break away. He decided to move from his father's business and go on his own: this is how men behave-- create their own path rather than whine to death about their parents. He met an heiress, Faith Golding, on a plane ride and proceed to charm the fuck out of her-- she later decided to marry him. He convinced the family of the wife to loan him $1.5million dollar, which he quickly used to generate $15million in profit within less than a year. He then moved on to other acquisitions and business in rapid succession: MacAndrews and Forbes, Sunbeam products, Coleman Company, Marvel Enterainment, Revlon, until he is now worth $14 billion dollars.

Talent cannot be denied. If alfred mann's children are dynamite, he will hand over his wealth to them. But they are failures, hence he didn't and he shouldn't, especially since he already provided for them comfortably.

Earlier, i said that if the children are competent, in 95% of the case, the parent will hand over the wealth to the children. When is the other 5% of the case? I will give you an example:

The HILTON case is the other 5% where a successful father denies a clearly successful son. Here is what happened: Conrad Hilton was rag-to-riches and decided to give most of his fortune to his charitable organization instead of his children. What did his alpha male son, Barron Hilton did? This is what separates the strong from the weak: He went to war and achieve a partial victory. What did he do with that partial victory? He turned that partial victory(of a couple of million dollars) into a multi-billion dollar enterprise($12 billion to be exact). The other children of Conrad Hilton lack the strength or ambition to do this. Only that one son Barron Hilton(Paris Hilton's grandfather) was soo strong that he successfully contested the decision by his father, then turn around and turn it into multi-billion fortune. If you are strong, you will make it-- You will find a way, in one form or the other. If you fail, it is because you are weak. To quote the good book: If thou faint in the day of adversity, thy strength is small. (proverbs 24:10)

Blaming your parents for your life after you've reached a certain age is just pathetic. you are a man. get a grip. That is my reaction to all these arguments talking about Alfred Mann being a good or bad father because of how many times he came to baseball games or work in the office. Immigrant chinese parents work longer hours than that, in the heat of chinese food kitchens in the ghettos. Again, samsamsam explains my position clearly here.

I remember Warren Buffet useless granddaughter, whining on Oprah about how stingy Warren is, simpy because she doesn't get to lavishly spend Warren's billions. Of course, she carefully hamsterize her reasons all over the place. fuck her. You want something in life, go get it yourself-- that is personal responsibility and self-determination.

If you are soo okay with it Warren's decision, why the fuck are you passive-aggressively trying to shame your grandfather on Oprah winfrey? you entitled, bloody cunt!

Warren employs a lot of talented, hardworking people: i am pretty sure that if she is really dedicated, her grandfather will help her out. That is what George Soros did with his most capable son-- he sent him to go and work at other Hedge funds, especially with Victor Neiderhoffer before coming back to his Quantum Fund.

But what the bloody fuck did this loser granddaughter of Warren Buffet did? Instead, she studied art in college and did some dumb shite.

what a waste:

I hustle like crazy(work as a scientist + the stock market(here is my recent post + my computer refurbishing business + my personal scientific ideas/inventions(samsamsam have seen some of them-- they are in the same fields as that of Alfred Mann's.) + stuff like this. ). You think if i am alfred mann's son he won't want me taking over his empire? of course, he would. And naturally, my reaction will be similar to that of Ron Perelman: i will learn all i could from him, then go my own way. It is critical that a man create his own path.

This is a forum about personal development and self-improvement: a grown man have no business whining about expecting handouts from his parents. You want wealth soo badly? Go create your own wealth. Bill Gates did-- he is from a rich lawyer family, but went out on his own to create some serious wealth in computer software(which have absolutely nothing to do with lawyering).

And these lazy, good-for-nothing clowns? These people are born into wealth and all they do is squander it with their laziness, weakness, sense of entitlement and lack of vision or drive. And yet, despite all their parents did for them, they still complain that mommy and daddy still aren't doing enough because they didn't get everything. Fuck them all. This post of mine in the "post your unpopular opinions" section captures my true feelings:

(12-25-2013 06:34 PM)Nemencine Wrote:  

#6. It is an utter sacrilege to be lazy, and be without ambition. If you have no ambition you are better off just been dead. You are a waste of space. Your parents should have flushed your spermatozoan down the fucking toilet. Why are you even alive?

Why anybody would want to give their wealth to unambitious children is beyond me.

regards,

Nemencine

[The Lizard of Oz]

Nemencine, I agree with you that parents are under no obligation to pass the entirety of their wealth to children who may not make the best use of it.

However,

(09-20-2014 12:39 PM)Nemencine Wrote:  

This post of mine in the "post your unpopular opinions" section captures my true feelings:

(12-25-2013 06:34 PM)Nemencine Wrote:  

#6. It is an utter sacrilege to be lazy, and be without ambition. If you have no ambition you are better off just been dead. You are a waste of space. Your parents should have flushed your spermatozoan down the fucking toilet. Why are you even alive?

This is an excessively harsh and inhuman view, although it can be excused in someone as young as yourself. There is room in the world for all sorts of people, including those who are driven by great ambition, those who lack it entirely, and those who are somewhere in between. The human comedy -- to use Balzac's term -- derives its interest and profundity from all the characters that play a part, from the young man besotted with ambition to the beachcomber who nurses his beer gut in the sun. Do not be so engrossed in your own self and your own plots and designs -- however worthy and laudable they may be -- that you take such an impoverished and reductive view of life and of what is and is not of value. Take a moment to step out of yourself and to find some interest and amusement in things unrelated to your ambition and your own peculiar plot.

(09-20-2014 12:39 PM)Nemencine Wrote:  

I hustle like crazy(work as a scientist + the stock market(here is my recent post + my computer refurbishing business + my personal scientific ideas/inventions(samsamsam have seen some of them-- they are in the same fields as that of Alfred Mann's.) + stuff like this. ).

That is great -- and you should regard your ambition and the hard work you do to further it as a joy and a privilege -- not as an occasion to dismiss and browbeat others, or to lose sight of the variety and the comedy of the life of those outside yourself.

Something worth noting is that although it may sound like I'm making a moral point, my point is really much more of a cognitive one. The real problem with taking an overly harsh and reductive view of life is not that it is morally wrong -- although I think it is, to some extent -- but that it distorts and impoverishes your view of the world as it is; it is a way one can lose the world. And that is a serious loss, because those who lose sight of the true variety of life lose the best and subtlest pleasures that life has to offer; they cheat themselves above all.

Again, such a perspective is excusable in a young man who is in the midst of a struggle to make his way upward and forward. But take some care to not let it harden as you enter your prime as a man. It would be a pity.