You make my point for me.

"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...