George Soros

I'm not doing my philanthropic work, out of any kind of guilt, or any need to create good public relations. I'm doing it because I can afford to do it, and I believe in it.

Después del colapso de 2008, pude hacer arreglos para que casi un millón de escolares de Nueva York, cuyas familias recibían asistencia social o cupones de alimentos, recibieran un cheque por $200, sin nada a cambio.

Yes. I never claimed credit for it. I was involved in the process. As coach, I said to him that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, the risk-reward relationship is extremely favorable, and therefore we should play it on a larger scale than normal. And he took my advice.

A teljesség kedvéért meg kell említenem, hogy az emberi bizonytalansági elven alapuló teóriák szintén hibásak, különben érvénytelenítenék magát az elvet. A teória lényegéből fakadó hiba az, hogy nem eredményez határozott előfeltevéseket. Ami a determinista teóriáknál mégis közelebb hozza ezeket az elveket a valóság megjelenítéséhez, az nem más, mint a hibás állításoktól való távolságtartás, valamint a nyitottság a gyakorlat tükrében való módosításokra. A nyílt társadalmak nyitottabbak a fejlesztésekre, mint a zárt társadalmak.

Second, since our understanding of reality is imperfect, the criterion by which choices may be judged is not fully within our grasp. As a result, people will not necessarily make the correct choice and, even if they do, not everybody will accept it as such. Moreover, the correct choice represents merely the better of the available alternatives, not the best of all possible solutions. New ideas and interpretations may emerge at any time. These are also bound to be flawed and may have to be discarded when the flaws become apparent. There is no final answer, only the possibility of a gradual approximation to it. It follows that the choice between alternatives involves a continuous process of critical examination rather than the mechanical application of fixed rules.

Values are closely associated with with the concept of self - a reflexive concept if ever there was one. What we think has a much greater bearing on what we are than on the world around us. What we are cannot possibly correspond to what we think we are, but there is a two-way interplay between the two concepts. As we make our way in the world our sense of self evolves. The relationship between what we think we are and what we are in reality is the key to happiness - in other words, it provides the subjective meaning of life.

The world order needs a major overhaul.

In my view, philanthropy goes against the grain; therefore it generates a lot of hypocrisy and many paradoxes. Here are some examples: Philanthropy is supposed to be devoted to the benefit of others, but philanthropists are primarily concerned with their own benefit; philanthropy is supposed to help people, yet it often makes people dependent and turns them into objects of charity; applicants tell foundations what they want to hear, then proceed to do what the applicant wants to do.

But I don't like working. I do the absolute minimum that is necessary to reach a decision. There are many people who love working. They amass an inordinate amount of information, much more than is necessary to reach a conclusion. And they become attached to certain investments because they know them intimately. I am different. I concentrate on the essentials. When I have to, I work furiously because I am furious that I have to work. When I don't have to, I don't work.

Now look at the ideology of American supremacy. It has a solid foundation in reality; namely, the United States is the dominant power in the world. The current government believes the United States ought to use this dominant position to impose its will on the world. That is the misconception. This approach is not what made America great. America did not arrive at its dominant position by imposing its will on the world.
My position is that America is great precisely because it is an open society, and an open society recognizes that nobody is the ultimate arbiter — and that we may be wrong at times, even if we are powerful. We must be open to criticism and respect divergent and different views and interests.

We are accustomed to think of events as a sequence of facts: one set of facts follows another in a never-ending chain. When a situation has thinking participants, the chain does not lead directly from fact to fact. It links a fact to the participants' thinking and then connects the participants' thinking to the next set of facts.

I had a very interesting experience with P.C.Chatterjee, one of my investment advisors. His concept was to look at technology companies as asset-rich companies, where the customer was treated as an asset. If a company had a strong customer base, it could be worth a lot even though it had a lousy management and a lack of products.
And he felt that with a little push, these values could be unlocked. It proved to be a valid concept.

Demand may be a suitable subject for psychologists, supply may be the province of engineers or management scientists; both are beyond the scope of economics.

A boom/bust process occurs only when market prices find a way to influence the so-called fundamentals that are supposed to be reflected in market prices.

At present, the developed countries condescend to the developing ones.