In business, we say that people overestimate what you can do in a year and underestimate what you can do in a decade. This is true in philanthropy as well.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Once you have mastered time, you will understand how true it is that most people overestimate what they can accomplish in a year - and underestimate what they can achieve in a decade!
In business, no one pays you to have a really good year and then 10 bad years.
The results of philanthropy are always beyond calculation.
An intriguing paradox of the 1990s is that it isn't called a decade of greed.
It is very easy to overestimate the importance of our own achievements in comparison with what we owe others.
Having created a business that is a success, when you are in a nepotistic situation, people who don't do anything themselves, well, it is easy for them to say it's never good enough.
Those of us who have yet to find philanthropy may find there is a far greater reward from it than from wealth creation.
In very big companies, you find less entrepreneurialism than you really want to see. Success is defined as 'don't make a mistake.' And you get to be the C.E.O. by outlasting everybody else, then you're there for five or six years, and you want to get your bonus on the way out.
Philanthropy should be taking much bigger risks that business. If these are easy problems, business and government can come in and solve them.
Basically, I think that most people either make too much money or not enough money. The jobs that are essential and important pay too little, and those that are essentially managerial pay far too much.
No opposing quotes found.