"That shit" could be interpreted this way: Having "obscene" wealth accumulate with one or a few persons means the decision-making about using that wealth becomes idiosyncratic and volatile at worst, generally misdirected at best. In market-fundamentalist terminology, huge actors cannot result in optimal results. Markets work best with broadly-held wealth and millions or billions of small bets, lowering the criticality of market failure.

The Gates Foundations is a counterpoint to your theory. Yes they're volatile, but they've helped change the way that charities operate, with numbers and tracking progress. It feels like when single/double-digit millionaires donate their money, they're too often donating to charities which are social status symbols rather than the most effective causes.

In addition, places like GiveWell are helping the direction of that wealth. http://www.givewell.org/

Not entirely sure I can agree. The Gates Foundation has made important contributions, but they have also been subject of scrutiny regarding funding choices that are ideologic and self-interested.

Not to mention, the jury's still out whether it's more effective to have government programs to alleviate poverty vs. individual or foundations of billionaires spending on charities at their leisure.

So you are arguing in favor of exactly the "straw man" that PG is arguing against?

Thats totally fine. There are a lot of reasonable arguments for that (as you have just demonstrated!).

But my point is that PG is not arguing against an imaginary viewpoint. You believe it right here.

I'm only saying there are consequences for concentration of relative wealth that even market fundamentalists (such as libertarians) argue against. I am not one of those.

My position is complicated. I find the best explanations of market failure come from a greater financialization of the economy as a whole. Which is to say, in this increasingly programmable world we live in, there are greater and greater opportunities for gaming the system. Even startups inevitably head in this direction. Financialization is an economic gravity-well.

Zuckerberg isn't really engaging in charity. Its basically buying political influence is one of his stated goals.

I'm not sure why people keeping thinking he is engaging in charitable activity when what he really said he was engaging in investment & nonprofit activity.

I don't understand why you're being down-voted. It's eminently clear this is what he's doing: it's right out there in the open.

http://fortune.com/2015/12/02/zuckerberg-charity/

Yeah, that was widely reported in publications spanning the political spectrum (excluding most of the tech press).