Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why?
https://www.ft.com/content/f999c4e4-78a2-4f83-9beb-91c15dccd... Opinion Coronavirus treatment Bill & Melinda Gates: Vaccine fairness will make us all safer | Free to read Sharing Covid-19 jabs equitably would result in fewer deaths and faster control everywhere'
Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke
61–70 of 875 posts
Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke
#62most people say the would do something like this if they ever became extremely rich, but only a few would actually be able to do it. I'm in awe of the strength of character this guy must have.
Well no, most people would run charities, like Bill Gates does. But most people still want control and to affect change personally.
Giving away your fortune then letting go is harder.
Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke
#63Some questions lingered in the back of my mind after I read this article: - How much to employees at Duty Free Shoppers (DFS) make? Is their healthcare fully covered? Do they have generous paid time off and access to higher education for themselves and their children? Was any of his fortune used to give back to the employees whose labor built his wealth in the first place? - Does this dude realize how difficult it is…
Because the government has such a great track record of collecting tax revenue and then investing it where it is appropriate? Questions can be raised about some of his specific donations, but when someone gives away $8B of his wealth, spending nearly none on himself, does it globally, influences other billionaires to do the same, picking at any one of his specific donations seems counter productive. Yes Cornell is an…
My argument is that a system that allows $8 billion in wealth to accumulate enough to be controlled by one person has already failed.
The US government is actually really impressively good in a lot of areas, and I personally get fatigued of the oft-repeated notion that government “can’t possibly work” or that they “can’t possibly spend tax dollars responsibly.”
Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke
#64> Where did $8 billion go: health, science, education, and social action Other than science, those are some very bloated and inefficient causes. $1 billion to Cornell? Aren't most of the prestigious universities already swimming in billions of dollars of endowments? He can do what he wants of course, but it would have been nicer if the money was targeted to long shot bets--that only a super rich person could fund--ra…
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Disagree. There are more than enough resources on effective NGO's. There is no reason to give cornell a billion dollars when that money could save hundreds of thousands of lives in the developing world.
Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke
#65"When I first met him in 2012, he estimated he had set aside about $2 million for his and his wife's retirement" Two million is, like, the opposite of broke for the vast majority of Americans. But this is Forbes.
I mean, I am just some rando engineer and I intend to retire with way more than that in the bank. That's a modest retirement savings and compared to what he has given away is "broke".
Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's your point? That in his 80s he should be struggling for rent money after giving over 8 billion to charity?
The point is that Forbes shouldn't be using terms like broke to describe millionaires when there are millions of people who are actually broke living incredibly difficult lives.
What we call broke in America is rich in other countries. Everything is relative.
Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.ft.com/content/f999c4e4-78a2-4f83-9beb-91c15dccd... Opinion Coronavirus treatment Bill & Melinda Gates: Vaccine fairness will make us all safer | Free to read Sharing Covid-19 jabs equitably would result in fewer deaths and faster control everywhere'
What about this article? Context, provide it.
Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke
#68It's great he donated his wealth to charity, but it's a little unfair that he took it upon himself to chose where the money went instead of letting the people choose.
Why should the people get to choose?
One of the reasons that private charity is somewhat looked down upon in certain countries with a robust welfare state is that historically, private charities were selective in whom they helped. If the private charity felt that your "lifestyle" (i.e. you were a mother out of wedlock, you were LGBT) or ethnicity was objectionable, you were just left to suffer. Or those private charities would assist you, but you were obliged to convert to their religious denomination or sit through a long sermon before getting to eat.
Welfare states run from taxpayer money and overseen by democratically elected officials, while they have their downsides that are often commented on, at least tend to assist groups that would be marginalized otherwise, and there are no religious strings attached.
Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, if you're working in paid employment it will usually be a lot more effective to put in some more time at work, and give away some of the resulting income. "Donating your time" can of course be genuinely worthwhile if you're, e.g. a scientist who might want to do useful research on globally-relevant, critical issues; just not very much otherwise.
Yes, you are right. Because there is always someone else who is paid less than you who will run around and do the actual work whilst you take all the credit. Genius.
It's far more important to be there and take the credit in person, doing the job of someone who could be doing a better job than you for $15/hr, while not just doing the job you get paid $50/hr to do and sending the money.
Everybody knows the most important parts of charity are who gets the credit and one's own personal growth.