Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#81

Post by zozbot234 »

capableweb wrote: post #49
zozbot234 wrote: post #36

Earlier 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.

Now there is no way of obviously measuring this, but I'd make the case that donating time (volunteering on the ground) to organizations is way better than donating money. First, money goes through so many layers that it's hard to actually know what they go to, and how much actually ends up being useful and not just scavenged by middlemen. Secondly, donating your time by volunteering gives you more than just the feeli…

The thing is, you can only donate time to organizations who are local to you, and there's a limit as to what causes these organizations can work on - highly-impactful local causes are quite few and far between. So if you're going to volunteer for some charitable purpose, be sure to choose something that has a decent chance of being genuinely worthwhile. (Advocating for criminal justice reform might be a good example.)

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#82

Post by jariel »

read_if_gay_ wrote: post #2

Mad respect, not letting that amount of money get to your head and not wasting it on vain stuff surely takes some crazy discipline.

It's not 'discipline' though.

If you were raised a certain way, in a certain era, it wouldn't be rational to spend it on 'frivolity'.

There are a lot of people like this. Tons of very rich folks living in normal homes, driving normal cars that they 'never buy news'.

I think in some ways more common than not, especially in more rural and suburban areas wherein projecting wealth isn't actually necessary to their professional identity.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#83

Post by MisterBastahrd »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #24

> While many wealthy philanthropists enlist an army of publicists to trumpet their donations, Feeney went to great lengths to keep his gifts secret. Crazy respect for this. Many times billionaire charitable foundations are just tax preferred ways of building your image or amassing influence. Bill Gates has done a lot of good, but his charitable work also served to redeem his image from that of the ruthless businessma…

One of my arguments against the accumulation of vast wealth is that Bill Gates can get an in-person visit with my local representative faster than I, a constituent, can get a return phone call.

I think we need 5x the number of representatives at the House level. Separate their duties, strip power from some of them, and keep them in district most of the year so they can actually be held accountable. Would also help to further democratize the House.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#84

Post by guerrilla »

chadrs wrote: post #34
dpflan wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest that it does not align with consumerism/capitalist ideologies which are used in the feedback loop to promote themselves/further substantiate their existence and influence in culture. Philanthropy is great, but to some extent I think the argument that properly taxing such capitalistic gains could have greater effect on society when properly used by the system that can support massive scale projects (i.e. the…

It just depends on whether you trust a government or a rich philanthropist to "properly use" capital (get the most impact/$). If you let billionaires make the choices then sure you get some like Feeney/Gates/Buffett but you get Koch brothers. Government could theoretically do a more equitable job but only if social programs are run competently. Think about the leadership of EPA and HUD.

There'd be less need for such trust if there were more democracy [1] as well.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#85

Post by MisterBastahrd »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #25
cantrevealname wrote: post #19

> 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.

Making the rich richer isn't charity.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#86

Post by gumby »

He was outed a few years ago due to a IPO of DFS, otherwise he'd still be below the radar. His partner at DFS, Miller, took the opposite route: still a major shareholder, extravagant lifestyle with his kids being classic "rich kids".

Nice A/B experiment.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#87

Post by gimmeThaBeet »

Multiplayer wrote: post #5

I cannot get my head around this. To be that good at making money and that intent at giving it away is such a massive paradox not to mention paradigm shift from how we typically discuss wealth and wealth accumulators. Looking for video interviews....

Maybe naively I believe I grasp some of it, but I don't know, to me it takes maybe a little bit of hubris? I certainly see how parts of the mechanics feel very contradictory. The idea that sticks to me is "people are spending money, so it may as well become my money".

It feels like a weird and maybe bad example, but it feels like sort of a chaotic good version of The Dark Knight Joker. You have the idea of "if you're good at something never do it for free", combined with a more wholesome version of "some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money."

Maybe you just have weird anomalies where you have someone who likes business, like what their work entails, but for whatever reason aren't drawn as much to some of the other trappings. I think the assumption being the baseline is that the interest follows the money.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#88

Post by hhs »

tmpz22 wrote: post #74
BrainInAJar wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems like that was by design. It is. Philanthropy exists to launder the reputations of the rich, on the one hand, and are paternalistic on the other. The only things that get funding are things that can attract the attention of our "betters." If we had taxed them on the front end to the point they couldn't become billionaires in the first place then people in general (through democracy) can decide what causes are…

I’ve noticed this community is very bullish on the ends justifying the means, ie a founder that bends the rules and causes some damage and hurts some people but has a huge exit and gives some to charity is still a hero and role model.

Some people frame this as ‘earning to give’:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earning_to_give

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#90

Post by Cederfjard »

BrainInAJar wrote: post #59
dougmccune wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While many wealthy philanthropists enlist an army of publicists to trumpet their donations, Feeney went to great lengths to keep his gifts secret. Seems like that was by design.

> Seems like that was by design. It is. Philanthropy exists to launder the reputations of the rich, on the one hand, and are paternalistic on the other. The only things that get funding are things that can attract the attention of our "betters." If we had taxed them on the front end to the point they couldn't become billionaires in the first place then people in general (through democracy) can decide what causes are…

>And with the added bonus that the negative effects of they got to be billionaires don't cause more problems

Sorry, I’m not able to parse this sentence. Could you please rephrase?

Post reply on HN