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

121–130 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#121

Post by wahern »

Cerealkiller050 wrote: post #71
khalilravanna wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. Especially being an American. We have such a materialistic, maximalist culture. There’s definitely a psychological element here to be able to tune out all those negative messages (“Why don’t I have a nicer car/house/yacht than Alice/Bob?”). I’d be interested on where he falls on the satisficer/maximizer scale.

"Especially being an American" I have always heard the complete opposite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Giving_Index https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/28/the_ge...

Somewhere between 32% and 75% of American donations are to churches or church-affiliated organizations. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/30/religious-p...

Myanmar is an exceptionally devout Buddhist society with many monasteries supported through traditional almsgiving. I suspect that's why Myanmar tops even the U.S. in the World Giving Index, which merely asks whether you've donated money or time (volunteered).

Not that faith-based giving is inferior, but different people have different notions about what constitutes philanthropy and charity.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#122

Post by jedberg »

Cerealkiller050 wrote: post #71
khalilravanna wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. Especially being an American. We have such a materialistic, maximalist culture. There’s definitely a psychological element here to be able to tune out all those negative messages (“Why don’t I have a nicer car/house/yacht than Alice/Bob?”). I’d be interested on where he falls on the satisficer/maximizer scale.

"Especially being an American" I have always heard the complete opposite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Giving_Index https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/28/the_ge...

Most countries don't let you deduct your donations from your taxes. It's hard to compare levels of giving across nations because of this.

A lot of people only donate to reduce their tax bill.

Also, because we don't have a social safety net in the US, a lot of people donate to make up for that, which is certainly noble, but would be far less necessary if we had a stronger social safety net that more evenly distributed that wealth giveaway.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#123

Post by olivermarks »

hamburglar wrote: post #73
olivermarks wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/12/11/18129580/gates...

Please make a point rather than just pasting insinuations and links to articles. Neither of the two articles you've provided give any reason Feeney would have a negative opinion of Gates.

@hamburglar I have no idea hence my question. Feeney's style has been to very privately and anonymously find worthwhile projects and fund them. Gates owns giant swathes of the media and is vastly wealthier than Feeney. I wonder what Feeney makes of that during the current global pandemic. (the reply link is not appearing on posts, so this may be out of thread order)

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#124

Post by read_if_gay_ »

Cerealkiller050 wrote: post #71
khalilravanna wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. Especially being an American. We have such a materialistic, maximalist culture. There’s definitely a psychological element here to be able to tune out all those negative messages (“Why don’t I have a nicer car/house/yacht than Alice/Bob?”). I’d be interested on where he falls on the satisficer/maximizer scale.

"Especially being an American" I have always heard the complete opposite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Giving_Index https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/28/the_ge...

Is that Giving Index skewed by American tipping culture at all?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#125

Post by emiliobumachar »

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…

A few counterpoints:

https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billio...

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#126

Post by Shared404 »

jariel wrote: post #82
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 profes…

> especially in more rural and suburban areas wherein projecting wealth isn't actually necessary to their professional identity.

I don't know about suburban areas in general. I think it largely depends on which neighborhood.

While it may not impact peoples professional identity, in many suburbs it impacts their social identity.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#127

Post by sharadov »

sudhirj wrote: post #6

This is a role model I can actually appreciate. I can't figure out why this is the first time I've heard of him. I've seen lots of news about people buying expensive shit, but the fact that this has never come to my attention is a horrible indicator of what the media chooses to report on.

This one line "While notoriously frugal in his own life, Feeney was ready to spend big and go for broke when the value and potential impact outweigh the risk." Amazing life, made a ton of money and lived to see it all given away.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#128

Post by keketi »

scott31 wrote: post #103
yboris wrote: post #76

I humbly encourage everyone to make giving a larger part of your life. Consider giving at least 10% of your income to cost-effective charities -- because cost-effective charities can do thousands of times more good than merely regular charities. So your $1,000 donation can do as much good as $1 million, if given well. Join others: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/

> So your $1,000 donation can do as much good as $1 million, if given well. Umm, no

A donation of half a billion can do as much good as six houses, if given poorly.

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-...

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#129

Post by yters »

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.

if morality is just public approval, theirs is the optimal strategy

but, if that's all morality is, pretty pointless

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#130

Post by lucideer »

Cederfjard wrote: post #90
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…

>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?

I think there's just a "how" missing between "effects of" and "they got"
Post reply on HN