171–180 of 875 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's possible the guy giving away the money sees something about this organization that you don't.
> 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…
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.
I wonder if a person was more involved in charitable giving if they would have heard about this guy before? Mainstream news coverage isn't going to cover him much but stories have been written, he worked closely with Gates and Buffet. My takeaway from this story is to spend my time on things that matter to me. It's a reminder that our news sources are really just another form of entertainment, which is not something…
Mark Benioff donated $100M to the UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital and got his name on the INSTITUTION (not just a building). What many don't know is that donation was to complete a match of $125M offered by Chuck Feeney (who does not have his name on a building anywhere on the campus, AFAIK).[0]. That $125M was only part of the $394M Chuck ended up giving to UCSF.[1] [0] https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/uc…
Edit: I'm more than fine with it because it makes Zuckerberg seem less special.
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…
Like lobbying their representatives to allow for loopholes and credits to allow them to keep their money and avoid the taxes that the lesser incomes must pay
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Are they former billionaires though? The point of him being "broke" isn't that he has nothing, it's that he has shared almost all of what he had, to a much greater extent than most of us could ever dream of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
I think you're being misinterpreted by me and others in this subthread, but it's your fault. :) You're literally just wondering aloud what Feeney thinks of Gates and whether that's changed in recent years, but we are reading an insinuation that it has changed for the negative. I don't think our misinterpretation of what you're saying is unreasonable -- someone above states that Feeney has publicly stated that he thinks highly of Gates and your response is to suggest that that's different now, and you link to a couple of articles, seeming to be supplying "evidence" of that, but the articles don't give any reason to think Feeney's thoughts about Gates have changed.
Your responses have convinced me that you really are just asking questions and have no preconceived notion of the answers, but the way you're asking the questions is causing people to bristle because they are presented like insinuations.
FYI.
edit: in my attempt to be helpful I see I'm being a bit repetetive. Was trying to get this out there quickly before the misunderstanding escalated into a shit-fight. :D
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using the 4% rule, $2 million gives you an income stream of $80,000 a year in retirement. Comfortable but hardly lavish.
$2 million in retirement savings puts him above 90th percentile for retirements savings for any age. The maximum 90th percentile I can find is $619,000.00 at ages 60-64. https://dqydj.com/retirement-savings-by-age-united-states/ If he's broke, then at least 90% of retirees are broke.
Maybe that should tell you something about the state of retirement savings in this country.
Compare two billionaires. One stops and carefully donates his money to have the most impact. He ends up "officially broke." The other doubles down on for profit enterprises, but focuses on those with the most impact, like electrifying a fossil fueled sector of the economy or making us a multi-planetary species. The profits are reinvested to accomplish these goals. He ends up richer than ever. It isn't clear that the…
I guess EVs have less environmental impact after four years of use, but do Teslas last that long? The intent there (and the impact) is still very much to monetize