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

181–190 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#181

Post by justin66 »

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.

> 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.

While weighing journalist's actions you might want to consider that Chuck Feeney wanted to remain completely anonymous and the media - the members of the media acting in accordance with your desires specifically - made that impossible.

(that some of us have known his name for many years might also indicate that this has never come to my attention is not a meaningful measure of the media's performance - perhaps it's a measure of your use of media)

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#182

Post by dangus »

JackFr wrote: post #97
dangus wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.”

> a system that allows $8 billion in wealth to accumulate enough to be controlled by one person has already failed I think you have little appreciation of how wealth is created. Jeff Bezos became the wealthiest person in the world neither by stealing or exploiting , but rather by improving peoples lives. Amazon was able to organize systems, take advantage of technological developments and put capital to work to impro…

> neither by stealing or exploiting

Citation needed, as they say.

There have been dozens of controversies involving Amazon: shopping for tax breaks it doesn’t need for HQ2, micro-managing warehouse employees’ bladder, union busting, firing a COVID whistleblower, cross-contaminating inventory, insufficient protections against counterfeit items, building a book ecosystem monopoly, probably numerous others I haven’t thought of off the top of my head.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#183

Post by aidenn0 »

zpeti wrote: post #151
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 am amazed at how easily you skip over the fact that this means government gets to spend that money. As if that were some ideal outcome which would solve all problems. Which government exactly is it that you think is excellent at solving societal problems and spending taxes efficiently?

I tend towards the conservative side of center, which has been an uncomfortable place for the past 10+ years in the US -- both parties moving away from the center, but the GOP doing so much faster.

I thought for certain the level of hate the left has for the current federal regime would make my constant refrain of "do we really think the government will do a better job?[1]" finally make sense. However, the empirical fact that government agencies will be directed by those you don't like doesn't seem to deter people from wanting to increase the role of those agencies.

1: To be clear: I'm not an anarcho-libertarian; I think the answer to this question can very often be "yes" but living in coastal California, I too often seem to be surrounded by people who think getting the government involved is the only reasonable solution to any problem. Conversely there is a very large minority of the US right that seems to think that bombs, guns and walls is the only time the answer is "yes"

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#185

Post by 54mf »

hirundo wrote: post #149

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…

This is one hell of a strawman. You know the "carefully donated" money doesn't just end up in a black hole, right?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#186

Post by jrochkind1 »

zozbot234 wrote: post #23
strikelaserclaw wrote: post #3

most 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.

You don't need to "become extremely rich" for charitable giving to be quite worthwhile. Even donating trivial amounts of money to high-impact charity can easily come with a factor of 1000× in value created, compared to just spending the same amount of money on your own private consumption. (Of course this assumes that you're choosing the right causes, generally involving very poor countries and the like; not just "do…

I try to give away 10% of my income, after hearing about how some Christians I know did it (largely but not only to their churches). I don't give to religious institutions myself.

You don't have to be rich to do this. Although yes, some people truly can't spare 10%, that's fine, nobody needs to reply saying so. Anyone can spare what they can spare, whether that's 0 or more. For a lot of people 10% seems about right to be enough to feel it without being a hardship. (I calculate 10% of take-home, post-tax. It is still enough to feel it).

I give about half of it in automatic monthly contributions, the other half in spontaneous one-offs. I (in the USA) don't require to be tax deductible, but enough of it is that I reliably increase my tax refund every year.

It definitely makes me feel better about what I'm supporting and doing with what I'm lucky enough to have. Although of course "making me feel better" should not be the goal if I want to maximize impact, but nobody would do it if it weren't rewarding in some way. I don't give enough to get any kind of 'public recognition' (and wouldn't want any), my reward is feeling like I'm putting my money where my values are and hopefully contributing to what i want to see in the world.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#187

Post by javajosh »

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…

Sorry you're getting down-votes, because I think you bring up a very important point. We as a society should understand the trade-offs involved when we allow individuals to accumulate truly vast wealth. In general terms, this increases the variance in how the money can be spent. One guy might give it away, another builds rockets, another buys gilded toilets for his estate. Individual decision makers can do much better than government (the benevolent dictator...of their own money) and much worse (irresponsible or even damaging use of it). Government use is less efficient, but also has less variance: it will be spent on a similar range of things, but closer to the middle.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#188

Post by AdamN »

Why can't governments receive these donations? Do any benefactors currently give to governments (not via taxes, actually just give)?

I know Ted Turner did it with the UN Foundation, although that isn't technically the UN itself.

Are there other examples?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#189

Post by mikestew »

zozbot234 wrote: post #36
hogFeast wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can also donate your time.

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.

it will usually be a lot more effective to put in some more time at work, and give away some of the resulting income.

I'm paid salary. I'm of the opinion that it is usually the self-absorbed that think that after they leave the office they are still worth what their employer pays them.

Making it a requirement that your time donation be within your professional skillset is saying, "such work is beneath me". I'm not above ladling a bit of soup into a bowl or picking up the dog shit while at the animal shelter.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#190

Post by johnwheeler »

The best part of the article

> When I visited a few years ago, inkjet-printed photos of friends and family hung from the walls over a plain, wooden table. On the table sat a small Lucite plaque that read: “Congratulations to Chuck Feeney for $8 billion of philanthropic giving.”

Post reply on HN