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

351–360 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#351

Post by dumbfounder »

jandrese wrote: post #338
anonAndOn wrote: post #146

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…

From the article: > And he gave it away anonymously. While many wealthy philanthropists enlist an army of publicists to trumpet their donations, Feeney went to great lengths to keep his gifts secret.

I think that's a shame. I have never heard of him. How many could he inspire if he was more vocal? But, to each their own.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#352

Post by larrik »

biztos wrote: post #314
smattiso wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Namely something after yourself is tacky. But what should buildings be named after? Famous scientists? Planets? Feeney seems like an awesome guy but sadly in 100 years nobody will know his name!

> Famous scientists? Yes, absolutely. And if a certain General Hospital in San Francisco were not named after the tackiest of billionaires then maybe it could honor, I dunno, Hugh Toland? Instead of dedicating most of its "about us" page to shining a youngish oligarch's already controversial reputation? https://zuckerbergsanfranciscogeneral.org/about-us/our-histo...

As someone not in the area, I had no idea this was a thing.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#353

Post by gridlockd »

SeanLuke wrote: post #284

I vaguely recall that there are classic levels in Jewish philosophy regarding philanthropy, and among the highest is to give with no expectation of any return whatsoever: that means not only giving where it matters, but to do so anonymously, to organizations that don't benefit you (no opera companies), and to people with no ties to you. In this respect Chuck Feeney has been incredible. This is not to dismiss the like…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7PHIh2pqh0

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#354

Post by throwaway0a5e »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #231
brightball wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s millions of people in this country that donate anonymously. People’s ability to agree where money should be given isn’t great. Worse so when the people who are giving the most have less say in where it goes. In my experience, most appeals like the above tend to be driven by the idea that they would make better decisions than the philanthropist.

In the end, donations are a form of political power, If only deciding what gets funded, and what doesn't, even before all the other self promotion stuff surrounding them. Whats a better model for deciding the distribution of political power, a democratic one, or a dictatorial one? At the very least I don't think its an unreasonable position to believe that democracy makes more sense.

Bill Gates can't send thugs with guns to shoot my dog because I refuse to humor some predatory attempt at revenue extraction by Microsoft.

Unless you're trying to do things that pretty much nobody finds unsavory (e.g. funding education) money by itself doesn't go very far.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#355

Post by cscurmudgeon »

megablast wrote: post #305
mensetmanusman wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the counter question is whether there is something virtuous about spending all your money before you die.

Well, you are putting your money back into society, creating jobs. So yes. That is better then not doing those things.

Do you really think people have a pool filled with gold coins like Scrooge McDuck?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#356

Post by pwinnski »

zpeti wrote: post #164
superasn wrote: post #160

Is a person who invests that money for-profit but makes giant advancements in maths/science while doing it an equally big giver? Take for example, Elon musk. Even though he hasn't given monet away to charities like Chuck, his for-profit enterprises like electric cars, solar farms, spacex and possibly neuralink might just have been things that end up equally great for humanity. So if you have billions I guess timtowtd…

Also - does he actually "have money"? Tesla and SpaceX don't make a profit or pay dividends. My guess is he finances his entire life from taking on debt which is secured against his stock. So how exactly are people like him supposed to just give money away? What happens to the stock he owns then? Would he forgo control of his companies? How would he pay taxes on that income anyway? Lots of questions the billionaires-…

He started out with a lot of money from his family's South African mining operations.

Your mockery is ill-directed, and in the context of a post about someone whose corporate wealth was able to be donated to charity, in really poor taste.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#357

Post by compsciphd »

jacquesm wrote: post #300
SeanLuke wrote: post #284

I vaguely recall that there are classic levels in Jewish philosophy regarding philanthropy, and among the highest is to give with no expectation of any return whatsoever: that means not only giving where it matters, but to do so anonymously, to organizations that don't benefit you (no opera companies), and to people with no ties to you. In this respect Chuck Feeney has been incredible. This is not to dismiss the like…

That's a good point. And 'broke' isn't 100% broke just yet, he's not going to have to sleep under a bridge. But he's broke enough that the wrong accident can put him on the far side of the line easily enough. Obviously this goes for many people but they tend to end up in that situation by accident, not by design and as an example to other billionaires he's pretty impressive. Try imagining Larry Ellison doing this.

I'd presume (perhaps incorrectly, so perhaps hope), that he's pretty insured up to avoid that fate.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#358

Post by throwaway0a5e »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #277
zozbot234 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strictly speaking, the U.S. is a republic not a democracy. Are you sure that your average congresscritter makes better decisions on money allocation at the margin than a private philanthropist would?

I have more faith in democracy than I do in the dictates of random, unaccountable billionaires yes.

Microsoft and Amazon don't care what color my house is or how close my garage is to the property line so long as I keep paying them. Just paying my property taxes is not enough to prevent arbitrary violation of my property rights by my local government.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#359

Post by mikestew »

ticmasta wrote: post #267
mikestew wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ab…

Then you don't understand the specialization of labor very well, and you're being very disingenuous to the parent post. They made no reference to certain work being beneath them, only the idea in maximizing resources. Maybe you could help the shelter with some database work while a junior high kid picks up poop.

There is far more dog shit to be picked up than database work to be done. I sometimes get the impression that folks think non-profits have an endless stream of IT projects, if only someone would volunteer time to do them. That has not been my experience, most volunteer organizations need physical work, not another web app. Most of the software needs can be taken care of by off-the-shelf products that will be supported longer than one-off volunteer projects that get abandoned.
Post reply on HN