Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the worlds money is sitting in the Cayman’s after-all, or hidden away as art investments inside of storage containers.
Is it really? Where can I read about it?
Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke
371–380 of 875 posts
Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke
#372Earlier 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…
> then people in general (through democracy) can decide what causes are valuable.
Conveniently, we can already see what causes we think are valuable, because the US government already spends about 40% of the entire GDP, $8 trillion per year.
Apparently we've decided that Donald J. Trump should manage it, and that $1 trillion per year should go to the defense industry (that's 600 Chuck Feeneys), with another $500B (300 Feeneys) to interest on the national debt.
(*edit: assuming 1 Feeney = $1.5B)
Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke
#373What he did was great. But for Forbes to say a man with 2% of 8 billion dollars is broke is a stretch.
Any person worth $8B who later found themself with $2mm would consider themself "broke."
Plus, your math is way off. 0.025%.
Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke
#374Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think it's a shame that all donations aren't anonymous.
The government should at least take away the tax deductibility of non anonymous donations.
Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke
#375This 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.
Buying "expensive shit" is an honest business transaction. Who do you think makes all this expensive shit? They all have families to feed, you know. If you're rich, buying expensive shit is probably the most beneficial thing you can do for society.
By contrast, charities and non-profits get this halo of being socially beneficial, even though they're often some of the most wasteful institutions of all. Cornell gets a billion dollars from this guy, as if they didn't get enough money from the racket that is higher education in the US.
Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke
#376Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Earning to give" doesn't mean you have to earn in dishonest fashion.
You can't become a billionaire through honest earnings. The degree is variable but the presence is inevitable, becoming required more the more billions you amass. Of course, you can take the ethical route, but those people don't get the billions.
I know a billionaire who basically was in the right place at the right time during the biotech boom. He started a company as a side project (he was a professor), got a deal to supply a major pharmaceutical company, and expanded from there. I don't know every decision he ever made but I'm not aware of any unethical behavior. He lives fairly frugally and has made a point of staying under the radar (he's successfully avoided being put on Forbes's list of billionaires, for example).
I'm willing to argue that it is in fact possible to become a billionaire though honest earnings.
Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke
#377Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Feeney seems like an awesome guy but sadly in 100 years nobody will know his name! I'm 99.9999999% certain that no one cares about their name when they're dead.
A lot of people care about their legacy.
You might care about your legacy while you're alive, but after you're dead, there is no you, so it's not possible for you to care about your legacy after you're dead.
Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke
#378Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the jist was that BrainInAJar believes that most people who get super rich do so, not by simply providing value, but by exploiting vulnerabilities in how society works so that they create a need for the value they are going to provide. I'm not sure how accurate of a representation this is, but it certainly appears to work that way in some places. Realtors are a really good example of this, and of course, Butl…
Comcast is my favorite example of this. Cable originally started because people in valleys of PA and the like could not get antenna reception. So the CATV companies put up lines and started selling the service. Sure, they were filling a 'need'. But I think when we look back at how the CATV Industry itself punishes 'piracy' there is more than a little irony. The only reason they started paying was because it was codif…
> The only reason they started paying was because it was codified into law.
Aye, there's the rub. The greatest evils are when the billionaires team up with the government. Shifting money from the villains with money to the villains in the legislature doesn't solve that problem, and the villains in the legislature already spend close to half the GDP.
Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke
#379Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke
#380I 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…
> we must remind ourselves that this is unimpressive compared to the poor person who donates $25 to others while starving herself Is it? This is a very Christian way of looking at donations: personal sacrifice / self-deprivation is what matters. [1] However, utilitarians – notably Effective Altruists [2] – would make the opposite argument: what matters is the impact that you make with the dollars you donate (both in…
Impact is important, of course, but making an impact when you have everything is not difficult. Things that are not difficult are not impressive.