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

381–390 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#381

Post by progman32 »

orangejewce wrote: post #332
myself248 wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed that this sort of naming-rights philanthropy correlates with certain cultures, too. I know when I'm driving along 11 mile and see a bunch of buildings with people's names on them, the good deli is just a few blocks further. ;) I concur, it's not a bad thing. I actually think it helps motivate others to do likewise -- generosity in the shadows doesn't help set a cultural expectation or contribute to a pat…

Wow dude, if you're going to be anti-semitic, just do it. Don't bother trying to be "cute", or "subtle" using emojis. Really pathetic.

For those who can't spot the subtlety, can you explain what you mean?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#382

Post by anonAndOn »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #336
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!

Why name it after anything? "UCSF Children's Hospital" tells you everything you need to know.

Because they needed to raise a lot of money to build the new campus.[0] SF Children's was at the old location, Benioff Children's is at the new location.

[0]https://www.ucsfbenioffchildrens.org/maps_and_directions/par...

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#383

Post by teruakohatu »

gringoDan wrote: post #370
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…

> 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…

Gates' wealth keeps increasing. Sure he gives a lot away but, but he is making 1+ billion per year above what he gives away.

It is great that money is going to charity, it is great that money previously belonging to Gates' is going to charity, but I would be far more impressed by you if you donated $100/year to the Internet Archive than I am if Bill Gates donated $100 million.

In other words, I don't think anyone claims that $100 will help more than $100 million, but there is no great personal moral achievement in giving away something you don't need and can't use.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#384

Post by brightball »

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.

Why only democracy or dictatorial? There's no form of voting that involves more freedom than voting with your wallet.

If democracy gets involved in that process, suddenly there's only an obstruction to say "No...you can't spend it on that." It's just there to introduce a form of majority control.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#385

Post by rcoveson »

mattmanser wrote: post #292
smillbag wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The basic argument against the estate tax is moral. It taxes virtue – living frugally and accumulating wealth. Is there something virtuous about hoarding wealth?

Turning greed into a virtue, feels like something only an American economist could do!

What we now recognize (and decry) as greed looks very similar to the force that created intelligent life from primordial soup. Greed, ambition, and Darwinian fitness seem close to synonymous.

Also, there's nothing uniquely American about considering greed virtuous[0].

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#386

Post by progman32 »

ebg13 wrote: post #380
gringoDan wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Ease is not always related to importance. Edit: I misread, by bad.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#387

Post by thinkharderdev »

jedberg wrote: post #250
refurb wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people only donate to reduce their tax bill. That makes no sense. If I get to deduct a donation, then when I donate $1000, it really only costs me $700. But it still costs me $700. I would have more money if I never donated.

A lot of people don't understand how tax deductions work, and assume that they get the full value. Also, as noted below, it has a PR benefit while also giving you a 30% "discount".

I'm not sure that's the case at all. And even if they did assume that they got the full value, they would be quickly corrected of that belief when they actually filed their taxes.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#388

Post by ebg13 »

progman32 wrote: post #386
ebg13 wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Impact is important, of course, but making an impact when you have everything is not difficult. Things that are not difficult are not impressive.

Ease is not always related to importance. Edit: I misread, by bad.

Op specifically used the word "unimpressive", not "unimportant".

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#389

Post by laingc »

orangejewce wrote: post #332
myself248 wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed that this sort of naming-rights philanthropy correlates with certain cultures, too. I know when I'm driving along 11 mile and see a bunch of buildings with people's names on them, the good deli is just a few blocks further. ;) I concur, it's not a bad thing. I actually think it helps motivate others to do likewise -- generosity in the shadows doesn't help set a cultural expectation or contribute to a pat…

Wow dude, if you're going to be anti-semitic, just do it. Don't bother trying to be "cute", or "subtle" using emojis. Really pathetic.

Not doubting you for a second[0], but I didn’t see anything anti-Semitic in that post, so am I missing some internet meme or American cultural reference?

[0] Footnote in case it is necessary: antisemitism must be stamped out wherever it is found.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#390

Post by olivermarks »

bena wrote: post #307
olivermarks wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@bena do you have a point to make here? Where are my 'snide comments'??? Gates is exponentially wealthier than Feeney, and is extremely noisy in the media he funds as the second wealthiest human on the planet. I wonder what Feeney makes of Gates in 2020.

> I wonder what Feeney makes of Gates in 2020. Stuff like that. My point is that spamming links with no other commentary makes me wonder if you have a point here.

If you'd actually bothered to read the two 'spam' links as you called them you would understand the point I was making. Link one: FT oped by Gates published today about Covid19 Vaccines Link Two: Article about Gates rapidly growing fortune and how difficult it is for people as rich as he is to give away money.
Post reply on HN