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

531–540 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#531

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

haltingproblem wrote: post #429

The amount of negativity in this thread regarding billionaires and charity is stupefying. There are well established reasons why the distribution of wealth is lumpy - the uneven distribution of initial endowments, skills, parenting, luck, education, etc. The work of Pareto and the Ergodicity Economics gives a sound theoretical basis to this realization. There is no middle ground folks - in any incentive driven system…

It’s ludicrous to suggest celebrating this. It should make you sick and outraged, not be celebrated.

Please read my other comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24487517

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#532

Post by weatherman2 »

akira2501 wrote: post #502
JoshTriplett wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making a very public show of philanthropy as a means of self-promotion or self-aggrandizement isn't awesome, though frankly if letting people feel good with a little recognition results in more donations then that seems well worth it. But there are other reasons to make a public show of philanthropy: to encourage others to give, to be a part of giving campaigns, to draw attention to an issue you consider important, t…

> though frankly if letting people feel good with a little recognition results in more donations then that seems well worth it. I disagree. This is an attempt to buy legacy and erase their past. It benefits only those who make the donations, and whatever causes happen to pique their particular interests. It also creates yet another organization of people dependent upon the good will and whim of a single supporter. >…

All of the downsides you mention are not that bad in my opinion.

I don't feel bad that people buy a legacy. I believe that a legacy of being a massive philanthropist is a legacy worth having.

I don't feel bad that they "erase their past", because all people can still be judged by the totality of their actions.

The recognition does benefit the people that make the donations. Doesn't seem to be a problem to me.

Charitable organizations are dependent upon the whim of their donors regardless of whether the donors get any recognition.

The fraction of non-profit budgets that are spent on awareness seems to be a tangential point that I do not understand.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#533

Post by chki »

lemmonii wrote: post #521
bedhead wrote: post #240

I’ve long argued for massive estate tax rates on large estates in order to incentivize behavior like this. I have no problem at all with Bezos being worth $200 billion (or whatever it is now), but it’s this dynastic wealth that I find borderline sickening. Why in the hell should the Rockefeller’s of today be billionaires??? Also, these giant charitable foundations/family offices are similarly off-putting, as they are…

>Why in the hell should the Rockefeller’s of today be billionaires? Because we live in a system which rewards good genes, and that is a very good thing. By instituting a generational wealth tax you will be killing the human desire for wealth on a generational timescale. Where does the money go? To other people i assume, you have now created a system where the evolutionary incentive is to leech from the system contrib…

I'm very sceptical about the claim that the incentive to earn staggering amounts of money goes away if your great-great-grandchildren cannot profit from it. Caring about your own children and grandchildren makes sense because you actually get to meet them, but at some point most people probably don't care about their far-far relatives.

Also, is this really your main motivation if you're Jeff Bezos? To make even more money? Doesn't the money stop mattering after the first 100 million and you're simply staying at Amazon because that's what you actually like doing? (Including having influence, shaping the future of commerce, etc etc)

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#535

Post by superhuzza »

wolfhumble wrote: post #520
phaus wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if it was the case for Chuck, but a small percentage Christians strongly believe that charity should be anonymous because it actually says as much in the bible. I'm not a Christian myself and definitely not rich at all, but I do prefer anonymous donations.

Matthew 6, 1-4 (NIV): 1 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do…

It's kind of sad how it's framed in those passages - Give in secret, or God will notice and hold back some of those heavenly rewards.

As if the whole thing is just a karmic ponzi scheme.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#536

Post by andrepd »

wang_li wrote: post #418

One could argue that everyone has the same responsibilities to society at large. Thus for every Chuck Feeny and Bill Gates, you, personally you, have an obligation to create many billion dollars of value and give it away. If you don't do that, you're worse than any evil billionaire you care to name. They at least are paying millions of dollars in taxes for any money they pull out of investments. How many millions in…

In that argument you assume that the net effect to society of their winning billions of dollars is zero, which is obviously nonsense. For instance the net effect to society of somebody like Charles Koch is, undeniably, absurdly negative. He has (not even being hyperbolic here) the blood of thousands on his hands, with his pushing of climate change denialism. We could even argue about the net impact of Bill Gates (is Microsoft a net positive to society or negative? it's at least not obvious, and one can argue).

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#537

Post by bmmayer1 »

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.

Is it really anonymous if everyone knows he did it?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#538

Post by avip »

wolfhumble wrote: post #520
phaus wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if it was the case for Chuck, but a small percentage Christians strongly believe that charity should be anonymous because it actually says as much in the bible. I'm not a Christian myself and definitely not rich at all, but I do prefer anonymous donations.

Matthew 6, 1-4 (NIV): 1 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do…

Or

"He who gives charity to the poor without knowing to who, and the poor knows not from who was taken, this is a true Mitzva"

The 2nd ranked charity level. [pls excuse my poor translation]

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#539

Post by andrepd »

wang_li wrote: post #519
AQuantized wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their large incomes are made possible by infrastructure. The analogy doesn't make much sense to me since even the most prolific billionaire didn't build much of this infrastructure.

As a class they did. Some of it was built by billionaires past, but is maintained by the current generation of the well to do. Regardless, the middle income household certainly did not build it.

Oh, I didn't know that "billionaires as a class" digged roads, erected buildings, manned trains, stores, telephones, farms, factories... "The low income households didn't build it", you have a very twisted definition of what that means.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#540

Post by Miraste »

CrazyStat wrote: post #376
Miraste wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 av…

I probably shouldn't make such absolute statements, they do beg for counterexamples. I'd be surprised if your friend didn't engage in some anti-competitive or employee-exploiting practices, but of course I have no idea.
Post reply on HN