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

631–640 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#631

Post by gfxgirl »

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…

I could easily retire on $2M so I think it wouldn't be that hard to give away $1998M if I get to keep $2M. It's not like $2M is poor, given it's post tax it's like being able to live on a salary of $75k a year for 40yrs and, he likely owns a house already (or is that part of the $2M, though even if it is he can sell it and live off the money).

I'm not trying to downplay him in anyway. I'm just saying that $2M in the bank is still an extremely comfortable life so there is not much hardship to be had in giving up everything over that.

Also, as for donating anonymously vs non-anonymously I do it non-anonymously as trying to add social proof that you should donate. The more it appears normal to donate the more people will donate, or so I believe. If I could do that anonymously I would but people read me (my blog or other things), they don't read anon's blog/tweets, whatever.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#632

Post by yossarian1408 »

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…

Not related to the article, however the third paragraph of your comment touches on a controversial idea, so I'll add another perspective.

On the idea of sacrifice as virtuous.

Sacrifice is only compatible with selfishness. This is because for an action to be a sacrifice, there is two criteria in which it must meet.

The first criteria are that the individual must love themselves.

She who has no value of her own life, cannot sacrifice it, just as she could not sacrifice a rock found in a cave. Vice versa, an individual which holds her own life as immensely valuable, is able to sacrifice it for an ideal, however this leads to the second criterion.

The second criteria are that the individual must hold no value in the ideal or cause in which they contribute towards.

This is because if you hold something as valuable, and you give it up for something of equal or greater value, you are not sacrificing, but rather trading.

Each trade has its own currency, and what that is I leave to the reader to investigate, but sacrifice is only possible for the woman that loves herself and does not hold any value in the ideal in which she sacrifices herself for.

Thus, if you do see virtue in sacrifice, it is only possible because of selfishness, and this is problematic.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#633

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #624
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #526

> “ Where did $8 billion go? Feeney gave $3.7 billion to education, including nearly $1 billion to his alma mater, Cornell, which he attended on the G.I. Bill. More than $870 million went to human rights and social change, like $62 million in grants to abolish the death penalty in the U.S. and $76 million for grassroots campaigns supporting the passage of Obamacare. He gave more than $700 million in gifts to health r…

Why? It was his money and he could have bought diamonds and shot them into the sun if he wanted. Instead it seems that the vast majority of the spending was a net positive to society and will do some good. Yes, there was probably a more impactful way of spending it from a humanitarian perspective, but presumably there wasn't a more satisfying way to spend it for Feeney. Nearly everything that everyone does is a negli…

Your objection falls flat. We can definitely analyze everybody else’s behavior another time - it’s not relevant here and only serves to distract.

This one person had a huge fortune and explicit goals to spend it in efficacious charities.

From that point of view, this particular story is one of exorbitant waste and missed opportunity, the magnitude of which should stupefy people.

We’re not talking about some other joe schmoe who failed to be as ascetic as possible - that’s just rhetorical deflection. We’re talking about this particular instance of egregious waste.

Your comment is like if some heard about the Deepwater Horizon spill and replied, “everything looks like waste or hazards if you measure every cubic milliliter of spilled oil, can’t we just given them a break for trying to harvest it and do something with it?”

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#634

Post by JoshTriplett »

WalterBright wrote: post #552
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…

But when people are publicly generous with other peoples' money, I assign negative virtue :-/

Nobody is talking about that here; this is about people being generous with their own.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#635

Post by chillwaves »

gringoDan wrote: post #483
andrepd wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course one could argue that we should not be dependent on the goodwill and grace of billionaires to choose to donate their wealth to good causes, but rather should tax fortunes at an onerous rate and put that money in public, democratic control, regardless. For each Chuck Feeny and Bill Gates how many Waltons OR Kochs do we have?

You could make that argument, and in doing so you are implicitly stating either: (a) I believe that the government will use its money to impact the world in a better way than billionaires do, or (b) I concede that (a) is false, but I don't care. It's not about the impact we make with the money, it's about dragging billionaires down. Personally, I'm interested in impact. I have little faith that paying taxes to the US…

Billionaires act against the interest of the working class more than they act in favor of it. That's how they became billionaires.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#636

Post by chillwaves »

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…

You are assuming that billionaires create "billion dollars of value" .. quite a leap.

Do we really need to take time out of our day to praise billionaires? What about the workers who's productivity they robbed to get their status?

I think the billionaires are well compensated enough by society. Really odd to see people rushing to defend them.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#637

Post by kyawzazaw »

yodsanklai wrote: post #258
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!

> Namely something after yourself is tacky. I think it's a cultural thing. In some countries it would be considered very poor taste for someone to pay to get their name on a building. If it's an academic building, I think it makes more sense to name it after someone who contributed to the field. Or it could simply be the "CS building".

> If it's an academic building, I think it makes more sense to name it after someone who contributed to the field. Or it could simply be the "CS building".

Have you seen the halls of the US univerisites?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#638

Post by [deleted] »

refurb wrote: post #616
nugget wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your definition of freedom is just anarchy. The obvious question: What's to stop somebody from murdering you and taking your wealth? The same objective (or subjective, take your pick) morality that discourages robbery-murder can effortlessly extend to the distribution of wealth in society. An objective moralist once said: "Render unto Caesar...". A subjective moralist could say: "whatever minimizes human suffering an…

Your definition of freedom is just anarchy How do you go from "it's no ones business how much wealth I accumulate or give to my children" to "anarchy"? That's not what the OP said at all.

[deleted]

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#639

Post by alex_young »

7402 wrote: post #525
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…

Maimonides defines eight levels in giving charity (tzedakah), each one higher than the preceding one. On an ascending level, they are as follows: 8. When donations are given grudgingly. 7. When one gives less than he should, but does so cheerfully. 6. When one gives directly to the poor upon being asked. 5. When one gives directly to the poor without being asked. 4. Donations when the recipient is aware of the donor'…

The best one in my book is number 5:

5. When one gives directly to the poor without being asked.

Why would anything following that actually be better?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#640

Post by bzbarsky »

alex_young wrote: post #639
7402 wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maimonides defines eight levels in giving charity (tzedakah), each one higher than the preceding one. On an ascending level, they are as follows: 8. When donations are given grudgingly. 7. When one gives less than he should, but does so cheerfully. 6. When one gives directly to the poor upon being asked. 5. When one gives directly to the poor without being asked. 4. Donations when the recipient is aware of the donor'…

The best one in my book is number 5: 5. When one gives directly to the poor without being asked. Why would anything following that actually be better?

Just to take a specific example from the list: preventing people from becoming poor in the first place is better. How could it not be? They avoid the mental pain and stress of being poor and feeling like they are dependent on handouts to survive...
Post reply on HN