Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke • Hacker News Board

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#651

Post by bzbarsky » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 2:12 AM UTC

chadrs wrote: post #34

dpflan wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest that it does not align with consumerism/capitalist ideologies which are used in the feedback loop to promote themselves/further substantiate their existence and influence in culture. Philanthropy is great, but to some extent I think the argument that properly taxing such capitalistic gains could have greater effect on society when properly used by the system that can support massive scale projects (i.e. the…

It just depends on whether you trust a government or a rich philanthropist to "properly use" capital (get the most impact/$). If you let billionaires make the choices then sure you get some like Feeney/Gates/Buffett but you get Koch brothers. Government could theoretically do a more equitable job but only if social programs are run competently. Think about the leadership of EPA and HUD.

And just to be clear, the Koch brothers fund things like efforts to end civil asset forfeiture, not just the things people like to get mad at them for in the media...

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#652

Post by bzbarsky » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 2:16 AM UTC

alex_young wrote: post #643

bzbarsky wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Seems a bit subjective. How do you know that they will become poor if not for your action? If you need to do this over and over again, and we're talking about just that, it seems like giving to the poor is a pretty good algorithm.

> How do you know that they will become poor if not for your action?

Here's a simple example. A mine closes down. You can start giving the ex-miners money on an ongoing basis to let them keep paying their bills, maybe. Or you could fund training for them to learn a new career.

How do you know they will become poor if you don't fund the training? You don't. Maybe they would have managed to change careers anyway. But chances are you are in fact helping people avoid poverty.

> If you need to do this over and over again, and we're talking about just that,

Ah, maybe this is the disconnect. No, we are precisely _not_ talking about doing this over and over again for any given person.

Or put another way, this is the "give a man a fish vs teach a man to fish" thing. The latter, if it's an option, seems evidently better to me.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#653

Post by batsigner » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 2:17 AM UTC

hirundo wrote: post #149

Compare two billionaires. One stops and carefully donates his money to have the most impact. He ends up "officially broke." The other doubles down on for profit enterprises, but focuses on those with the most impact, like electrifying a fossil fueled sector of the economy or making us a multi-planetary species. The profits are reinvested to accomplish these goals. He ends up richer than ever. It isn't clear that the…

Imagine being this much of an Elon Musk bootlicker that you completely miss that 90% of his wealth is from a leveraged stock bubble

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#654

Post by mleonhard » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 2:19 AM UTC

yossarian1408 wrote: post #632

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,…

Trades are not all selfish. A person trades selfishly if they are trying to get some benefit for themselves. Trying to benefit only other people is not selfish.

Every rational choice is made based on some personal values. A person with unselfish personal values can take action on those values. Do you think their action occurs because of their selfishness?

Are all rational actions selfish?

I think that is not a useful way to think.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#655

Post by batsigner » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 2:19 AM UTC

switch11 wrote: post #159

hirundo wrote: post #149

Compare two billionaires. One stops and carefully donates his money to have the most impact. He ends up "officially broke." The other doubles down on for profit enterprises, but focuses on those with the most impact, like electrifying a fossil fueled sector of the economy or making us a multi-planetary species. The profits are reinvested to accomplish these goals. He ends up richer than ever. It isn't clear that the…

can we please keep the pro Tesla posts on Tesla threads For God's Sake Let this great guy who gave away $8 billion of his hard earned money get proper credit without dragging a @#$#$ subsidy entrepreneur into it

Hirundo is a Branch Elonian. His religion stipulates that failing to promote Elon whenever posssible is grounds for shunning.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#656

Post by winter_blue » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 2:21 AM UTC

cm2187 wrote: post #642

vicda wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10. When the donation gives you favors in return.

11. When your donation is taken by force through taxes

Not sure why you're being downvoted, you actually do have a good point... I guess people are uncomfortable with directly acknowledging that social programs are funded by "donations" that are taken by force (i.e. taxes).

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#657

Post by bzbarsky » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 2:21 AM UTC

bmmayer1 wrote: post #537

jandrese wrote: post #338

Earlier 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.

Is it really anonymous if everyone knows he did it?

When he made the donations it was not the case that everyone knew he did, yes?

The fact that he's effectively been doxxed on the donations does mean it's no longer anonymous, yes.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#658

Post by chadash » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 2:21 AM UTC

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'…

I haven't studied the original text myself, but I believe that #1 is slightly off. It's not necessary to do the charitable action before a person becomes impoverished. Rather, the idea is that:

a) teaching a man to fish is better than giving a man a fish

b) the former is also more dignified for the person receiving help

This applies whether a person is going to become impoverished or is currently poor. And this idea of dignity is strong enough that it outweighs other considerations, such as anonymity on either side (of course, there's the question of whether giving someone a job anonymously is better than doing it with one or both parties' knowledge... and I don't know what Maimonides would have said).

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#659

Post by young_unixer » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 2:21 AM UTC

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…

What's wrong with leaving your wealth to your offspring?

What I find sickening is people trying to meddle in other people's pockets.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#660

Post by feteru » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 2:23 AM UTC

compiler-guy wrote: post #588

snowwrestler wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To have an economist leading off with a moral argument tells you how strong the economic argument is. (not strong) A view toward growing the economy would prefer the riotous living, because it moves more money around. Note that in almost any other context, Friedman is concerned with impediments to economic activity. Yet here, we are led to believe that high levels of economic activity are bad or immoral for some reas…

> To have an economist leading off with a moral argument > tells you how strong the economic argument is. This is an ad hominem argument.

Is it really? Seemed to be more of an ironic point.