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

811–820 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#811

Post by guerrilla »

iso1631 wrote: post #254
Cederfjard wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also depends on how much you trust the electorate. Recent developments around the world have shaken my faith a bit.

Indeed, the power goes to the person who can successfully manipulate the most people. Historically that tends to be people who blame minorities for all the ills of the group of people most likely to vote, and come up with what seem like easy solutions (tax the rich, ban the immigrants) I for one don't have time in my life to be an expert on running an economy, creating an immigration policy, balancing the environment…

> Indeed, the power goes to the person who can successfully manipulate the most people.

Perfect the enemy of good, etc, etc. What I solved is the problem of relying on a potentially authoritarian government which is what was brought up, rather than all possible problems. What I suggest would be better, not perfect.

> I for one don't have time in my life to be an expert on running an economy, creating an immigration policy, balancing the environmental and societal needs etc.

That's the point of liquid democracy. You delegate but reserve the right to override your delegate if needed.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#812

Post by yboris »

freeopinion wrote: post #312
halflings wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This assumes Feeney is more qualified to know where his money will be most effective and that no one else is out there already doing a ton of research validating the effectiveness of different charities. (both questionable) I think this could be a convenient excuse that keeps some from donating more money (I'll wait until I can spend time creating my own charity / doing some hands-on vetting on who gets my money). Th…

If the roofing example didn't illustrate the point, let me try again. Donate $100 to a literacy campaign, then volunteer for 30 minutes each week at a beneficiary elementary school to have a struggling reader read to you from one of the books your money purchased. You don't have to buy the book. You don't have to decide which books are purchased. You don't have to decide which student gets to read the books. But you…

While it's great to get fulfillment out of your philanthropic activities, and it may incite you to do more; I hope you keep focus on the main goal: helping others.

A $3 donation (via Against Malaria Foudation) buys a bednet that protects about 2 people from malaria for 3-4 years. As a donor you don't get the satisfaction of meeting the individuals you help (though you can look at some photos). But is the fulfillment you seek important enough to donate to a charity that is a thousand times less efficient at converting dollars to benefits-for-others?

A good suggestion here is to "purchase your fuzzies separately". That is, give to the most cost-effective charities you can find, regardless of how fulfilling it feels. And then find the most fulfilling activity you can, and maximize that until you had your fill.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#813

Post by C4stor »

jacquesm wrote: post #444
maximente wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's really hard to imagine someone at age 89, with 2 social security incomes and $2M, who is apparently more frugal than most technology workers, being one "wrong accident" away from "the far side of the line easily enough". an 80% loss of that $2M cash leaves him with a paltry $400K which, assuming a rate of return == inflation, is 10 years of $40K/yr spending, to say nothing of 2x SS income. people's idea of "bein…

Healthcare in the United States is perfectly designed to take your every last penny in the last 6 months of your life. If Chuck Feeney isn't actually broke today, there is a fair chance that he will be on his death bed.

He'll never be "broke", because with his money he acquired something way more long lasting than cash, which is social acquaintances. Philanthropy has been used to this exact end throughout history, and is still today.

So of course his billionnaires friends will bail him out in the highly improbable event he should really need the money. The level of networking he reached means he doesn't need to spend a dollar until his last breath if he so wished.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#814

Post by yboris »

habosa wrote: post #768
yboris wrote: post #76

I humbly encourage everyone to make giving a larger part of your life. Consider giving at least 10% of your income to cost-effective charities -- because cost-effective charities can do thousands of times more good than merely regular charities. So your $1,000 donation can do as much good as $1 million, if given well. Join others: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/

Agree whole-heartedly that everyone should give more. If you find a way to give automatically (ideally from your paycheck, not your credit card) you never even feel it. It's important to recognize that some causes are not as cost-effective as others, but are still worthy. I'll use my own donations as an example: 1. Against Malaria Foundation - widely recognized as one of the charities that can do the most for a dolla…

Thank you for sharing that. I think at the outset, whenever we all discuss donations, no one should be bullied or told they are doing something wrong. Helping people should be encouraged, even if there are better ways to help.

I think it's a productive discussion when those involved learn something new. My hope is always to share the counterintuitive finding that in today's world we are able to help people a tremendous amount with (relative-to-our-lives) very little financial involvement.

I hope that when people learn about this remarkable fact, they reflect on their goals and consider giving to more-cost-effective charities, and to give more overall.

I'm thrilled to hear you too give to one of GiveWell's top recommended charities!

Cheers!

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#815

Post by C4stor »

kingbirdy wrote: post #701
maximente wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's really hard to imagine someone at age 89, with 2 social security incomes and $2M, who is apparently more frugal than most technology workers, being one "wrong accident" away from "the far side of the line easily enough". an 80% loss of that $2M cash leaves him with a paltry $400K which, assuming a rate of return == inflation, is 10 years of $40K/yr spending, to say nothing of 2x SS income. people's idea of "bein…

Based on the famous Trinity study [0], $2M would be enough for he and his wife to draw $80k/year plus social security. That's certainly more than most people are able to retire on, but I wouldn't call it lavish, and I imagine the remainder will be donated after death. I find it hard to fault him for wanting to make sure he and his wife can enjoy their last few years without having to worry too much about the exorbita…

You shouldn't compare expenses for someone at this level of networking with a standard one. At his level of social bonds, he can live without money anyway.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#816

Post by dwild »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #607
SeanLuke wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a very Christian way of looking at donations: personal sacrifice / self-deprivation is what matters. I don't think it's what matters necessarily, but I do think that this is why he is receiving praise here and elsewhere. That's a problem, because if we're going to praise him for his sacrifice, we should remind ourselves that his sacrifice is minor compared to other donations due to the nonlinear effect of m…

Why praise sacrifice at all? Personal suffering/sacrifice adds no value to the community, and in fact reduces it. Maximizing positive impact should be the goal. Perhaps someone with 25 to their name better serves the community by keeping it?

> Personal suffering/sacrifice adds no value to the community, and in fact reduces it.

What? How? If you see this extremely locally, like the community being, your country, sure, but I don't think that's apply when you consider the community has being the whole world.

> Perhaps someone with 25 to their name better serves the community by keeping it?

Does it though? We see this as a first world country, where even for the one starving a bit, still get a life much better than a good proportion of the world. That means that keeping that 25$ will help you surely, but would serve much better a few others, if given correctly.

I guess HN is probably a place where disproportionate ego exist in a higher percentage than anywhere else, that many believe that they are the 10x programmer which is worth more than everyone else, but I'm a firm believer that given the same opportunity as me, anyone else could have done the same as me, thus helping many reach the same opportunities as me, will help more than helping myself.

Sadly I'm still a bit selfish and still want a better life for myself. I still do self sacrifice, but it's extremely local.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#817

Post by jaas »

Chuck Feeney is not "officially broke." Per this story he has a couple million set aside for retirement and is living a perfectly happy life with all of his needs met. It seems disrespectful to Feeney's vision for his own life - he can give away so much and still be fine. Not broke.

I don't know why the author had to cross the line into falsehood with the title. It's a great story about a great person, why sacrifice your integrity with an utterly false headline, particularly when the story doesn't need it?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#818

Post by andys627 »

jaas wrote: post #817

Chuck Feeney is not "officially broke." Per this story he has a couple million set aside for retirement and is living a perfectly happy life with all of his needs met. It seems disrespectful to Feeney's vision for his own life - he can give away so much and still be fine. Not broke. I don't know why the author had to cross the line into falsehood with the title. It's a great story about a great person, why sacrifice…

> I don't know why

More scandalous title gets more clicks. Sucks...

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#819

Post by js2 »

jaas wrote: post #817

Chuck Feeney is not "officially broke." Per this story he has a couple million set aside for retirement and is living a perfectly happy life with all of his needs met. It seems disrespectful to Feeney's vision for his own life - he can give away so much and still be fine. Not broke. I don't know why the author had to cross the line into falsehood with the title. It's a great story about a great person, why sacrifice…

The author very likely did not choose the headline and the story itself never refers to Feeney being broke. It does use the idiom “go for broke” meaning to give something your full effort, which Feeney certainly did. Perhaps the headline was a lame attempt at a pun on the idiom or perhaps it’s just a clickbait headline.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#820

Post by totalZero »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #584
oefnak wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're reading into it too much. He specifically said he thinks it is not a bad thing. In your opinion, is it possible to say anything about your culture without being anti-semitic?

Then why did they feel the need to obfuscate?

If so, the point of view in the comment wasn't obfuscated very effectively, considering that we are all talking about it.
Post reply on HN