Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The least impactful way to spend $300M?

passingtime.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 291 posts

Re: The least impactful way to spend $300M?

#51

Post by jimbokun »

crazygringo wrote: post #24

I definitely don't think the big schools like Harvard/Yale/etc. need any more money, but I will play devil's advocate here. > "he donated $300 million in such as a way as to do as close as possible to zero good with it." Oh there are a lot worse ways to spend it with the best of intentions. The Turkana frozen-fish plant is a classic example, a charitable project where back in around 1975 around $150 million (in today…

Harvard produced many of the people that built a society with staggering and increasing levels of income inequality. Consultants, hedge fund managers, architects of super addictive social media platforms, politicians who write laws favoring corporations over workers, etc. etc.

Re: The least impactful way to spend $300M?

#52

Post by pie_flavor »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #37
ethanbond wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt anyone in EA is actually misled by what’s going on here. They’re trying to out it as not a charitable donation at all so no one who hasn’t thought about it is misled. This is a good thing to do.

Then why take it seriously at all. You're looking to perform a forensic analysis to determine whether the wallet inspector's credentials are a forgery. The whole thing is a scam.

If I point out that something you did is bad because of a particular outcome, that doesn't mean I thought your goal was to avoid that outcome. In fact it means exactly the opposite; if your goal was not to avoid that outcome, but it should have been, then my criticism is even more applicable.

Re: The least impactful way to spend $300M?

#54

Post by cmh89 »

Galanwe wrote: post #8

I don't think one donates money to Harvard just for the sake of a plaque. I guess there is some sort of indirect benefit to be had after such a donation, like an entry pass for a child, an entry pass for a PhD, or something of that vein?

>I guess there is some sort of indirect benefit to be had after such a donation, like an entry pass for a child, an entry pass for a PhD, or something of that vein?

You could get that for a million probably. He donated it because he's a vain billionaire who wants the world to remember him despite not achieving anything memorable.

Re: The least impactful way to spend $300M?

#55

Post by tempestn »

crazygringo wrote: post #24

I definitely don't think the big schools like Harvard/Yale/etc. need any more money, but I will play devil's advocate here. > "he donated $300 million in such as a way as to do as close as possible to zero good with it." Oh there are a lot worse ways to spend it with the best of intentions. The Turkana frozen-fish plant is a classic example, a charitable project where back in around 1975 around $150 million (in today…

I'd go one further. There are plenty of actively harmful donations one could make. As one example, most people would probably feel that way about roughly half of political donations.

Re: The least impactful way to spend $300M?

#56

Post by nonethewiser »

crazygringo wrote: post #24

I definitely don't think the big schools like Harvard/Yale/etc. need any more money, but I will play devil's advocate here. > "he donated $300 million in such as a way as to do as close as possible to zero good with it." Oh there are a lot worse ways to spend it with the best of intentions. The Turkana frozen-fish plant is a classic example, a charitable project where back in around 1975 around $150 million (in today…

But what? What would be lost without the 300 million? If you can’t be specific then I think it’s to the authors point. I mean, just consider that he spent 300 million and the impact isn’t obvious.

At least in your fish example they used it for the intended purpose for some period of time and there is still some low utilization for dried fish. It’s also half of 300 million so it seems they did more with less despite it being a failure.

Regardless, effective altruism is bullshit. They can donate the money however they want. They wouldn’t be a better person or even more charitable if they were an “effective altruist.”

Re: The least impactful way to spend $300M?

#57

Post by atyppo »

crazygringo wrote: post #24

I definitely don't think the big schools like Harvard/Yale/etc. need any more money, but I will play devil's advocate here. > "he donated $300 million in such as a way as to do as close as possible to zero good with it." Oh there are a lot worse ways to spend it with the best of intentions. The Turkana frozen-fish plant is a classic example, a charitable project where back in around 1975 around $150 million (in today…

I'm sure it will have some impact, but a school that refuses to increase student body size at the expense of plenty of people trying to get in is disgusting to put it lightly. Not to mention their promulgation of a legacy system, which comprises nearly 30% of undergrads.

Re: The least impactful way to spend $300M?

#58

Post by odd_perfect_num »

JoshTko wrote: post #47
crazygringo wrote: post #24

I definitely don't think the big schools like Harvard/Yale/etc. need any more money, but I will play devil's advocate here. > "he donated $300 million in such as a way as to do as close as possible to zero good with it." Oh there are a lot worse ways to spend it with the best of intentions. The Turkana frozen-fish plant is a classic example, a charitable project where back in around 1975 around $150 million (in today…

A donation to Harvard only accelerates opportunity inequality. Harvard benefits only rich kids.

Harvard and it's peers are some of the very few academic institutions that have need blind admissions and generous need-based financial aid.

For poor students, Harvard and its peers are pretty much the only free college options besides merit scholarships.

Re: The least impactful way to spend $300M?

#60

Post by jimbokun »

SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #30
cool_dude85 wrote: post #20

This article very briefly encapsulates everything wrong with Effective Altruism: a boneheaded assumption that this money is being donated for its societal impact, an unwillingness to try to actually understand what's going on, instead choosing to engage with the Harvard endowment on its own terms by taking the university "mission statement" seriously, and a screenshot of an Excel spreadsheet purporting to identify be…

Exactly. Anyone who knows Griffin knows he is essentially one of the core villains of the finance world already (which in of itself is a rather impressive feat, you really have to be villainous to be considered one of the worst people in finance). Trying to assume this isn’t just some villainous vanity play in the first place was the article’s mistake.

The article very plainly spells out how this is just done villainous vanity play…no?
Post reply on HN