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

101–110 of 291 posts

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

#101

Post by hakfoo »

spacedcowboy wrote: post #14
bigwheeler wrote: post #5

This was the plot of Brewster’s Millions https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088850/

I thought buying a really rare stamp, then mailing it thus destroying its value, was pretty cool :)

That might not work as he expected.

Some items are "condition rarities" -- it's worth a fortune in never used condition, but nothing special when worn.

Other items are rare as long as they can be reliably attributed. You could run a 1804 US dollar over with a locomotive and it would still be worth six or seven figures as long as the date could be identified. I'd expect plenty of the "rare" stamps would hold a significant slice of value even used. Now, the fact you gave up possession of the expensive item is another issue.

Returning to main HN stamping grounds: that's what makes some of these "new collectible" schemes sort of weird (i. e. professionally graded/certified video games)-- they're not necessarily trading on inherently rare items, just creating a "condition scarcity" economy that previously didn't really exist. It's not "the only one of its kind", it's "the only one the grading service gave 9.452345/10".

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

#102

Post by RoyGBivCap »

voz_ wrote: post #91
jimbokun wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is your point?

It's an oligarch's school for oligarchs? I can't speak for him, but that's my guess.

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

#103

Post by balderdash »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #53

Side topic. Is it better for society to give 300mil to an ivy league. Or start a new university?

I’m always curious why more new universities/schools aren’t started by the super rich, seems like there were lots of them started 100-200 years ago, and but that trend has tailed off, and there is certainly the demand…

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

#104

Post by layman51 »

voz_ wrote: post #91
jimbokun wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is your point?

Probably he means that by giving money to an “elite” school, it just makes it more likely that it will end up hurting the “non-elites”. I don’t necessarily agree with that point by the way because there are students who will have their cost of attendance potentially offset by this donation.

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

#105

Post by samdcbu »

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?

He previously donated $150m to Harvard College so his children are already all but guaranteed admission. He already has all the benefits Harvard gives mega donors, there isn’t any marginal benefit to this donation other than a department renaming. The only possible thing left for them to give him would be a seat on the Harvard Board of Overseers but that’s unlikely because he is now a politically controversial figure.

He also has a history of mega donations to universities in exchange for department renaming, like his $150m donation to UChicago which renamed their economics department after him (the most prestigious part of the university)

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

#108

Post by Retric »

jimbokun wrote: post #51
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.

Harvard also taught John Franklin Enders Nobel Laureate and “The Father of Modern Vaccines.” Granted they handed him his PhD in 1930, but he played a pivotal role in developing a measles vaccine and Salk was heavily dependent on his work when developing the polio vaccine. That’s rarefied air in terms of net benefit to humanity.

More recent examples aren’t as impressive by comparison, but graduates of Harvard school of medicine has collectively done a great deal of critical medical research. And of course many recent graduates have their best breakthroughs ahead of them.

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

#110

Post by VanTheBrand »

tempestn wrote: post #55
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.

Political contributions are not donations and are not tax deductible.
Post reply on HN