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

Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

finance.fortune.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 194 posts

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#81

Post by paul »

daenz wrote: post #74
paul wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism is a system for transferring money from those who are bad at allocating capital to those who are good at allocating capital. That's the magic of it. It also implies that people like Andreessen most likely have an above average understanding of how to allocate capital :)

Doesn't make it any less a logical fallacy. Andreessen partners could wipe their asses with $100 bills. If someone with less money tells them that's a poor use of money, would you tell him clearly Andreessen knows better because they have more money?

If only this were a logic problem consisting of three boolean variables... But reality is complex, and so I do give some weight to authority. For example, if I had a question about evolution, I would automatically trust an answer from Dawkins more than one from Santorum, even if you think that's some kind of fallacy.

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#82

Post by _delirium »

javert wrote: post #73
paul wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My job is helping people start business, and I do it in large part because I think it's good for the world, so you don't need to preach to me on the benefits of business. The mistake being made by many here is concluding that since business can be good for the world, therefore everything that isn't a for-profit business must be a waste. Not all good things are profitable.

you don't need to preach to me on the benefits of business OK... fine. But if you aren't going to fully understand Ayn Rand's work, then you don't need to preach to us about how misguided you think it is. The whole point of discussions like this is to have an intellectual discussion. To dismiss people who disagree with you by accusing them of "preaching" (when they aren't) has no place on HN. (As I'm sure you well kn…

I like to think I'm fairly familiar with Ayn Rand's work, though I'm by no means an expert. I'm a computer scientist, but my philosophy minor was supervised by one of the few tenured professors who specializes in Rand scholarship in academia (and he is a fan of hers).

I don't really see this as far off, though. Rand really did believe that it was unethical to be altruistic. Not because it led to negative outcomes, or was inefficient, but because it was, in her view, inherently unethical to be altruistic. The altruistic sentiment was a character flaw at best. She did approve of philanthropy in some circumstances, such as foundations that were set up to advance their founders' views. But it had to be for reasons other than altruism, and it would ideally take into account whether the recipients were "worthy" of the help, not be Christian-style unconditional charity.

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#83

Post by daenz »

shantanubala wrote: post #72
daenz wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's unbelievable how much genius is wasted in poverty. Examples of genius that didn't thrive because of poverty? The example you gave is about kids learning to sell vegetables. Are their studies about geniuses that didn't achieve their best work because they were poor?

That's not a very good question -- how can we know someone is a "genius" unless they have the resources to thrive? We can debate on the meaning of genius, but regardless of how you view it, a person simply cannot reach their full potential if they have to constantly worry about feeding themselves or a family. Before we can even identify someone as a genius, they have to have been successful in some way. For them to b…

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just asking for examples that back his claim "It's unbelievable how much genius is wasted in poverty."

The statement he made is unnecessary to his overall point, which is that charity can help people. His claim about the "unbelievable" number of geniuses being squandered has no real basis in fact.

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#84

Post by toomuchtodo »

paul wrote: post #59
waterlesscloud wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think some of this is a result of the startup rhetoric about all the companies trying "change the world". If that were actually true, that all the effort and money going into startups was actually focused on changing the world, then wouldn't it naturally be better to reinvest the money into that system? Of course the reality, as we all know, is that it's only sometimes about changing the world, and sometimes it's a…

Some changes are best made via a for-profit venture, and some aren't. I'm interested in both kinds of change, and that means that I'm involved in both worlds.

Zuck paid, what, a cool billion for Instagram? Elon spent $800 million, and has an orbital vehicle that can dock with the ISS. And SpaceX is actually profitable.

So, yeah, you can be for-profit and change the world. Or be for-profit and help people share photos. Changing the world is a pretty big grey area.

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#85

Post by daenz »

paul wrote: post #81
daenz wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't make it any less a logical fallacy. Andreessen partners could wipe their asses with $100 bills. If someone with less money tells them that's a poor use of money, would you tell him clearly Andreessen knows better because they have more money?

If only this were a logic problem consisting of three boolean variables... But reality is complex, and so I do give some weight to authority. For example, if I had a question about evolution, I would automatically trust an answer from Dawkins more than one from Santorum, even if you think that's some kind of fallacy.

You are free to believe whatever you want, based on whatever criteria you want. But to argue that something is right or wrong because someone else has more money, has no weight.

Re-read yesbabyyes comment. It makes no argument other than "who are you", "they are famous and accomplished" and "they are rich." It's a poor argument.

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#87

Post by rdl »

tobtoh wrote: post #61
vibrunazo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I generally agree with the whole "wait till you get rich then donate to charity" sentiment. But it's hard to tell when you're rich enough. It would be a risky bet either way. You can't be sure how much more you'll be able to make your earnings grow in the future, just as you can't be sure if your charities will pay out. And the longer you wait, the longer those charities you could have been investing on, are not seei…

There has been research done (by Alumni organisations) that show that the people who 'wait till they get rich' never donate. The 'wait till I get rich', despite the best of intentions, is just an excuse. The other related excuse is that 'I'll wait until I can make a sizeable and therefore meaningful donation'. The research (and I don't have a link sorry) showed that if an Alumni made a donation, even $1, within 3 yea…

That seems like you might be measuring something other than total donation -- just donation to one specific charity.

Sure, if I pass on donating to MIT today (IMO they have enough money already), I might not get around to it ever. But, given that I am unlikely to have kids, if I die, my money will all be going to some charity or set of charities eventually.

(I do donate now, mainly to groups like MAPS and EFF, but my income and liquid net worth are pretty insignificant compared to my goal.)

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#88

Post by rdl »

hprhpr wrote: post #37
rjshade wrote: post #18

This is great. Something people often disregard, but which is hugely important, is charity effectiveness. This boils down to measuring the impact that you can make with a given donation: it turns out some charities are literally thousands of times more effective than others. A lot of people don't realise how much good they can do with modest donations to the right charities -- until a year ago I really had no idea my…

Agreed about the importance of making sure you donate to the right charities, which is why I was disappointed to read this: "And, to begin, they have sprinkled $1 million on Silicon Valley nonprofits that focus on everything from urban forestry to homeless families." Another good essay about this stuff is here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/3gj/efficient_charity_do_unto_others...

Given that "how people donate money" (or spend money, or invest money seems to conflict with what they claim are their stated preferences, I wonder which is more representative. I'd bet on the revealed preferences by actions.

Basically no one would say (or is allowed to say in polite company) that they care more about having art available locally than the lives of a thousand people in some third-world country that they'll never meet. Yet, it seems pretty obvious that donations to local art save fewer lives than the anti-malarial mosquito nets, and should be obvious to the people donating.

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#89

Post by sophacles »

jimmyvanhalen wrote: post #50
paul wrote: post #41

It's sad to see so much misplaced cynicism here. If the partners had decided to keep 100% of their carry (as is typical) and used it to buy a bigger house or jet or something, nobody would comment or care. Instead, they've pledged to give half to some of their favorite charities, and some of you are acting as if it's a crime against humanity. Put away your Ayn Rand books (or whatever it is that drives you to such opi…

it's not foolish. it's just not the most efficient way to spend capital. look at it from the point of view of the LPs. A VCs job is to deploy capital and maximize return to it's investors. they should reduce their management fee and carried interest income, and give them back to the LP, or re-invest them and fund more start-ups/create more jobs. My opinion on this would've been different if they said "I am personally…

So here's what I don't get: If people give them money to invest, and they generat returns for the investors in a way that the investors are happy with, what does it matter what fees they charge? It is a mutually beneficial transaction. The investors make money, the fees make the company money. Now the company money that goes directly to the owners, rather than say direct expenses, is the owner's personal money. It is their profit from the transaction. This is what they are giving 50% of away.

The only way I can read your argument, is that the investment company should stop being generally profitable for the owners, and return more money to the investors. How does this make business sense? It would be like saying "Apple makes profit from selling iPhones, and just gives it away to shareholders. They should really bow to the customers and lower the costs and socialist bullshit to the shareholders". Unless of course Apple share holders are magical unicorns who deserve it, and the partners in a VC firm don't.

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#90

Post by yesbabyyes »

daenz wrote: post #60
yesbabyyes wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now usually I don't do this, but: Who are you, jimmyvanhalen, to tell Paul Buchheit about "the most efficient way to spend capital", and how Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz should do their jobs? Since you apparently know so much about it, surely you top Paul's worth easily?

appeal to accomplishment, appeal to poverty, appeal to wealth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Thanks, daenz. That's what "usually I don't do this" was referring to -- which is a lazy cop out, I agree. Usually I don't do that, either. My bad.

It may not make it better, but I think I did it because jimmyvanhalen's argument was, to me, so... Preposterous. As I understand him, he is basically arguing that if you feel that you have money to give to charity, you should give that to whomever gave you that money. I wonder what he feels about my, admittedly ridiculously small, donations to charity. Am I, too, wrong to give? Should I lower my fees and "give" that money to my clients instead?

Post reply on HN