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

121–130 of 194 posts

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#121

Post by zmitri »

paul wrote: post #57
larrys wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"sad to see so much misplaced cynicism here" Seems that over the last several years or so there has been an uptick in wealthy people using peer pressure to get other wealthy people to give away their money according to some rule of thumb that one groups thinks is right or fair. Wealthy people always gave away money and pressured others at charity events of course. But I don't remember it ever being so public. I have…

Would you rather that they compete over who has the largest yacht or the most jets? Think of it as a positive form of conspicuous consumption. Just as a business can be good for both the owner and the customer, charity can be beneficial for both the givers and the recipients.

I definitely agree. Do you think there's some value in making it easier for companies to promote a "positive form of conspicuous consumption"? Or do you think the action is more of a means in itself?

For example, if AZ said "Hey users of instagram (or users of AZ product that just sold), we're going to let you decide which cause some of this money goes to," would that create a delta in value from the original proposition?

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#122

Post by javert »

_delirium wrote: post #111
xenophanes wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You neglect to mention why Rand opposed altruism and considered it inherently immoral: because it means putting other people above oneself and therefore self-sacrificing for others.

That's true, but there isn't really much argument for that position in her work (certainly not argument I found convincing). It's almost assuming the consequent: you prove that putting your own good above collective good is moral because the alternative would be putting collective good above your own good. Well, yes, that's definitionally true. But what's wrong with putting collective good above any one individual's…

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about WRT Ayn Rand.

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#123

Post by javert »

_delirium wrote: post #82
javert wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Who was your supervisor?

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#124

Post by meric »

gwern wrote: post #113
lukifer wrote: post #70

This is why wealthy individuals are better for society than shareholder-owned corporations. If the latter made a move like this, the entire board would be fired immediately.

If 90+% of the shareholders voted to distribute that quarter's profits to charity - the equivalent scenario to the general partners so voting, no? - who would be firing the board?

A substantial portion of those a funds that are responsible for investing their member's money. Are you asking me to invest half my profits in my superannuation fund to charity? To me, my fund will give me more benefit by maximising the profit from investments, hand me back my share of profit, and let me choose MY choice of charity!

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#126

Post by [deleted] »

daenz wrote: post #42
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…

> Put away your Ayn Rand books ... and go make some money of your own. Does Ayn Rand have similar opinions? I'm trying to figure out what you mean by that.

[deleted]

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#127

Post by larrys »

paul wrote: post #57
larrys wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"sad to see so much misplaced cynicism here" Seems that over the last several years or so there has been an uptick in wealthy people using peer pressure to get other wealthy people to give away their money according to some rule of thumb that one groups thinks is right or fair. Wealthy people always gave away money and pressured others at charity events of course. But I don't remember it ever being so public. I have…

Would you rather that they compete over who has the largest yacht or the most jets? Think of it as a positive form of conspicuous consumption. Just as a business can be good for both the owner and the customer, charity can be beneficial for both the givers and the recipients.

"positive form of conspicuous consumption"

I don't see spending money on yachts or jets as negative and somehow the fact that "charity" is mentioned that's automatically positive. People earn a living staffing yachts and jets, they are built by companies employing people. That money circulates further in the economy and provides benefits and is paying for someone's health care and college education.

So to answer your question "Would you rather that they compete..." I would rather they do whatever they want to do with the money they have earned without some kind of movement played out in the press which makes it looks like donating 1/2 to charity is the noble choice to make.

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#128

Post by larrys »

alwaysdoit wrote: post #75
larrys wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"sad to see so much misplaced cynicism here" Seems that over the last several years or so there has been an uptick in wealthy people using peer pressure to get other wealthy people to give away their money according to some rule of thumb that one groups thinks is right or fair. Wealthy people always gave away money and pressured others at charity events of course. But I don't remember it ever being so public. I have…

Did you miss the last two centuries where philanthropists built universities named after themselves (or their family members)? "Surplus wealth is a sacred trust which its possessor is bound to administer in his lifetime for the good of the community." - Andrew Carnegie

I have no idea how your comment relates to what I've said.

I said "Seems that over the last several years or so there has been an uptick in wealthy people using peer pressure to get other wealthy people to give away their money"

Did you miss this?

http://givingpledge.org/#enter

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#129

Post by xenophanes »

_delirium wrote: post #111
xenophanes wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You neglect to mention why Rand opposed altruism and considered it inherently immoral: because it means putting other people above oneself and therefore self-sacrificing for others.

That's true, but there isn't really much argument for that position in her work (certainly not argument I found convincing). It's almost assuming the consequent: you prove that putting your own good above collective good is moral because the alternative would be putting collective good above your own good. Well, yes, that's definitionally true. But what's wrong with putting collective good above any one individual's…

She does provide various arguments. There's no shortage there. Whether you find them convincing is up to you but please don't mix that up with her not publishing stuff to argue her point. For example, not living in a second-handed way is a main theme of The Fountainhead, and that's closely related to the altruism issue.

> Her answer wasn't the consequentialist one that Adam Smith and other market-economy defenders proposed: that self-interest produces the best overall outcome.

Correct.

One thing that might be helpful is to understand Rand's view on compromise. She said you can compromise on concretes when you agree on a principle, but you must never compromise your fundamental principles.

For example, if you agree on the principle of trade, you can compromise (haggle) on the exact price or contract terms, and you're still both following a good principle and can both benefit.

But you must never compromise between collectivism and individualism, capitalism and socialism, life and death, freedom and slavery, rationality and irrationality. Those sorts of compromises between opposite principles amount to sacrificing some good that one shouldn't give up, and allowing in some unacceptable evil. Nor should you compromise your values in order to get something that you don't value or value less. That isn't a reasonable compromise, it is surrendering your values and principles for the benefit of others.

Given this sort of view of compromise, it's no good to ever compromise your own life, no good to ever sacrifice yourself. Anything that asks you to do that is evil. If there is a rational trade to make, then make the exchange and benefit, but don't sacrifice yourself for unspecified or vague future benefits which no one is accountable for providing to you.

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#130

Post by jimmyvanhalen »

paul wrote: post #63
jimmyvanhalen wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The half they are giving away is money they would have otherwise taken as personal income, so it is in fact their own personal money. The other thing you should understand is that top VC firms such as AH (or YC) are not capital constrained. Dumping in twice as much money won't produce twice as much innovation or profits.

Having capital to invest in more start-ups reduces risks and increases the chances of the VC earning bigger returns. In order to invest in more start-ups, the firm needs top-notch people (partners, associates, etc.).

1. The best people are not going to join a firm that's giving away 50% of their management fees and carried interest income.

2. Not enough people & capital means

-Less investments, therefore more risks and less return.

-Less due diligence and monitoring of portfolio companies (again more risks)

-investors hate risk and low returns

Post reply on HN