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

161–170 of 194 posts

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#161

Post by yesbabyyes »

daenz wrote: post #120
yesbabyyes wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take it you think one should donate to charity anonymously, but humblebrags are ok? ;) I just wanted to add that I actually think wealth and investment accomplishments are somewhat relevant in this discussion, regarding your comment on fallacies. Especially given jimmyvanhalen's very strong opinions on what "a VCs job" is, what a16z "should" do, and his confused ending statement on that what they did would be fine…

I wasn't bragging. I was trying to relate...I made an ad hominem attack and was called out on it. I don't really have an opinion on the actual thing being discussed though, other than my comments back and forth with "paul"

I don't really have an opinion on the actual thing being discussed though, other than my comments back and forth with "paul"

I.e., trolling. Yeah, I know.

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#162

Post by waterlesscloud »

pmarca wrote: post #146
hprhpr wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

For what it's worth, those six nonprofits weren't just chosen randomly. Each GP picked one he and his family had direct experience with. For my part, I don't know as much about this as some people, but my wife teaches philanthropy at Stanford and has studied, written about, and taught the topic of effective giving for her whole career, so that works out nicely for me. (Can't resist plugging her recent book "Giving 2.…

Thank you for taking the questions here seriously and taking the time to address them thoughtfully.

This sort of topic brings out high emotions on both sides, and it's good to bring the rhetoric level down a bit. Certainly it's the way to win people over to your way of thinking and have even more of an impact.

I'm curious, has your wife written about the sorts of topics raised here? Would she do so on the web, if she hasn't already? There's a notable portion of the entrepreneurial community that has these sorts of legitimate questions and it would seem like she'd be in a unique position to discuss them and sway hearts and minds.

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#163

Post by JoachimSchipper »

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?

That's not equivalent; the equivalent is the board deciding to give 50% of their own fees to charity. (Note that it's only the general partners, i.e. fund managers, doing this; they do return 100% of profits to their limited partners, i.e. clients.)

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#164

Post by [deleted] »

mikeryan wrote: post #43
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 sad to see so much misplaced cynicism here. How much cynicism are you seeing in this thread?

[deleted]

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#165

Post by jacoblyles »

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 would rather have them compete over who can pull off the most awesome technological breakthroughs (asteroid mining, cheap space flight, life extension, genetic therapy, artificial biology, vanquishing diseases).

But honestly, how many of them were going to do that with the money, anyway? I agree that charity is better than conspicuous consumption.

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#166

Post by netrus »

lukifer wrote: post #156
gwern wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Has this ever happened, ever? On the scale of 50% of a very large sum? Altruism is a kind of positive irrationality; the more stake-holders are involved, the more exponentially unlikely such irrationality becomes.

I don't see how altruism is more irrational than luxory consumption. Doing charity will make you happy and fulfilled - quite a smart move to do so ;)

(yes, I know that charity != altruism. But this is a very theoretical discussion)

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#167

Post by nikcub »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #84
paul wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Being in space isn't the be-all, it is rather just a very expensive government-backed hobby.

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#168

Post by nikcub »

zmitri wrote: post #151
pmarca wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, those six nonprofits weren't just chosen randomly. Each GP picked one he and his family had direct experience with. For my part, I don't know as much about this as some people, but my wife teaches philanthropy at Stanford and has studied, written about, and taught the topic of effective giving for her whole career, so that works out nicely for me. (Can't resist plugging her recent book "Giving 2.…

Hey Marc, speaking of giving 2.0, do you think there's some value in making it easier for companies to promote positive initiatives like this? Or do you think the action is more of a means in itself? For example, if a16z said "Hey users of instagram (or users of a16z 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 pro…

a16z would be giving a lot of money towards capturing Kony if you did that.

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#169

Post by lukifer »

netrus wrote: post #166
lukifer wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has this ever happened, ever? On the scale of 50% of a very large sum? Altruism is a kind of positive irrationality; the more stake-holders are involved, the more exponentially unlikely such irrationality becomes.

I don't see how altruism is more irrational than luxory consumption. Doing charity will make you happy and fulfilled - quite a smart move to do so ;) (yes, I know that charity != altruism. But this is a very theoretical discussion)

I mean "rational" in terms of being able to justify it to others, and have it be rational to them too. I can convince the board why a moderate donation to Charity X is good PR, or why funding Product Y is a sound investment. It's much harder to justify why the company should give away half its profit with no direct return.

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#170

Post by gjm11 »

daenz wrote: post #40
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, there are also tons of verses exhorting you to lead by example: http://www.openbible.info/topics/lead_by_example

If your goal is to increase the amount of donations to a charity, then by all means, do it publicly...inspire and/or pressure others to do the same. If your goal is a personal exercise in selflessness and giving, then do it anonymously.

And which is the more selfless-and-giving of the two goals? The one that's about maximizing the benefit to a charitable organization, or the one that's about maximizing one's personal selflessness?
Post reply on HN