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

Paul Allen commits majority of his wealth to philanthropy

seattletimes.nwsource.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 85 posts

Re: Paul Allen commits majority of his wealth to philanthropy

#11

Post by chime »

pavs wrote: post #8

Which is better? Just giving away money or targeted investment on critical research/development and social needs to inflict a lasting change (without taking any profit)? Would you drop few billion dollars on Africa or would you make investments to create long-term industry that will give people jobs and help them help themselves? I think what Paul/Gates/Buffet and others are doing is great, but I think we have to sta…

Calling the Gates Foundation some feel-good philanthropy is doing a disservice to everyone who has contributed towards global health and development:

> Our work in infectious diseases focuses on developing ways to fight and prevent enteric and diarrheal diseases, HIV/AIDS, malaria, pneumonia, tuberculosis, and neglected and other infectious diseases.

> http://www.gatesfoundation.org/global-health/Pages/overview....

Re: Paul Allen commits majority of his wealth to philanthropy

#12

Post by tednaleid »

kylelibra wrote: post #4

"The man who leaves money to charity in his will is only giving away what no longer belongs to him." -Voltaire

Sure, but PA has also done quite a bit of philanthropy during his lifetime too and has also done some cool things in the sciences (SpaceShipOne, Brain Atlas, etc). What you're implying isn't charitable :).

Re: Paul Allen commits majority of his wealth to philanthropy

#13

Post by hnal943 »

rbanffy wrote: post #6
nhebb wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was Andrew Carnegie's goal. Way before becoming rich he had a goal to give away mass sums of money. He wrote about his philanthropic philosophy in The Gospel of Wealth , summarized here: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1889carnegie.html

Erm... Did Carnegie state his goal was to give away money before he acquired massive amounts of it or was it after being labeled a robber-baron? It's easy to say that being a nice guy was your goal all along after you get caught. Not that Paul Allen is not a nice guy. There seems to be no evidence on the contrary.

after you get caught

Caught doing what? Being successful?

Re: Paul Allen commits majority of his wealth to philanthropy

#14

Post by hnal943 »

pavs wrote: post #8

Which is better? Just giving away money or targeted investment on critical research/development and social needs to inflict a lasting change (without taking any profit)? Would you drop few billion dollars on Africa or would you make investments to create long-term industry that will give people jobs and help them help themselves? I think what Paul/Gates/Buffet and others are doing is great, but I think we have to sta…

Did you read the article? Allen is not planning to "drop a few billion dollars on Africa." He's making specific charitable investments, just like you suggest.

Re: Paul Allen commits majority of his wealth to philanthropy

#15

Post by josefresco »

pavs wrote: post #8

Which is better? Just giving away money or targeted investment on critical research/development and social needs to inflict a lasting change (without taking any profit)? Would you drop few billion dollars on Africa or would you make investments to create long-term industry that will give people jobs and help them help themselves? I think what Paul/Gates/Buffet and others are doing is great, but I think we have to sta…

The efforts by these tech and finance giants are definitely not "feel-good philanthropy". That's prob the most insulting thing I've heard said about their work considering that it's one of the largest philanthropic undertakings ... ever.

Re: Paul Allen commits majority of his wealth to philanthropy

#16

Post by rbanffy »

hnal943 wrote: post #13
rbanffy wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Erm... Did Carnegie state his goal was to give away money before he acquired massive amounts of it or was it after being labeled a robber-baron? It's easy to say that being a nice guy was your goal all along after you get caught. Not that Paul Allen is not a nice guy. There seems to be no evidence on the contrary.

after you get caught Caught doing what? Being successful?

Being "successful" also means, at least for me, having a clear conscience.

I don't want to do business with people who will do whatever it takes to make a profit. Life is not a zero-sum game. Even if it were, there are limits to what a gentleman should and shouldn't do and Carnegie did a lot of the latter in his pre-philanthropist life.

Re: Paul Allen commits majority of his wealth to philanthropy

#17

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

Man, he may even give away enough that he's no longer one of the 250 richest people on the planet.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great gesture but let's put it in perspective. He is and will remain obscenely rich and this will make absolutely no difference to him in terms of how he lives his life.

In terms of disposable income and day to day impact on what he can and can't do, it's probably less significant than someone on this board giving away $10,000.

Re: Paul Allen commits majority of his wealth to philanthropy

#18

Post by byrneseyeview »

rbanffy wrote: post #6
nhebb wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was Andrew Carnegie's goal. Way before becoming rich he had a goal to give away mass sums of money. He wrote about his philanthropic philosophy in The Gospel of Wealth , summarized here: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1889carnegie.html

Erm... Did Carnegie state his goal was to give away money before he acquired massive amounts of it or was it after being labeled a robber-baron? It's easy to say that being a nice guy was your goal all along after you get caught. Not that Paul Allen is not a nice guy. There seems to be no evidence on the contrary.

Carnegie considered retiring at 35, when he was rich enough not to need to work more. But he kept working for the next few decades, and ended up making about 200X as much.

He wrote himself a memorandum, in which he totaled up his net worth and income, and decided it was enough. Apparently it wasn't, but that's a couple thousand libraries, organs, etc. that he otherwise wouldn't have purchased.

Oddly enough, Warren Buffett wrote something similar at about the same age, when he also semi-retired. Like Carnegie, he went back to work, multiplied his fortune a few more times, and had a lot more to give away at the end.

Re: Paul Allen commits majority of his wealth to philanthropy

#19

Post by mistermann »

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #17

Man, he may even give away enough that he's no longer one of the 250 richest people on the planet. Don't get me wrong, it's a great gesture but let's put it in perspective. He is and will remain obscenely rich and this will make absolutely no difference to him in terms of how he lives his life. In terms of disposable income and day to day impact on what he can and can't do, it's probably less significant than someone…

> probably less significant

Significance depends on point of view. There are at least 3 points of view here: the donor, the recipient, and the outside observer.

I think the recipients in this case might have a decidedly different opinion on the relative merit between donations measured in tens of thousands and those measured in millions. For many it can literally be the difference between life and death.

So, it may "hurt" more for you to give $10,000, but the absolute good that can be accomplished with hundreds millions is far more important, imho.

Re: Paul Allen commits majority of his wealth to philanthropy

#20

Post by lionhearted »

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #17

Man, he may even give away enough that he's no longer one of the 250 richest people on the planet. Don't get me wrong, it's a great gesture but let's put it in perspective. He is and will remain obscenely rich and this will make absolutely no difference to him in terms of how he lives his life. In terms of disposable income and day to day impact on what he can and can't do, it's probably less significant than someone…

> He is and will remain obscenely rich and this will make absolutely no difference to him in terms of how he lives his life.

It will make a difference in lives of millions of others - absolute good is better than relative good.

> ... day to day impact on what he can and can't do, it's probably less significant than someone on this board giving away $10,000.

It's much better for the world for billions to go into productive endeavors than $10,000. You shouldn't award extra points for suffering. In fact, I award extra points for a person being able to do massive good without hurting themselves.

Post reply on HN