Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke • Hacker News Board

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#111

Post by renewiltord » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 6:12 PM UTC

scott31 wrote: post #103

yboris wrote: post #76

I humbly encourage everyone to make giving a larger part of your life. Consider giving at least 10% of your income to cost-effective charities -- because cost-effective charities can do thousands of times more good than merely regular charities. So your $1,000 donation can do as much good as $1 million, if given well. Join others: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/

> So your $1,000 donation can do as much good as $1 million, if given well. Umm, no

Well, it depends on your utility function, but judging by Zuckerberg's experience with the Foundation for Newark's Future vs. mosquito netting in Africa, I think that ratio is not out of the realm of possibility.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#112

Post by throwaway0a5e » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 6:12 PM UTC

chadrs wrote: post #34

dpflan wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest that it does not align with consumerism/capitalist ideologies which are used in the feedback loop to promote themselves/further substantiate their existence and influence in culture. Philanthropy is great, but to some extent I think the argument that properly taxing such capitalistic gains could have greater effect on society when properly used by the system that can support massive scale projects (i.e. the…

It just depends on whether you trust a government or a rich philanthropist to "properly use" capital (get the most impact/$). If you let billionaires make the choices then sure you get some like Feeney/Gates/Buffett but you get Koch brothers. Government could theoretically do a more equitable job but only if social programs are run competently. Think about the leadership of EPA and HUD.

>If you let billionaires make the choices then sure you get some like Feeney/Gates/Buffett but you get Koch brothers.

You just disagree with the things the Kochs choose to fund. You could have easily said Murdoch instead (or Bloomberg if you wanted to pick someone who's hate crosses party lines).

Were the government funding the causes these billionaires fund the causes would still be controversial. We just wouldn't have a single person to have the lion's share of the blame.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#113

Post by briandear » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 6:13 PM UTC

kaiken1987 wrote: post #77

What he did was great. But for Forbes to say a man with 2% of 8 billion dollars is broke is a stretch.

Relatively speaking.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#114

Post by jcims » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 6:13 PM UTC

scott31 wrote: post #103

yboris wrote: post #76

I humbly encourage everyone to make giving a larger part of your life. Consider giving at least 10% of your income to cost-effective charities -- because cost-effective charities can do thousands of times more good than merely regular charities. So your $1,000 donation can do as much good as $1 million, if given well. Join others: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/

> So your $1,000 donation can do as much good as $1 million, if given well. Umm, no

Um yes. There are way more folks in a position to give $1k than $1m.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#115

Post by hamburglar » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 6:14 PM UTC

olivermarks wrote: post #104

hamburglar wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please make a point rather than just pasting insinuations and links to articles. Neither of the two articles you've provided give any reason Feeney would have a negative opinion of Gates.

I don't assume Feeney has a negative opinion of Gates, everything he has said publicly has been supportive of Gates. Given Gates central role in driving for global pandemic vaccines, I wonder what Feeney thinks of that huge global and very public project. The Ft Gates oped link above is from today, I just read it before opening HN and seeing the Forbes Feeney post.

Are you suggesting that Feeney thinks less of it because it's public giving? I just get the impression that that's Feeney's style, not that he thinks other philanthropists need to act that way.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#116

Post by dfxm12 » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 6:15 PM UTC

BrainInAJar wrote: post #59

dougmccune wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While many wealthy philanthropists enlist an army of publicists to trumpet their donations, Feeney went to great lengths to keep his gifts secret. Seems like that was by design.

> Seems like that was by design. It is. Philanthropy exists to launder the reputations of the rich, on the one hand, and are paternalistic on the other. The only things that get funding are things that can attract the attention of our "betters." If we had taxed them on the front end to the point they couldn't become billionaires in the first place then people in general (through democracy) can decide what causes are…

Yeah, to put this in some context, giving to "education" sounds good, but then when you see over $1B or 12.5% of his fortune went to elite private universities (one of which, Stanford, already has the 3rd or 4th largest endowment in NA), that really stretches the definition of "philanthropy".

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#117

Post by renewiltord » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 6:16 PM UTC

dangus wrote: post #15

Some questions lingered in the back of my mind after I read this article: - How much to employees at Duty Free Shoppers (DFS) make? Is their healthcare fully covered? Do they have generous paid time off and access to higher education for themselves and their children? Was any of his fortune used to give back to the employees whose labor built his wealth in the first place? - Does this dude realize how difficult it is…

Well, not saying this is what he did, but if you took away from American minimum wage workers and gave to rural South Asians or sub-Saharan Africans, you are improving world equity.

The West is hyper-wealthy.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#118

Post by prichino » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 6:16 PM UTC

tmpz22 wrote: post #74

BrainInAJar wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems like that was by design. It is. Philanthropy exists to launder the reputations of the rich, on the one hand, and are paternalistic on the other. The only things that get funding are things that can attract the attention of our "betters." If we had taxed them on the front end to the point they couldn't become billionaires in the first place then people in general (through democracy) can decide what causes are…

I’ve noticed this community is very bullish on the ends justifying the means, ie a founder that bends the rules and causes some damage and hurts some people but has a huge exit and gives some to charity is still a hero and role model.

Yeah, I've noticed this. See this kind of thinking a lot on the left, and partly explains its tendency towards totalitarianism. See for example the recent riots as opposed to more moderation

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#119

Post by bena » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 6:16 PM UTC

olivermarks wrote: post #67

bena wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about this article? Context, provide it.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/12/11/18129580/gates...

You are just doing the same thing. Posting an article with no context. That and making snide remarks.

If you want to say something, say it. Use articles to bolster your point, sure, but posting them without commentary isn't discussion.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#120

Post by rabidrat » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 6:17 PM UTC

kaiken1987 wrote: post #77

What he did was great. But for Forbes to say a man with 2% of 8 billion dollars is broke is a stretch.

The article says he put away $2m for his and his wife's retirement. While I agree it's not quite 'broke' in the classic American sense, it is .025% of his former net worth of $8b.