I'm going to say that the US spending $5 trillion on wars in the past 20 years was a lot worse way to spend money than giving it to Harvard.
The least impactful way to spend $300M?
21–30 of 291 posts
Re: The least impactful way to spend $300M?
#22An appropriations for the corporation for public broadcasting
Re: The least impactful way to spend $300M?
#23I don't think one donates money to Harvard just for the sake of a plaque. I guess there is some sort of indirect benefit to be had after such a donation, like an entry pass for a child, an entry pass for a PhD, or something of that vein?
He has 3 children. Aged 15, 13 and 11. If I was one of the kids, I would have taken $100m directly.
His net worth is tens of billion. they will be getting plenty , no worries.
Once you have so much money an Ivy League education is not important. you can buy your way into anything.
Re: The least impactful way to spend $300M?
#24I definitely don't think the big schools like Harvard/Yale/etc. need any more money, but I will play devil's advocate here.
> "he donated $300 million in such as a way as to do as close as possible to zero good with it."
Oh there are a lot worse ways to spend it with the best of intentions. The Turkana frozen-fish plant is a classic example, a charitable project where back in around 1975 around $150 million (in today's money) was spent on a frozen fish factory next to a lake... a lake that regularly disappears... and in a location without reliable electricity [1] [2]. It was utterly useless.
There's a shocking amount of charitable money that just winds up having utterly no impact whatsoever.
On the other hand, giving $300 million to Harvard is probably going to have a good chance of some long-term impact. It is ultimately funding education for smart people who are well-positioned to use that education productively, and for research and arts that are meant to benefit humanity. It's not just throwing it away. I absolutely agree there are many institutions with a much greater need for the money, but "zero good" is extreme exaggeration. People have done much, much, MUCH worse with donating money.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/04/05/h...
[2] https://www.ibtimes.com/kenyas-turkana-learns-failed-fish-pr...
Re: The least impactful way to spend $300M?
#25[dead]
Re: The least impactful way to spend $300M?
#26the war in afghanistan cost taxpayers $300,000,000 per day every day for 20 years, for a total of ~$2,000,000,000,000
Re: The least impactful way to spend $300M?
#27This article very briefly encapsulates everything wrong with Effective Altruism: a boneheaded assumption that this money is being donated for its societal impact, an unwillingness to try to actually understand what's going on, instead choosing to engage with the Harvard endowment on its own terms by taking the university "mission statement" seriously, and a screenshot of an Excel spreadsheet purporting to identify be…
I doubt anyone in EA is actually misled by what’s going on here. They’re trying to out it as not a charitable donation at all so no one who hasn’t thought about it is misled. This is a good thing to do.
Re: The least impactful way to spend $300M?
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
He has 3 children. Aged 15, 13 and 11. If I was one of the kids, I would have taken $100m directly.
He is worth like $40B - that $100m would be nothing compared to what they'll likely inherit
I can’t imagine $300mm is the standard price for whatever favorable treatment he’s buying for his kids. I imagine there is a steep billionaire premium. Similar to how a Western tourist is overcharged non-local rates.
Re: The least impactful way to spend $300M?
#29Invest it in a beverage company whose customer base is conservative, frat boys, and the working class then aggressively rebrand it with everything they oppose front and center. Proceed to lose six billion dollars of capitalization in six days.
Let me know how the 30 dollar sixers of right wing ale treat ya, my working class friend.
Re: The least impactful way to spend $300M?
#30This article very briefly encapsulates everything wrong with Effective Altruism: a boneheaded assumption that this money is being donated for its societal impact, an unwillingness to try to actually understand what's going on, instead choosing to engage with the Harvard endowment on its own terms by taking the university "mission statement" seriously, and a screenshot of an Excel spreadsheet purporting to identify be…
Exactly. Anyone who knows Griffin knows he is essentially one of the core villains of the finance world already (which in of itself is a rather impressive feat, you really have to be villainous to be considered one of the worst people in finance). Trying to assume this isn’t just some villainous vanity play in the first place was the article’s mistake.