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

Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#221

Post by Hnaomyiph »

kelnos wrote: post #208

I think out of all possibilities for the attitudes and practices of billionaire philanthropists, Feeney is probably as close to the ideal as possible[0]. But it still makes me sad to see this sort of thing celebrated. A small number of ultra-rich people should not be deciding for society what causes get funded, no matter how pure their intentions are. The fact that individuals are able to amass this much money in the…

>A small number of ultra-rich people should not be deciding for society what causes get funded. Alternatively, we can elect a small number of ultra-rich people into government who would have surly spent his money better on say, funding an ever-growing military.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#222

Post by zozbot234 »

grugagag wrote: post #195
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 wonder if philanthropy is used sometimes to garner narcissistic supply as I suspect a lot of billionaires are narcissists or psychopaths (not necessarily malicious but these qualities help in wealth building). If so, I think we should respond positively to these and provide the narcissistic supply (and hold off from criticism even if it's hard to) so this becomes a trend among the billionares.

I doubt it. Real narcissists and psychopaths are incredibly self-centered; they have a lot of trouble even accounting for others' goals in, e.g. a business negotiation, which is why they usually resort to authoritarian or manipulative attitudes. A typical narcissist wouldn't even know how to start looking at good opportunities for philanthropy or charity. Now, I agree that philanthropy might come with selfish side-benefits for the person who donates, but true narcissism is most likely not involved.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#223

Post by halfmatthalfcat »

gumby wrote: post #209
anonAndOn wrote: post #146

Mark Benioff donated $100M to the UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital and got his name on the INSTITUTION (not just a building). What many don't know is that donation was to complete a match of $125M offered by Chuck Feeney (who does not have his name on a building anywhere on the campus, AFAIK).[0]. That $125M was only part of the $394M Chuck ended up giving to UCSF.[1] [0] https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/uc…

I feel sorry for people who want their names on things. They are broadcasting their insecurities.

This is a very presumptuous take.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#224

Post by anonAndOn »

smattiso wrote: post #203
anonAndOn wrote: post #146

Mark Benioff donated $100M to the UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital and got his name on the INSTITUTION (not just a building). What many don't know is that donation was to complete a match of $125M offered by Chuck Feeney (who does not have his name on a building anywhere on the campus, AFAIK).[0]. That $125M was only part of the $394M Chuck ended up giving to UCSF.[1] [0] https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/uc…

Namely something after yourself is tacky. But what should buildings be named after? Famous scientists? Planets? Feeney seems like an awesome guy but sadly in 100 years nobody will know his name!

John Harvard and Elihu Yale seemed to have avoided this fate. And Leland Stanford had the same name as his father, so maybe founding a university is the way to go here?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#225

Post by TeMPOraL »

hhs wrote: post #88
tmpz22 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some people frame this as ‘earning to give’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earning_to_give

"Earning to give" doesn't mean you have to earn in dishonest fashion.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#226

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #83
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #24

> While many wealthy philanthropists enlist an army of publicists to trumpet their donations, Feeney went to great lengths to keep his gifts secret. Crazy respect for this. Many times billionaire charitable foundations are just tax preferred ways of building your image or amassing influence. Bill Gates has done a lot of good, but his charitable work also served to redeem his image from that of the ruthless businessma…

One of my arguments against the accumulation of vast wealth is that Bill Gates can get an in-person visit with my local representative faster than I, a constituent, can get a return phone call. I think we need 5x the number of representatives at the House level. Separate their duties, strip power from some of them, and keep them in district most of the year so they can actually be held accountable. Would also help to…

> I think we need 5x the number of representatives at the House level. Separate their duties, strip power from some of them, and keep them in district most of the year so they can actually be held accountable.

That is a a great idea. One idea along those lines, is maybe make the House entirely online with the representatives being in the district 100% of the time. It would do a couple of things. It would make lobbying harder since instead of getting a bunch of people together in Washington at a fancy dinner, the lobbyists would have to travel and meet 1:1. In addition, it might decrease partisan ship by decreasing the power of the party whips. When people are all in a single location, tremendous social pressure can be brought to bear to convince a representative to vote along the party lines, even if it would be going against the wishes of their constituents. With the representatives dispersed and remote, the social pressure would be diminished, and maybe representatives would vote more in line with their constituents’ wishes.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#227

Post by anonAndOn »

Xavdidtheshadow wrote: post #214
smattiso wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Namely something after yourself is tacky. But what should buildings be named after? Famous scientists? Planets? Feeney seems like an awesome guy but sadly in 100 years nobody will know his name!

Why not "SF General Hospital"?

Because that's the Zuckerberg SF General Hospital and not just for kids. [0]

[0]https://zuckerbergsanfranciscogeneral.org/

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#228

Post by zozbot234 »

mikestew wrote: post #189
zozbot234 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you're working in paid employment it will usually be a lot more effective to put in some more time at work, and give away some of the resulting income. "Donating your time" can of course be genuinely worthwhile if you're, e.g. a scientist who might want to do useful research on globally-relevant, critical issues; just not very much otherwise.

it will usually be a lot more effective to put in some more time at work, and give away some of the resulting income. I'm paid salary. I'm of the opinion that it is usually the self-absorbed that think that after they leave the office they are still worth what their employer pays them. Making it a requirement that your time donation be within your professional skillset is saying, "such work is beneath me". I'm not ab…

> I'm not above ladling a bit of soup into a bowl or picking up the dog shit while at the animal shelter.

I'm not opposed to that if you're doing it for your own benefit. But you should be thinking of this as leisure time for yourself, rather than assuming that you're "donating time" for the sake of real social impact. There's picking up dog $#!+, and then there's actually impactful stuff.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#229

Post by nix23 »

gumby wrote: post #209
anonAndOn wrote: post #146

Mark Benioff donated $100M to the UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital and got his name on the INSTITUTION (not just a building). What many don't know is that donation was to complete a match of $125M offered by Chuck Feeney (who does not have his name on a building anywhere on the campus, AFAIK).[0]. That $125M was only part of the $394M Chuck ended up giving to UCSF.[1] [0] https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/uc…

I feel sorry for people who want their names on things. They are broadcasting their insecurities.

>They are broadcasting their insecurities.

Not when it's on a submarine ;)

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#230

Post by zelly »

egypturnash wrote: post #29

"When I first met him in 2012, he estimated he had set aside about $2 million for his and his wife's retirement" Two million is, like, the opposite of broke for the vast majority of Americans. But this is Forbes.

He gave away all his money and that's still not enough for you?
Post reply on HN