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

The least impactful way to spend $300M?

passingtime.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 291 posts

Re: The least impactful way to spend $300M?

#91

Post by voz_ »

jimbokun wrote: post #51
crazygringo wrote: post #24

I 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…

Harvard produced many of the people that built a society with staggering and increasing levels of income inequality. Consultants, hedge fund managers, architects of super addictive social media platforms, politicians who write laws favoring corporations over workers, etc. etc.

What is your point?

Re: The least impactful way to spend $300M?

#92

Post by throwaway2037 »

prng2021 wrote: post #31
Galanwe wrote: post #8

I 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?

I think that’s thinking too much into it. He could have spent 1/10th of that and got those things in return. These billionaires want fame and to be the focus of discussions like this one. They know people will be in awe over such a huge sum of money. That’s what $300M buys you and is so much more interesting than buying a product: attention and fame.

Football clubs in Europe are similar. Billionaires are buying adoration.

Re: The least impactful way to spend $300M?

#93

Post by 27153 »

noncoml wrote: post #62

Is there a logical fallacy somewhere in there? If everybody thought the same then no one would donate to them and they wouldn’t be the richest school. Isn’t it similar to saying “what’s the point of voting, in my state my party always wins anyway”.

No, because everyone doesn’t think that way.

Re: The least impactful way to spend $300M?

#94

Post by PragmaticPulp »

Galanwe wrote: post #86
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #64

I like the idea of Effective Altruism (EA), but it’s ironic to use EA to call out ineffective charitable spending in the wake of all the Effective Altruism ridiculousness of recent years. EA was a key part of SBF’s cover story to make his frauds appear to be coming from a philanthropic angle. An EA figurehead recently spent multiple millions, some of which was FTX donations, on a castle/chateau to “host events”, whic…

EA is a philosophy, or a mindset. It is not defined by the actions of some group of people that pretend to follow it. There will always be some % of cheaters in whatever human system that exists.

There are definitely EA organizations and figureheads like MacAskill operating under the EA name.

You can call it an abstract philosophy, but there are actual organizations leading the charge, collecting funds, and doing things with them (like buying castles). I don’t find it compelling to argue that all of these EA orgs and people are somehow not true EA when the movement and money flow seemingly revolves around them.

Re: The least impactful way to spend $300M?

#96

Post by wahnfrieden »

odd_perfect_num wrote: post #58
JoshTko wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A donation to Harvard only accelerates opportunity inequality. Harvard benefits only rich kids.

Harvard and it's peers are some of the very few academic institutions that have need blind admissions and generous need-based financial aid. For poor students, Harvard and its peers are pretty much the only free college options besides merit scholarships.

they have plenty of money given tiny, static class sizes, and that population you're referring to is already a small one of a small overall student body.

Re: The least impactful way to spend $300M?

#97

Post by Brendinooo »

I dunno, the author could be right, but these kinds of posts always rub me the wrong way.

I just don't like the idea that someone is out there telling you that you're doing charity wrong. It could be coming from a good place but comes off with an air of moral superiority. If this guy finds out that I buy some pepperoni rolls for my kid's ballet fundraiser, is he gonna guilt trip me with malaria nets too?

Re: The least impactful way to spend $300M?

#98

Post by elcritch »

jimbokun wrote: post #51
crazygringo wrote: post #24

I 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…

Harvard produced many of the people that built a society with staggering and increasing levels of income inequality. Consultants, hedge fund managers, architects of super addictive social media platforms, politicians who write laws favoring corporations over workers, etc. etc.

Partly, but it was Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago who helped lay the framework for the "shareholder primacy" theory that really paved the way for the poor longterm corporate management of the last couple of decades.

Re: The least impactful way to spend $300M?

#99

Post by singhrac »

prng2021 wrote: post #31
Galanwe wrote: post #8

I 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?

I think that’s thinking too much into it. He could have spent 1/10th of that and got those things in return. These billionaires want fame and to be the focus of discussions like this one. They know people will be in awe over such a huge sum of money. That’s what $300M buys you and is so much more interesting than buying a product: attention and fame.

I'm fairly certain he already guaranteed that with his $150mm previous donation in 2014, which at the time was the largest gift in Harvard College's history. Note that in that case, $125mm was earmarked specifically for financial aid.

Re: The least impactful way to spend $300M?

#100

Post by fancy_hammer »

jonifico wrote: post #82
odd_perfect_num wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harvard and it's peers are some of the very few academic institutions that have need blind admissions and generous need-based financial aid. For poor students, Harvard and its peers are pretty much the only free college options besides merit scholarships.

Only 1.8% are students from poor families: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobilit...

That is 100% not what the link says.
Post reply on HN