
Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke - pseudolus
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2020/09/15/exclusive-the-billionaire-who-wanted-to-die-brokeis-now-officially-broke/#2d2d3103a2aa
======
SeanLuke
I vaguely recall that there are classic levels in Jewish philosophy regarding
philanthropy, and among the highest is to give with no expectation of any
return whatsoever: that means not only giving where it matters, but to do so
anonymously, to organizations that don't benefit you (no opera companies), and
to people with no ties to you. In this respect Chuck Feeney has been
incredible.

This is not to dismiss the likes of Bill Gates: he has been very public with
his donations, but in some cases (notably celebrity) notoriety in your
donations may create a multiplier effect as it encourages others to do
likewise. Even so, I think this is still on a lower-rung, philanthropy-wise,
than Feeney's approach.

Nonetheless, we're sitting here praising someone who reduced himself from
billions to $2M, but we must remind ourselves that this is unimpressive
compared to the poor person who donates $25 to others while starving herself.
The value of money is nonlinear. I'm sure that Feeney would say this as well:
he no doubt sees himself as saddled with the burden of billions of dollars
rather than someone doing something amazing.

I wonder if I ever will have the strength to do what he has done.

~~~
7402
Maimonides defines eight levels in giving charity (tzedakah), each one higher
than the preceding one.

On an ascending level, they are as follows:

8\. When donations are given grudgingly.

7\. When one gives less than he should, but does so cheerfully.

6\. When one gives directly to the poor upon being asked.

5\. When one gives directly to the poor without being asked.

4\. Donations when the recipient is aware of the donor's identity, but the
donor still doesn't know the specific identity of the recipient.

3\. Donations when the donor is aware to whom the charity is being given, but
the recipient is unaware of the source.

2\. Giving assistance in such a way that the giver and recipient are unknown
to each other. Communal funds, administered by responsible people are also in
this category.

1\. The highest form of charity is to help sustain a person before they become
impoverished by offering a substantial gift in a dignified manner, or by
extending a suitable loan, or by helping them find employment or establish
themselves in business so as to make it unnecessary for them to become
dependent on others.

[0] [https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/eight-levels-of-
charita...](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/eight-levels-of-charitable-
giving)

~~~
endymi0n
Level one sounds suspiciously close to actually paying taxes and let the
social net built on it work its magic.

Now come on, downvote me to hell.

~~~
gjm11
On the one hand, I think your comment is correct, insightful and important.

On the other hand, I have a firm policy of always downvoting comments on HN
that say things like "I know I'm going to get downvoted for posting this",
because I think doing that should be strongly disincentivized.

I'm compromising by neither upvoting nor downvoting and leaving this reply.

~~~
endymi0n
Have my upvote as well. I was still frustrated by a similar observation I
recently posted that went negative, much to my surprise, and made me imply a
pretty libertarian bias.

Apologies for the bile, I‘ll engage in a more civil discussion tone going
forward.

------
bedhead
I’ve long argued for massive estate tax rates on large estates in order to
incentivize behavior like this. I have no problem at all with Bezos being
worth $200 billion (or whatever it is now), but it’s this dynastic wealth that
I find borderline sickening. Why in the hell should the Rockefeller’s of today
be billionaires??? Also, these giant charitable foundations/family offices are
similarly off-putting, as they are setup as semi-perpetual institutions that
often only make the minimum 5% distribution annually. (Another fix would be to
jack that up to 25% upon death) Big estate taxes seem to solve for a lot of
problems with appropriate compromises.

~~~
settrans
An Open Letter from Economists on the Estate Tax

To whom it may concern:

Spend your money on riotous living – no tax; leave your money to your children
– the tax collector gets paid first. That is the message sent by the estate
tax. It is a bad message and the estate tax is a bad tax.

The basic argument against the estate tax is moral. It taxes virtue – living
frugally and accumulating wealth. It discourages saving and asset accumulation
and encourages wasteful spending. It wastes the talent of able people, both
those engaged in enforcing the tax and the probably even greater number
engaged in devising arrangements to escape the tax.

The income used to accumulate the assets left at death was taxed when it was
received; the earnings on the assets were taxed year after year; so, the
estate tax is a second or third layer of taxation on the same assets.

The tax raises little direct revenue- partly because the estate planners have
been so successful in devising ways to escape the tax. Costs of collection and
compliance are high, perhaps of the same order as direct tax receipts. The
encouragement of spending reduces national wealth and thereby the flow of
aggregate taxable income. These indirect effects mean that eliminating the tax
is likely to increase rather than decrease the net revenue yield to the
federal government.

The estate tax is justified as a means of reducing the concentration of
wealth. However, the truly wealthy and their estate planners avoid the tax.
The low yield of the tax is a testament to the ineffectiveness of the tax as a
force for reshaping the distribution of wealth.

The primary defense made for the estate tax is that it encourages charity. If
so, there are better and less costly ways to encourage charity. Eliminating
the estate tax will lead to higher economic growth, which is the most
important variable in determining the level of charitable giving.

Death should not be a taxable event. The estate tax should be repealed.

Signed,

Milton Friedman

~~~
smillbag
> The basic argument against the estate tax is moral. It taxes virtue – living
> frugally and accumulating wealth.

Is there something virtuous about hoarding wealth?

~~~
clinta
Those who "hoard" wealth do not do so by filling a swimming pool with gold
coins like Scrooge McDuck. They invest in companies that provide jobs and the
goods and services that the rest of us enjoy. Yes that is virtuous.

~~~
mactrey
Sitting on billions of dollars in stock in a publicly traded company isn't
really all that different from having a swimming pool full of gold coins. The
day-to-day functioning of that company is not going to be affected if the
billionaire sells shares to pay taxes rather than giving the shares to their
children. An initial investment in a company is virtuous but once you have
billions keeping that money in the family isn't really virtuous given that the
alternative is contributing to the society that made the initial investment
possible.

~~~
clinta
Investing in companies is contributing to society. Government is not society.
Investing in Walmart so that the rural poor have more access to affordable
goods is virtuous. And a whole lot of the contributions to government are
absolutely not. Like the money that goes to build bombs to kill people in
Yemen, or the money that funds your local police department's efforts to
suppress protests against their unaccountable violence.

------
sudhirj
This is a role model I can actually appreciate. I can't figure out why this is
the first time I've heard of him. I've seen lots of news about people buying
expensive shit, but the fact that this has never come to my attention is a
horrible indicator of what the media chooses to report on.

~~~
dougmccune
> 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.

~~~
BrainInAJar
> 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
valuable. And with the added bonus that the negative effects of they got to be
billionaires don't cause more problems (Feeney worked in private equity. PE
are strip & sell firms)

~~~
tmpz22
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.

~~~
hhs
Some people frame this as ‘earning to give’:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earning_to_give](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earning_to_give)

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

~~~
Miraste
You can't become a billionaire through honest earnings. The degree is variable
but the presence is inevitable, becoming required more the more billions you
amass. Of course, you can take the ethical route, but those people don't get
the billions.

~~~
CrazyStat
I know a billionaire who basically was in the right place at the right time
during the biotech boom. He started a company as a side project (he was a
professor), got a deal to supply a major pharmaceutical company, and expanded
from there. I don't know every decision he ever made but I'm not aware of any
unethical behavior. He lives fairly frugally and has made a point of staying
under the radar (he's successfully avoided being put on Forbes's list of
billionaires, for example).

I'm willing to argue that it is in fact possible to become a billionaire
though honest earnings.

~~~
Miraste
I probably shouldn't make such absolute statements, they do beg for
counterexamples. I'd be surprised if your friend didn't engage in _some_ anti-
competitive or employee-exploiting practices, but of course I have no idea.

------
anonAndOn
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/ucsf-childrens-
ho...](https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/ucsf-childrens-hospital-
gets-100m-gift-build-new-hospital)

[1][https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2015/02/123366/ucsf-
receives-100m-...](https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2015/02/123366/ucsf-
receives-100m-gift-advance-health-sciences-mission)

~~~
smattiso
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!

~~~
Balgair
I'm not sure what the actual name of the phenomenon is but I've heard it call
'wife-name-last name' syndrome.

Basically, the uber rich want to be seen as something more than just money.
Guys like Anschutz and whatnot. There seems to be a pattern where they get a
new shiny glass and steel building with a bunch of sick kids in it, and then
they put the wife's name, an ampersand, his name, and the last name in big 3-D
letters on the side. Likely it's a tax writeoff.

Also, not to be too cynical, but it's not a bad thing overall. The money could
be sitting in the Caymans afterall.

~~~
mensetmanusman
Most of the worlds money is sitting in the Cayman’s after-all, or hidden away
as art investments inside of storage containers.

~~~
srpinto
Is it really? Where can I read about it?

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers)

[https://www.businessinsider.com/tax-havens-for-
millionaires-...](https://www.businessinsider.com/tax-havens-for-millionaires-
around-the-world-2019-11)

~~~
refurb
I don't see anything to suggest "it's most of the world's wealth". Do you have
another source?

------
yboris
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/](https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/)

~~~
scott31
> So your $1,000 donation can do as much good as $1 million, if given well.

Umm, no

~~~
keketi
A donation of half a billion can do as much good as six houses, if given
poorly.

[https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-
raised-...](https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-half-
a-billion-dollars-for-haiti-and-built-6-homes)

------
haltingproblem
Chuck Feeney embodies what Gandhi said about the rich having wealth in trust
and using it for the good of society:

 _" “supposing I have come by a fair amount of wealth — either by way of
legacy, or by means of trade and industry — I must know that all that wealth
does not belong to me; what belongs to me is the right to an honourable
livelihood, no better than that enjoyed by millions of others. The rest of my
wealth belongs to the community and must be used for the welfare of the
community.”_ [1]

Each time I bike past Cornell Tech, Feeney's generosity awes me. What a
mensch. Makes me proud to be human.

[1] [https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/mahatma-
ga...](https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/mahatma-gandhi-
wealth-6063201/)

------
haltingproblem
The amount of negativity in this thread regarding billionaires and charity is
stupefying. There are well established reasons why the distribution of wealth
is lumpy - the uneven distribution of initial endowments, skills, parenting,
luck, education, etc. The work of Pareto and the Ergodicity Economics gives a
sound theoretical basis to this realization. There is no middle ground folks -
in any incentive driven system you will have a power tailed distribution.

Can we just celebrate Chuck Feeney and his awesomeness?

~~~
divbzero
“What many don't know is that [Mark Benioff] 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).”

“I wonder if I ever will have the strength to do what he has done.”

“I’ve long argued for massive estate tax rates on large estates in order to
incentivize behavior like this.”

“This is a role model I can actually appreciate.“

“I humbly encourage everyone to make giving a larger part of your life.”

Those are quotes from the current top 5 comments in this thread — plenty of
celebration of Chuck Feeney’s awesomeness.

~~~
haltingproblem
I saw those but there was the usual jaw-boning if Billionaire philanthrophy is
good for our society. I understand the hand-wringing but that is akin to
wishing that we were all born equal to perfect families in strife free lands
with perfect health care and child care and the rest.......utopia.

Edit: See below ;)

------
gumby
He was outed a few years ago due to a IPO of DFS, otherwise he'd still be
below the radar. His partner at DFS, Miller, took the opposite route: still a
major shareholder, extravagant lifestyle with his kids being classic "rich
kids".

Nice A/B experiment.

------
read_if_gay_
Mad respect, not letting that amount of money get to your head and not wasting
it on vain stuff surely takes some crazy discipline.

~~~
jariel
It's not 'discipline' though.

If you were raised a certain way, in a certain era, it wouldn't be rational to
spend it on 'frivolity'.

There are a _lot_ of people like this. Tons of very rich folks living in
normal homes, driving normal cars that they 'never buy news'.

I think in some ways more common than not, especially in more rural and
suburban areas wherein projecting wealth isn't actually necessary to their
professional identity.

~~~
Shared404
> especially in more rural and suburban areas wherein projecting wealth isn't
> actually necessary to their professional identity.

I don't know about suburban areas in general. I think it largely depends on
which neighborhood.

While it may not impact peoples professional identity, in many suburbs it
impacts their social identity.

------
headmelted
It’s true of him regardless, but as someone from Northern Ireland, Chuck
Feeney is a freaking hero.

I don’t have much to add that hasn’t been said already, but his donations -
right up to the last - have made genuine and lasting differences in the hearts
and minds of kids growing up here and I doubt even he knows all the good
that’s come of what he did in this place.

I don’t want to ramble on because it’ll end up sounding like a eulogy but he’s
done an incredible thing for our people and we’re incredibly grateful for it.

------
smattiso
This guy is my hero. I do hope he was able to enjoy spending some of his money
on himself and his family though. I have no problem with billionaires who
contribute a lot to society living well as long as they aren't hording
resources (huge acreage estates, mega yachts, rental properties). "Contribute
to society" is the sticking point for many of them though.

I hope I can live like Mr. Feeney, although I personally wouldn't be quite as
ascetic as he given the circumstances (I would own a small but nice house in
San Diego or Hawaii and a nice 0 emission solar/sail powered boat).

Good work Chuck!

------
dang
If curious see also

2018
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16513124](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16513124)

2013
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6081804](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6081804)

------
blueyes
Chuck's actual works get just a little mention in this piece.

He is known for helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland and the Republic of
Ireland. That is, to end the Troubles, a conflict that lasted about 30 years,
from the late 60s to the late 90s. People who were not yet adults in that time
may have difficult imagining the violence of the Troubles. The terrorism,
riots, violence and armed actions that characterized a guerrilla war and its
suppression, all on the edge of Western Europe. The southern counties that now
make up the Republic of Ireland had only achieved independence a few decades
before that (the dates are complicated, but let's say it was in 1921) after
800 years of British occupation, and a recent war of independence.

That was the backdrop against which Chuck Feeney tried to bring peace. He did
so by working with both sides of the conflict, the Catholics and the
Protestants, with diplomacy and massive investments, to make sure that they
could see a path to peace despite all the anger, animosity and desire for
vengeance that decades of violence and killing can instill. He helped resolve
that. Not alone, but he was crucial. And we don't even think about it any more
because it's all been relatively normal for a while. And that's amazing.

------
strikelaserclaw
most people say the would do something like this if they ever became extremely
rich, but only a few would actually be able to do it. I'm in awe of the
strength of character this guy must have.

~~~
zozbot234
You don't _need_ to "become extremely rich" for charitable giving to be quite
worthwhile. Even donating trivial amounts of money to high-impact charity can
easily come with a factor of 1000× in value created, compared to just spending
the same amount of money on your own private consumption. (Of course this
assumes that you're choosing the right causes, generally involving very poor
countries and the like; not just "donating" to your local art gallery, or for
that matter your local college with a billion-dollar endowment.)

~~~
hogFeast
You can also donate your time.

~~~
zozbot234
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.

~~~
mikestew
_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 above ladling a bit of
soup into a bowl or picking up the dog shit while at the animal shelter.

~~~
ticmasta
Then you don't understand the specialization of labor very well, and you're
being very disingenuous to the parent post. They made no reference to certain
work being beneath them, only the idea in maximizing resources. Maybe you
could help the shelter with some database work while a junior high kid picks
up poop.

~~~
mikestew
There is far more dog shit to be picked up than database work to be done. I
sometimes get the impression that folks think non-profits have an endless
stream of IT projects, if only someone would volunteer time to do them. That
has not been my experience, most volunteer organizations need physical work,
not another web app. Most of the software needs can be taken care of by off-
the-shelf products that will be supported longer than one-off volunteer
projects that get abandoned.

------
superasn
Is a person who invests that money for-profit but makes giant advancements in
maths/science while doing it an equally big giver?

Take for example, Elon musk. Even though he hasn't given monet away to
charities like Chuck, his for-profit enterprises like electric cars, solar
farms, spacex and possibly neuralink might just have been things that end up
equally great for humanity.

So if you have billions I guess timtowtdi.

~~~
zpeti
Also - does he actually "have money"?

Tesla and SpaceX don't make a profit or pay dividends. My guess is he finances
his entire life from taking on debt which is secured against his stock.

So how exactly are people like him supposed to just give money away? What
happens to the stock he owns then? Would he forgo control of his companies?

How would he pay taxes on that income anyway?

Lots of questions the billionaires-shouldn't-exist crowd have no concept of.

~~~
pwinnski
He started out with a lot of money from his family's South African mining
operations.

Your mockery is ill-directed, and in the context of a post about someone whose
corporate wealth was able to be donated to charity, in really poor taste.

~~~
zpeti
Yeah, because Elon is obviously where he is now because of family money...
jesus christ.

Ever heard of Zip2 and Paypal?

Your resentment and jealousy based communist thinking is pretty ugly.

~~~
pwinnski
Now you've added personal insults to your class mockery. Please, this sort of
casual disregard of other people is not appropriate on HN.

Your initial claim was that he had no money apart from company stock, and
lives entirely on debt. This is factually incorrect, as I pointed out: his
family money predates all of his companies.

Attached to your factually-incorrect claim was a casual denigration of a group
of people with whose beliefs you disagree. This was both misguided and
unnecessary.

My factual statement in response was simply:

> He started out with a lot of money from his family's South African mining
> operations.

Based solely on that true statement of fact, you derided me, responding to
claims I never made and labeling me and my "thinking" in inaccurate and
insulting ways.

Please, stop.

~~~
zpeti
If you are so good on facts, please point to some (other than speculation)
that confirm your theory that Elon somehow benefitted from family money, or is
currently living off family money not Tesla and SpaceX.

Your statement was extremely loaded, suggesting Elon's family somehow is part
of his success. While our past is certainly part of us always, it is very
loaded and complex. As is well known Elon's father was very abusive, committed
crimes, and has just married his stepdaughter. Ask any psychologist and I
think that is more a hindrance than an advantage in terms of family
background.

I stand by the fact that anything implying Elon is successful because of his
family money is a hugely far-left opinion, if not communist, and has its roots
in your resentment for Elon's success.

~~~
pwinnski
> I stand by the fact that anything implying Elon is successful because of his
> family money is a hugely far-left opinion, if not communist, and has its
> roots in your resentment for Elon's success.

This is not okay. Please, pursue empathy.

------
renewiltord
Interesting! I wonder if he tracked outcomes so we can see what the result is
of all this. He seems pretty happy with how his charitable "investments" have
done.

That data could reveal which things are the most effective things to operate
charitably in terms of increasing human happiness.

That's something I really like about Jack Dorsey's approach. I get to follow
along and see what works.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
> 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 businessman crushing competitors that he had
in the 1990’s. In addition, it has also given him a lot of soft power. I bet
there are dozens of heads of state, especially in Africa and Asia, that he
could personally get on the phone within 30 minutes if he really wanted to.

~~~
MisterBastahrd
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 further
democratize the House.

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
> 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.

~~~
MisterBastahrd
That mostly works, but intelligence committees, etc. need to be in secure
locations to view documents.

------
adaisadais
Huge fan of Chuck. “Who wants to be the richest person in the graveyard?” Is a
question I often ask myself. Chuck has lived that philosophy. I moved to the
bay last year and I hoe to one day meet him!

------
kaiken1987
What he did was great. But for Forbes to say a man with 2% of 8 billion
dollars is broke is a stretch.

~~~
rabidrat
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.

~~~
r00fus
Yeah, the word "broke" is clickbait. $2m for retirement is more than most.
It's simply "not extravagant" which I guess from the eyes of the wealthy class
may as well be "broke".

~~~
caturopath
Certainly not broke, but it seems difficult to find a way without hyperbole to
indicate that he's given away billions and now is no longer in the top 10% of
people in his age bracket in the US.

------
tomcat27
I find those people who determine to earn big and then give away big very
interesting minds. Their reasons to earn are most of the times very different
from a typical person.

~~~
lefstathiou
Speculating here as I am not spectacularly wealthy... I suspect there is more
to relate to than first meets the eye.

Chuck is human like all of us. Most people have to spend some amount of time
solving for generating enough capital to meet their (and their family’s) needs
- whatever they may be. The fabulously wealthy / successful did too once upon
a time but at some point crossed a threshold the vast vast majority of people
- which I will refer to as “typical” - will never, and that is having enough
to do and buy literally anything they could possibly desire indefinitely.

Thus the motivation to keep on going professionally (ie to earn more and more,
something that drives typical people who are solving to meet needs), I
suspect, changes to things money can’t buy which are nevertheless “typical”:
The desire for impact.

Some want it in their life times, others want it for generations (legacy).
Some want it in their church or on their job. Others seek and have the means
to achieve it on a global scale.

------
s_dev
Great documentary on him by the Irish National Broadcaster:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMcjxe8slYI&pbjreload=101](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMcjxe8slYI&pbjreload=101)

------
jackcosgrove
For a long time I dreamed of being wealthy. But a few experiences being a
small-time investor have convinced me that being wealthy (and trying to be
wealthy) is a lot of work, and it's work I don't particularly enjoy (too much
paperwork).

I'd much rather work as an individual contributor and earn an upper middle
class salary for my entire career, with enough to retire comfortably. Growing
up I always heard stories about how happiness is not correlated with income
above a certain (commonly achievable) level, and I can now corroborate those
stories!

You don't have to be rich to give. You can not make the money in the first
place, and instead make the world a better place by tending to your own
happiness and doing something you enjoy. And if you are lucky like Chuck you
can give it away. Or if you are lucky like Jonas Salk you can dedicate your
talents to good causes.

Congratulations to Chuck for being happy.

------
johnwheeler
The best part of the article

> When I visited a few years ago, inkjet-printed photos of friends and family
> hung from the walls over a plain, wooden table. On the table sat a small
> Lucite plaque that read: “Congratulations to Chuck Feeney for $8 billion of
> philanthropic giving.”

------
bogorman
The Irish education system was also transformed with his generosity. The
University of Limerick is a great example. The story is covered in the video.

[https://youtu.be/OMcjxe8slYI?t=1388](https://youtu.be/OMcjxe8slYI?t=1388)

------
todsacerdoti
I highly recommend the book on Chuck - [https://www.amazon.com/Billionaire-
Who-Wasnt-Secretly-Fortun...](https://www.amazon.com/Billionaire-Who-Wasnt-
Secretly-Fortune/dp/1610393341)

------
jaas
Chuck Feeney is not "officially broke." Per this story he has a couple million
set aside for retirement and is living a perfectly happy life with all of his
needs met. It seems disrespectful to Feeney's vision for his own life - he can
give away so much and still be fine. Not broke.

I don't know why the author had to cross the line into falsehood with the
title. It's a great story about a great person, why sacrifice your integrity
with an utterly false headline, particularly when the story doesn't need it?

~~~
js2
The author very likely did not choose the headline and the story itself never
refers to Feeney being broke. It does use the idiom “go for broke” meaning to
give something your full effort, which Feeney certainly did. Perhaps the
headline was a lame attempt at a pun on the idiom or perhaps it’s just a
clickbait headline.

------
bagacrap
Extra props for doing it anonymously.

~~~
throwaway287391
Preface: yes, absolutely, all the props in the world to this guy for doing
something so thoroughly incredible and selfless and rare for the benefit of
humanity. Even if I had the means, I know I'd never have the guts to do
something so amazingly heroic in as extreme a way as he did.

That said (i.e. time to be the irritating pedantic little asshole, but I think
it's a genuine enough question about the purpose/execution of philanthropy)...
does the anonymity really warrant _extra_ props? We know that the guy gave
away essentially all of his money; does the anonymity of the individual
donations really make it more selfless? If anything the headlines "Feeney
gives $100M to cause X" and going on TV to talk about it etc. would likely
bring more attention and donations to X, which I assume is why Bill Gates and
others tend to do things that way.

Edit: ok, I've just figured out from other posts that it basically wasn't
known beyond a small group of people that he was giving away most of his
wealth. I didn't realize that (although it's also my first time hearing of
him). I agree then, he really did spend the bulk of his life being pretty much
truly anonymous and that does deserve extra props.

~~~
bagacrap
I guess I'm more cynical than you. I see it as subtracting props to insist
that your name be inscribed on the side of every structure you fund. Bill
Gates and others like him are not "giving away" money, since there's
practically nothing material they could buy with it in the traditional sense.
Gates is trading useless wealth for social prestige. Compare to Sergey Brin,
who also spends money on humanitarian efforts such as disaster relief, but
takes pains to avoid headlines.

------
silentsea90
There's certainly a paradox in the ideal of being secretive with your
donations and thereby not being able to make an example that others could
follow, or being vain in beating your drum but setting an example for charity.

For myself, I have always wanted to appear to be doing my best in hiding my
charitable donations while inadvertently getting discovered for my generosity,
killing two birds with one stone. Unfortunately, I don't nearly have the
wealth to pull this off.

~~~
ticmasta
I don't think Chuck Feeney set out to be purposely secretive as much as
anonymous and focused on the money doing the work. I think stories like this
one in Forbes highlight he understands the necessity of good leadership by
talking about the mission after it's accomplished, rather than looking for
recognition during the process. Gates & Buffet are role models for the getting
started; Feeney for how you finish.

------
raincom
Wow, he hasn't followed this strategy: "set up a legacy fund that annually
tosses pennies at a $10 problem."

One of the things almost all foundations do is this: give 100K for $100M
problem. There are certain reasons for this: (a) foundations have become mini
governments; (b) foundations want to support everyone that comes their way;
(c) either foundations can't judge the potential of ventures or they end up
supporting their crony or pet projects.

------
prutschman
This is a criticism of Forbes, not Chuck Feeny:

He has $2 million in retirement. That's over 7 times the median net worth of
Americans 75+. He's anything but "broke".

------
mlthoughts2018
> “ Where did $8 billion go? Feeney gave $3.7 billion to education, including
> nearly $1 billion to his alma mater, Cornell, which he attended on the G.I.
> Bill. More than $870 million went to human rights and social change, like
> $62 million in grants to abolish the death penalty in the U.S. and $76
> million for grassroots campaigns supporting the passage of Obamacare. He
> gave more than $700 million in gifts to health ranging from a $270 million
> grant to improve public healthcare in Vietnam to a $176 million gift to the
> Global Brain Health Institute at the University of California, San
> Francisco.”

What an absolute gut-punch of deeply sickening waste.

I feel extremely outraged reading. It’s a absolutely shocking waste of money.
I can’t believe this is celebrated or held up as good. This is a form of
basically negligent homicide.

$3.7 billion on education? $76 million to lobby for Obamacare.

How can you not instead fund known, effective charities like Against Malaria
or SCI. $1 billion to a wealthy Ivy League credential mill - that’s
astronomical waste.

This is the charity equivalent of seeing a lottery winner blow their money on
sports cars or Vegas. This is appalling.

I mean this so sincerely. People should be sick and outraged over this degree
of negligent waste.

~~~
s1artibartfast
Why? It was his money and he could have bought diamonds and shot them into the
sun if he wanted. Instead it seems that the vast majority of the spending was
a net positive to society and will do some good.

Yes, there was probably a more impactful way of spending it from a
humanitarian perspective, but presumably there wasn't a more satisfying way to
spend it for Feeney.

Nearly everything that everyone does is a negligent homicidal waste if you
view it through the lens of opportunity cost. Unless you are living the life
of an acetic, working every living hour, and donating it all to charity, you
personally are hundreds if not thousands of people a year.

~~~
mlthoughts2018
Your objection falls flat. We can definitely analyze everybody else’s behavior
another time - it’s not relevant here and only serves to distract.

This one person had a huge fortune and explicit goals to spend it in
efficacious charities.

From that point of view, this particular story is one of exorbitant waste and
missed opportunity, the magnitude of which should stupefy people.

We’re not talking about some other joe schmoe who failed to be as ascetic as
possible - that’s just rhetorical deflection. We’re talking about this
particular instance of egregious waste.

Your comment is like if some heard about the Deepwater Horizon spill and
replied, “everything looks like waste or hazards if you measure every cubic
milliliter of spilled oil, can’t we just given them a break for trying to
harvest it and do something with it?”

~~~
s1artibartfast
I guess I’m still don’t understand the fundamental shock and sense of waste
you describe. Frenzy didn’t hurt anyone here and provided a net benefit to
society.

~~~
mlthoughts2018
Failure to optimize is equivalent to directly perpetrating harm, especially
when the stakes are high ($8 billion) and optimizing is jaw-droppingly simple
and easy (read recommendations from Giving What We Can, 80,000 Hours,
GiveWell, etc., and spend some ultra tiny fraction of time comparing the
impact on lives between e.g. donating $1 billion to fucking Cornell vs $1
billion to a cause like Against Malaria or SCI).

Tell the children who have died and will die from directly preventable malaria
or waterborne parasites that Feeny’s negligence has done no harm.

By not spending the money on them, he literally facilitated their deaths. For
what? Cornell has a fancier campus? Obamacare had a nicer grassroots website?
It’s sickening.

And it’s no defense to distract by saying nobody can be perfectly ascetic or
optimize away every wasteful purchase or discretionary spending. That’s not at
all related or up for discussion. We’re talking about one guy with a stated
goal of funding efficacious charities with $8 billion of available funds to do
it over time. Just about as pure a thought experiment of negligence as there
ever was.

------
archibaldJ
Knowing people such as Chuck Feeney exist is very motivating. I have had many
near-death experiences. When I came back to this world everything saddened me.
It’s supposed to be good to be alive. And it is! But ontologically suffering
appears to be a fundamental nature about this world. And there are so much
unnecessary suffering around us. So many miseries. So many heart-broken things
and false dreams and inauthenticity that just result in more sadness. All for
nothing at the face of the death.

This is why I want to believe. I want to believe in the goodness of people.
Just as I’m constantly troubled by the realistic notion of death as I try to
appreciate the transient presence of being here, I want to believe things will
get better in the sense that there will be less suffering and people will
learn and mature and become wiser and nicer to each other.

As we approach death and become one with nothing, we become one.

As we exist, we are only inducing more pains to ourselves. There are meanings
though. I hope there are more meaningful things. We are sentient.

------
kelnos
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 first place is itself a problem.

[0] Then again, we can't actually know that he's ideal, since he's worked hard
to keep his activities anonymous. On one hand I applaud him for not seeking
fame for all this, but on the other, we have little insight into whatever
impact -- good or bad -- he's had.

~~~
Hnaomyiph
>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.

------
hownottowrite
Raise the top tax rate to 90% and all billionaires can feel just as good in
their own lifetimes.

------
mensetmanusman
So inspiring.

It’s sad when all these billionaires and multi-millionaire athletes are afraid
to risk a few million dollars by commenting on human rights abuses
(concentration camps in China e.g.). You can’t take it with you! Use your
wealth for good...

------
fred_is_fred
You can obviously give away your wealth or ss an embarrassing counterpoint you
can write a book about how hard it is to have money -
[https://nypost.com/2020/09/14/why-one-very-rich-woman-
says-w...](https://nypost.com/2020/09/14/why-one-very-rich-woman-says-we-need-
to-talk-about-money/)

------
scrozier
I've had an idea for a while: some body (could be the government) maintains a
list of useful/important infrastructure projects--bridges, hospitals, schools,
etc. If you die with more than $x million, we take all the excess (like
today's estate tax), but you get to pick what gets built, and have your name
on it (or not, if you're like Feeney).

------
jacquesm
That's one person I definitely admire. Not afraid to play the game and not
afraid to end it on _his_ terms. It's one thing to amass a billion or more,
quite another to purposefully, part by part dismantle that empire until there
is absolutely nothing left with an unknown chunk of life at the end of it.

Chuck Feeney is officially welcome at my table, _anytime_.

------
dave_aiello
This article is definitely worth reading. However, I didn't follow the link
for over 21 hours after it was published because, I didn't recognize Chuck
Feeney's name, and I couldn't tell from the title what the article was about.

I think when an article is shared on HN some consideration needs to be given
to ambiguous situations like this.

------
the_arun
Good for him & communities. Only few people are real monks. I admire for his
detachment with Money.

Not sure word “broke” is the right adjective here. If consciously someone
donated their money to charity they need to be celebrated as a “winner” or
overpoweing materialistic “money”? Something amazing. “Broke” means very
negative. I don’t know. I could be wrong.

------
Rebelgecko
I'm a bit confused. The NYT article from 2017 says they he had finished giving
away $8b and was only keeping about$2m for his retirement. This article says
the same thing. Is he any more or less broke than in 2017? It sounds like the
main development is that he officially dissolved his charity

------
neonate
[https://archive.is/ntXaR](https://archive.is/ntXaR)

------
sytelus
Instead of giving away it all away, why not invest $8B which would generates
about $800M per year in returns perpetually and give that as 0% loans for
education, health and starting new businesses to people who needs it? This
would be then perpetual giving that can outlast the donor.

------
OJFord
Can 'officially' be added to the auto-strip list? It's rarely used
appropriately.

------
yholio
If you want to have the most impact in your secret donations and change the
lives of many people in good, then you should finance democratic and peaceful
political underdogs in poor and represive countries.

I know it sounds revolting that giving money to politicians is better than
fighting malaria or cancer. But at the end of the day, those who are having
the most impact in alleviating poverty and disease are not international
philanthropists, but the governments of the respective countries. Misery is
the result of the lack of institutions or their systemic failure under
corrupt, inefficient and incompetent leaders. We have known for decades how to
eradicate malaria and provide all people on Earth with basic food, shelter and
education, what we lack is world-wide execution of essential state-building
and infrastructure that would enable it, and much more.

And money is a fundamental part of politics; politicians are just like any
other people: if a decent, respectable living an be made in the field of
politics, public office will attract decent and respectable people. If the
only way you can get into power is by making trades with the devil, since no
one will found politics, then what you get is corrupt and ineffective leaders
that oppress rather the serve the public.

This is why, for all his sins, George Soros remains one of the most effective
philanthropists in the world. And this is why he's vilified by a whole wagon
of authoritarians, from Putin to Orban to Jinping: they know that the most
pressing threat to their power is not some foreign country, or a political or
military international alliance; they are most afraid of a well funded and
cohesive internal political opposition that can properly articulate the public
discontent.

------
makomk
Is it just me or is there something a little off about the phrase "$76 million
for grassroots campaigns supporting the passage of Obamacare"? Grassroots and
funded secretly by a billionaire seem like fundamental opposites...

------
mesozoic
This article doesn't cover any of the most interesting part. His brokeness. Is
he now homeless? Is his plan to now kill himself? Does he get to experience
the day to day struggle of broke elderly now? What's the deal?

------
AdamN
Why can't governments receive these donations? Do any benefactors currently
give to governments (not via taxes, actually just give)?

I know Ted Turner did it with the UN Foundation, although that isn't
technically the UN itself.

Are there other examples?

~~~
smeyer
>Why can't governments receive these donations

They certainly can. I don't how many people actually do it, but most
governments will accept direct cash donations. E.g. here's a page on how to
make a gift to the US Government:
[https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-
government.h...](https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-
government.html)

Edit to add: Here's some data on donations made to reduce the federal debt
[https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm](https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm)
. You can see that this seems to average a few million dollars per year.

------
tilolebo
I wonder how their daughters feel about that.

Especially knowing that for having such a career behind him, he must probably
have spent a lot of time working and not being there for his family.

Still, mad respect for what he/they did.

------
heimatau
Imagine...if other Feeney's (mega rich; north $100M) were able to give back to
their communities. In some dependable and systematic way.

I'd call it Sexat. It's like Taxes but spelled backwards.

------
outside1234
Thanks for posting - with all of the horrible selfish things happening (people
not wearing masks on purpose, etc. etc.) it is great to have a vision of how
we could be better as a people.

------
kevmo
Chuck Feeney sounds like a great guy (I don't know anything about how his
empire treated its employees), but I'd really rather the government take and
distribute those billions.

------
signa11
Conor O'Clery’ book ‘The Billionaire Who Wasn't: How Chuck Feeney Secretly
Made and Gave Away a Fortune’ is an _excellent_ read. highly recommended!

------
cmwelsh
Is there any law that prohibits converting your wealth to cash and going on
government aid? Is it legally fraud if you gave it to a 501(c)?

------
nloladze
The finest example of a human. Definitely a better person than I could ever
be. I would definitely flaunt and spend fabulous sums on dumb shit.

------
neycoda
I think top two reasons to make charitable donations known is to bring
attention to those charities and influence others to do the same.

------
cyberdrunk
> Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

He's not broke, he still has two million dollars (in a very advanced age). I
wish I was that broke.

------
hogFeast
For someone who is actually in the middle of doing this: Chris Hohn.

He has built one of the largest charities in the UK, and I believe it is top
10 in the world. He has given away his net worth multiple times. His general
story is also totally remarkable for the UK, he came from literally nowhere.

Somewhat inevitably these days, he is regarded negatively in the media (most
recently, he came up because the UK's finance minister used to work at his
fund, so Hohn was the "vulture" capitalist with his beak in govt...funnily
enough, their view didn't change when they found he is the main funding for
Extinction Rebellion...2020 is amazing).

------
bravura
"Chuck Feeney is what Donald Trump would be, if he lived his entire existence
backward."

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/nyregion/james-bond-of-
ph...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/nyregion/james-bond-of-philanthropy-
gives-away-the-last-of-his-fortune.html)

[http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/talk-cheap-rich-
guy...](http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/talk-cheap-rich-guy-
article-1.776220)

It sounds great but I'm still puzzling over this phrase and trying to grok it

------
cantrevealname
> _Where did $8 billion go: health, science, education, and social action_

Other than science, those are some very bloated and inefficient causes. $1
billion to Cornell? Aren't most of the prestigious universities already
swimming in billions of dollars of endowments? He can do what he wants of
course, but it would have been nicer if the money was targeted to long shot
bets--that only a super rich person could fund--rather than normal things are
already well funded through taxes.

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
Perfect is the enemy of good.

~~~
colinmhayes
Disagree. There are more than enough resources on effective NGO's. There is no
reason to give cornell a billion dollars when that money could save hundreds
of thousands of lives in the developing world.

~~~
hamburglar
It's possible the guy giving away the money sees something about this
organization that you don't.

~~~
colinmhayes
Or, more likely, he's not maximizing the impact of his donation.

~~~
hamburglar
Not only is whether or not he's maximizing the impact of his donation a call
he gets to make, whether or not he even _wants to_ maximize the impact of his
donation at the cost of other considerations is a call he gets to make.

~~~
colinmhayes
And I get to judge him for making the wrong call.

~~~
hamburglar
It's turtles all the way down.

------
andi999
Nothing left apart from 2 million? Hopefully I can be broke as well for
retirement. (Dislike the article, love the person)

------
paulpauper
An even faster way would have been for him to create a website , for example,
www.claimmymoney.com and allow people to put in requests for donations, for
any reason, that he would either honor or decline. There would probably have
to be ID verification and other system in place to try to prevent people from
abusing it. Given how so many Americans are living below poverty or in poverty
or having expenses, he would have little trouble giving it all away

~~~
pckhoi
This method would limit benefactors to only those who have access to the
internet and a way to receive money online. Most of the third world country
population wouldn't fit into this category.

And you can't be solving big systematic problems and bring about societal
change by working with individual cases. This is like fighting fire when you
should have made the building fireproof in the first place.

------
koolkat666
can someone here who thinks charity is a morally noble act answer this
question: why is it good to extract billions from people who work for you and
then give it a way and feel good about it? why not share the profits with your
workers in the first place? how is it morally justifiable to steal and exploit
in order to give?

------
oh_sigh
What is Feeney going to do if he lives until he is 105? The next decade and a
half might be pretty boring for him.

------
Waterluvian
It reassures me that there are examples of people who get hyper rich and
retain some perspective on it.

------
cgtyoder
Note how all the other mega-wealthy individuals praise him for his actions,
but commit to nothing.

------
balthasar
Pretty gross that he had that money in the first place. Good for him I guess?

------
RandomBacon
Actual title: The Billionaire Who Wanted To Die Broke…Is Now Officially Broke

------
cryptica
What a great man. Such a shame that he gave it all away to a bunch of scammers
and then a different bunch of billionaire scammers come out and try to claim
that they're affiliated with this great man to boost their own reputation when
in fact they're nothing alike.

------
annoyingnoob
I feel like I won't ever be even 10% of what Chuck Feeney has been.

------
umvi
"officially broke" with $2M in the bank for retirement _

------
aj7
Anonymous is how Jewish philanthropy is supposed to work.

------
egypturnash
"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.

~~~
brewdad
Using the 4% rule, $2 million gives you an income stream of $80,000 a year in
retirement. Comfortable but hardly lavish.

~~~
epylar
$2 million in retirement savings puts him above 90th percentile for
retirements savings for any age. The maximum 90th percentile I can find is
$619,000.00 at ages 60-64. [https://dqydj.com/retirement-savings-by-age-
united-states/](https://dqydj.com/retirement-savings-by-age-united-states/)

If he's broke, then at least 90% of retirees are broke.

~~~
lucaspm98
Most people are some combination of financially irresponsible and uneducated.
Honestly, with the numbers you have here I have to lean towards irresponsible
regardless of whatever difficulties the middle class faces. Even at a median
wage just doing the absolute bare minimum of saving 5%-10%, not even factoring
in 401ks, would leave you well past this given the last few decades of market
returns.

------
liminal
All donations should be anonymous

~~~
caturopath
Not really my business.

------
everyone
$2 million is not broke

------
sabujp
$1 billion to cornell? Cornell doesn't need the money

------
eruci
Seems like his life mission was to become a communist on his own accord, and
now that he has achieved that, he is happy. Good that worked out for him.

------
Multiplayer
I cannot get my head around this.

To be that good at making money and that intent at giving it away is such a
massive paradox not to mention paradigm shift from how we typically discuss
wealth and wealth accumulators.

Looking for video interviews....

~~~
quickthrower2
He didn’t get caught up in the money trap that almost everyone is, and I
wondered how he did that? Is it religion? Is it innate morals? How he was
raised? Very interesting.

Hope I can learn something from this. What does a non rich person do? I guess
it is about trying to influence things rather than injecting money.

~~~
nemo44x
> What does a non rich person do?

Time is money and if you don't have money then give your time. It's the most
generous thing a person can do. More so than money in many ways since you can
always make more money but you can't make more time.

You can't expect to make a major change in the world. But you can make some
small changes that means the world to some people.

------
wang_li
One could argue that everyone has the same responsibilities to society at
large. Thus for every Chuck Feeny and Bill Gates, you, personally you, have an
obligation to create many billion dollars of value and give it away. If you
don't do that, you're worse than any evil billionaire you care to name. They
at least are paying millions of dollars in taxes for any money they pull out
of investments. How many millions in taxes have you paid?

~~~
AQuantized
This seems like a strange argument since someone who is say, running a large
conglomerate, benefits much more from society's infrastructure and
organization than a layperson. It then seems reasonable for their obligation
to be proportionally greater.

~~~
wang_li
In the US, according to the CBO[0], the people who are in the top two
quintiles of income pay for all services and infrastructure. Saying that these
people benefit more from this infrastructure than a middle income household is
very odd. It's like I decide to be a farmer and need more water, so I dig a
well to water my farm. Then my neighbor sees the well and asks if they can get
drinking water from it and I say sure. Then they tell me I get more benefit
from the well and I have to pay to maintain it.

0\. See page 31. [https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-
congress-2015-...](https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-
congress-2015-2016/reports/51361-householdincomefedtaxesonecol.pdf)

~~~
AQuantized
Their large incomes are made possible by infrastructure. The analogy doesn't
make much sense to me since even the most prolific billionaire didn't build
much of this infrastructure.

~~~
wang_li
As a class they did. Some of it was built by billionaires past, but is
maintained by the current generation of the well to do. Regardless, the middle
income household certainly did not build it.

~~~
andrepd
Oh, I didn't know that "billionaires as a class" digged roads, erected
buildings, manned trains, stores, telephones, farms, factories... "The low
income households didn't build it", you have a very twisted definition of what
that means.

------
monadic2
Why is his strategy of giving away money so uncommon? Rich people certainly do
not need their wealth.

------
hirundo
Compare two billionaires.

One stops and carefully donates his money to have the most impact. He ends up
"officially broke."

The other doubles down on for profit enterprises, but focuses on those with
the most impact, like electrifying a fossil fueled sector of the economy or
making us a multi-planetary species. The profits are reinvested to accomplish
these goals. He ends up richer than ever.

It isn't clear that the second billionaire is less admirable than the first.

~~~
switch11
can we please keep the pro Tesla posts on Tesla threads

For God's Sake

Let this great guy who gave away $8 billion of his hard earned money get
proper credit without dragging a @#$#$ subsidy entrepreneur into it

------
olivermarks
I'd love to know what Chuck Feeney thinks of Bill Gates

~~~
trynewideas
> In February 2011, Feeney became a signatory to The Giving Pledge. In his
> letter to Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, the founders of The Giving Pledge,
> Feeney writes, "I cannot think of a more personally rewarding and
> appropriate use of wealth than to give while one is living—to personally
> devote oneself to meaningful efforts to improve the human condition. More
> importantly, today's needs are so great and varied that intelligent
> philanthropic support and positive interventions can have greater value and
> impact today than if they are delayed when the needs are greater."

~~~
olivermarks
I'd love to know what Feeney thinks of Gates in 2020

~~~
leesec
Why?

~~~
olivermarks
[https://www.ft.com/content/f999c4e4-78a2-4f83-9beb-91c15dccd...](https://www.ft.com/content/f999c4e4-78a2-4f83-9beb-91c15dccd0b8)

Opinion Coronavirus treatment Bill & Melinda Gates: Vaccine fairness will make
us all safer | Free to read Sharing Covid-19 jabs equitably would result in
fewer deaths and faster control everywhere'

~~~
olivermarks
[https://www.vox.com/future-
perfect/2018/12/11/18129580/gates...](https://www.vox.com/future-
perfect/2018/12/11/18129580/gates-donations-charity-billionaire-philanthropy)

~~~
hamburglar
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.

~~~
olivermarks
@hamburglar I have no idea hence my question. Feeney's style has been to very
privately and anonymously find worthwhile projects and fund them. Gates owns
giant swathes of the media and is vastly wealthier than Feeney. I wonder what
Feeney makes of that during the current global pandemic. (the reply link is
not appearing on posts, so this may be out of thread order)

~~~
hamburglar
Aside: the lack of reply link happens when you're in a conversation HN decides
is moving too fast, which may indicate a flamewar.

I think you're being misinterpreted by me and others in this subthread, but
it's your fault. :) You're literally just wondering aloud what Feeney thinks
of Gates and whether that's changed in recent years, but we are reading an
insinuation that it _has_ changed for the negative. I don't think our
misinterpretation of what you're saying is unreasonable -- someone above
states that Feeney has publicly stated that he thinks highly of Gates and your
response is to suggest that that's _different_ now, and you link to a couple
of articles, seeming to be supplying "evidence" of that, but the articles
don't give any reason to think Feeney's thoughts about Gates have changed.

Your responses have convinced me that you really are just asking questions and
have no preconceived notion of the answers, but the way you're asking the
questions is causing people to bristle because they are presented like
insinuations.

FYI.

edit: in my attempt to be helpful I see I'm being a bit repetetive. Was trying
to get this out there quickly before the misunderstanding escalated into a
shit-fight. :D

------
lisper
Not that I want to in any way detract from this incredible and selfless
accomplishment, but he has held on to a $2M retirement fund, so he's not quite
"broke" yet.

~~~
elliekelly
And I'm sure there's a trust fund for his benefit somewhere, just in case.

------
sandworm101
>>> When I first met him in 2012, he estimated he had set aside about $2
million for his and his wife's retirement.

I don't know about everyone else on HN, but having 2mil in the bank is not my
definition of "Broke". I want to see what trusts have been setup. What life
estates has he retained? I credit him for giving most all of it away, but
"broke" doesn't mean you are worth 0.0001% of some huge number. Broke means
you might not cover next month's rent and are parking your car at a friend's
to hide it from the repo guy.

~~~
cbanek
With all due reference to Shai-Hulud, I'd say broke has a lot of different
possible meanings. It could mean you declared bankruptcy, have negative net
worth, or maybe just like 99% gone (while you don't think it means that by
definition, and I agree, I think socially we could agree with that. Someone
with a dollar in their pocket isn't broke, but is also broke.).

If anything, having enough money to take care of his needs I think is good. If
he was hiding his car from the repo man, it's probably because he's not paying
payments on it, and therefore all the people that rely on those payments for
their jobs you're kind of "stealing" from, in that you aren't fulfilling the
legal and financial obligation. And that doesn't seem very charitable either?

~~~
sandworm101
>> you're kind of "stealing" from, in that you aren't fulfilling the legal and
financial obligation.

Stealing requires conscious choice. Not being able to pay a debt isn't a
choice and therefore shouldn't be described as stealing.

------
dangus
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 to get into Cornell compared to
when he went there on the GI bill? Giving to Cornell seems counter-productive
to me. Giving a bunch of Ivy League jocks more resources doesn’t seem like an
equity promoting endeavor.

Not to diminish his other accomplishments. Still, philanthropists get to
choose who to include and exclude. Ideally, it wouldn’t have been _possible_
for this guy to amass 8 billion dollars of wealth in the first place - it
would have been properly taxed and invested into our communities equitably.

~~~
raiyu
Because the government has such a great track record of collecting tax revenue
and then investing it where it is appropriate?

Questions can be raised about some of his specific donations, but when someone
gives away $8B of his wealth, spending nearly none on himself, does it
globally, influences other billionaires to do the same, picking at any one of
his specific donations seems counter productive.

Yes Cornell is an Ivy League school, but it is where he went to school, he
probably has very strong ties to that school, perhaps met his wife there, or
his business partner, if he chooses to give back to that school that is also
good.

Plus there was a tremendous amount he gifted to "education" so without knowing
all of the details, hard to imagine that he didn't provide some sort
investment in to under represented communities. If he helped Vietnam with
their healthcare he obviously wasn't just US centric but helped where he
though his donation could have an outsized return.

By the way he gifted a large amount of money to the Obamacare campaign, so by
proxy, he was providing healthcare to his workers, and more likely than not.

~~~
dangus
My argument is that a system that allows $8 billion in wealth to accumulate
enough to be controlled by one person has already failed.

The US government is actually really impressively good in a lot of areas, and
I personally get fatigued of the oft-repeated notion that government “can’t
possibly work” or that they “can’t possibly spend tax dollars responsibly.”

~~~
JackFr
> a system that allows $8 billion in wealth to accumulate enough to be
> controlled by one person has already failed

I think you have little appreciation of how wealth is created.

Jeff Bezos became the wealthiest person in the world neither by stealing or
exploiting , but rather by improving peoples lives. Amazon was able to
organize systems, take advantage of technological developments and put capital
to work to improve the lives of hundreds of millions of consumers.

~~~
ssorallen
The team at Amazon improved people's lives, not Jeff Bezos all by himself. Why
couldn't there be thousands more millionaires that helped build Amazon rather
than one mega billionaire?

~~~
umvi
> Why couldn't there be thousands more millionaires that helped build Amazon
> rather than one mega billionaire?

There probably are thousands of millionaries that helped build Amazon...
assuming they held onto their stock from the time they joined to the present.

------
OneGuy123
This is "proper" giving away, not that fake celebrity donations of "I donated
200k of my 40M money, see how charitable I am"?

And then those celebrities say "You should also donate Joe Doe, we must ALL be
charitable".

Meanwhile Joe is in debt and cannot even afford to eat non-pesticide laden
food while the celebrity retain 99% of his $$$$.

~~~
mrlala
It is quite the paradigm indeed.

Like you said most people don't _really_ have any extra income. They have a
mortgage. Their retirement is heavily underfunded. Kids future school is not
paid for.

Then there are people that have 100% of everything paid for and already have
more than they will ever need... not to mention they can grow their money way
quicker than the people who need it.. Yeah, it's pretty easy to be "generous"
in that situation because it's literally extra money just sitting around doing
nothing but making more money.

edit: wow, downvote me and op for this? Must be by the HN 400k engineers
without a family who don't understand what the problem is

------
cosmotic
It's great he donated his wealth to charity, but it's a little unfair that he
took it upon himself to chose where the money went instead of letting the
people choose.

~~~
bena
Why should the people get to choose?

~~~
Mediterraneo10
One of the reasons that private charity is somewhat looked down upon in
certain countries with a robust welfare state is that historically, private
charities were selective in whom they helped. If the private charity felt that
your "lifestyle" (i.e. you were a mother out of wedlock, you were LGBT) or
ethnicity was objectionable, you were just left to suffer. Or those private
charities would assist you, but you were obliged to convert to their religious
denomination or sit through a long sermon before getting to eat.

Welfare states run from taxpayer money and overseen by democratically elected
officials, while they have their downsides that are often commented on, at
least tend to assist groups that would be marginalized otherwise, and there
are no religious strings attached.

~~~
guerrilla
That and the fact that such charity systems are demonstrably less efficient
than welfare. It seems that many of people just want to ignore that evidence
though and continue to scaremonger.

