4 ms·

I disagree that one needs an implicit assumption that "business is a necessary evil" to admire what people like Feeney do. One simply needs to believe that cha

I disagree that one needs an implicit assumption that "business is a necessary evil" to admire what people like Feeney do. One simply needs to believe that charity is a virtue. Virtue on such a large scale as this is admirable. Regardless of what one things of capitalism, wealth-creation, etc. one can still admire Mr. Feeney for his philanthropic activities.

byrneseyeview 19y ago
The problem here is that when Feeney made his money, he had a good idea of what people wanted -- it was what they were willing to pay for. He's basically saying that after a lifetime of listening to what people want, he's going to second-guess them and decide for himself. This may be charitable, but it's also arrogant.
- Xichekolas 19y ago
  He's basically saying that after a lifetime of listening to what people want, he's going to second-guess them and decide for himself. This may be charitable, but it's also arrogant. I am completely missing how you are making this leap. After reading the article, it seems like the whole point was that this guy wasn't an arrogant prick... paranoid about people seeing him eat grilled cheese sandwiches maybe... but not arrogant. Would you rather he keep his money? Or are you taking issue with his choice of where to donate it?
  - byrneseyeview 19y ago
    Look, if people come to you and say "I would give you $5 if you did X, and $1 if you did Y," it's clear that they value X about five times as much as Y. Feeney is the guy who spends his career doing X superlatively well, until he's accumulated huge sums of money, then starts spending that money on subsidizing people who do Y. This sounds to me like a rich guy manipulating prices in order to accomplish his unpopular goals. The fact that people would rather spend money on what he sells than give money to the causes he supports is a signal, and it's a signal he's ignoring. It's very easy to understand this in a simpler economy. Imagine that farmers consume coffee and soybeans, and they can grow coffee or soybeans. Different farmers have different preferences, which they express by swapping soybeans for coffee or vice-versa. Assume these cost the same amount to produce, and the ratio of their prices should tell each farmer what to plant: if the market price for one unit of soybeans is two units of coffee, a smart farmer will just grow soybeans, and swap some for coffee when he wants coffee. In this case, Feeney is an incredibly productive farmer, who grows an insane amount of soybeans, sells some for coffee, but just keeps on accumulating the rest. Deciding that he is tired of taking from the community and wants to give something back, he announces that he will trade his soy for coffee at a 1:1 ratio. What does this accomplish? It's 'charitable' because it helps the poor coffee farmers -- but it's also manipulating the market to give people an incentive to do something unproductive (ie. grow coffee) instead of something productive (grow soybeans). What a jackass! If he just kept growing more soybeans (or maybe even started growing corn, or trading his bean-pile for assets like land) he would have made all the farmers better off. As it is, he's a market manipulator who tweaks price signals so people produce more of what they don't want. This is shameful.
    - deleted 19y ago
      [deleted]
    - Xichekolas 19y ago
      I guess I get what your are arguing now, but it seems like a false analogy. He isn't using his money to prop up an unproductive industry/product, he is giving it away. To the point where he doesn't even allow people to know it comes from him. You call his goals 'unpopular' ... I personally think that helping restart the higher education system in Ireland to be a fairly admirable goal. Is there anyone out there that honestly campaigns against Big Education? Using his money and influence to help bring Sein Fein to the table seemed admirable. It's not like this guy is handing out eight balls to the poor. OTOH, you earn points for coming up with an argument that charity is really price manipulation and subsidy in disguise. But I'll make this argument... it's his money to spend. You also have money to spend. If you happen to like buying a steak for dinner instead of dish of corn, are you manipulating the market by deliberately supporting a less productive product? (from an acres/cost to calories standpoint)
    - TheTarquin 19y ago
      "As it is, he's a market manipulator who tweaks price signals so people produce more of what they don't want. This is shameful." What, exactly, is he manipulating the price of? Poverty isn't an industry and philanthropy is not the subsidizing of flagging companies. This man made a ton of wealth in his day. And now he's redistributing it. It's axiomatically accepted by most people on News.YC that wealth is not a zero-sum commodity so his giving it away isn't depriving anyone of wealth. This is besides the fact that not everything is a market and treating poverty and philanthropy like they are puts me in mind of a certain saying about people whose toolbox only contains a hammer.

byrneseyeview 19y ago

The problem here is that when Feeney made his money, he had a good idea of what people wanted -- it was what they were willing to pay for. He's basically saying that after a lifetime of listening to what people want, he's going to second-guess them and decide for himself. This may be charitable, but it's also arrogant.

Xichekolas 19y ago
He's basically saying that after a lifetime of listening to what people want, he's going to second-guess them and decide for himself. This may be charitable, but it's also arrogant. I am completely missing how you are making this leap. After reading the article, it seems like the whole point was that this guy wasn't an arrogant prick... paranoid about people seeing him eat grilled cheese sandwiches maybe... but not arrogant. Would you rather he keep his money? Or are you taking issue with his choice of where to donate it?
- byrneseyeview 19y ago
  Look, if people come to you and say "I would give you $5 if you did X, and $1 if you did Y," it's clear that they value X about five times as much as Y. Feeney is the guy who spends his career doing X superlatively well, until he's accumulated huge sums of money, then starts spending that money on subsidizing people who do Y. This sounds to me like a rich guy manipulating prices in order to accomplish his unpopular goals. The fact that people would rather spend money on what he sells than give money to the causes he supports is a signal, and it's a signal he's ignoring. It's very easy to understand this in a simpler economy. Imagine that farmers consume coffee and soybeans, and they can grow coffee or soybeans. Different farmers have different preferences, which they express by swapping soybeans for coffee or vice-versa. Assume these cost the same amount to produce, and the ratio of their prices should tell each farmer what to plant: if the market price for one unit of soybeans is two units of coffee, a smart farmer will just grow soybeans, and swap some for coffee when he wants coffee. In this case, Feeney is an incredibly productive farmer, who grows an insane amount of soybeans, sells some for coffee, but just keeps on accumulating the rest. Deciding that he is tired of taking from the community and wants to give something back, he announces that he will trade his soy for coffee at a 1:1 ratio. What does this accomplish? It's 'charitable' because it helps the poor coffee farmers -- but it's also manipulating the market to give people an incentive to do something unproductive (ie. grow coffee) instead of something productive (grow soybeans). What a jackass! If he just kept growing more soybeans (or maybe even started growing corn, or trading his bean-pile for assets like land) he would have made all the farmers better off. As it is, he's a market manipulator who tweaks price signals so people produce more of what they don't want. This is shameful.
  - deleted 19y ago
    [deleted]
  - Xichekolas 19y ago
    I guess I get what your are arguing now, but it seems like a false analogy. He isn't using his money to prop up an unproductive industry/product, he is giving it away. To the point where he doesn't even allow people to know it comes from him. You call his goals 'unpopular' ... I personally think that helping restart the higher education system in Ireland to be a fairly admirable goal. Is there anyone out there that honestly campaigns against Big Education? Using his money and influence to help bring Sein Fein to the table seemed admirable. It's not like this guy is handing out eight balls to the poor. OTOH, you earn points for coming up with an argument that charity is really price manipulation and subsidy in disguise. But I'll make this argument... it's his money to spend. You also have money to spend. If you happen to like buying a steak for dinner instead of dish of corn, are you manipulating the market by deliberately supporting a less productive product? (from an acres/cost to calories standpoint)
  - TheTarquin 19y ago
    "As it is, he's a market manipulator who tweaks price signals so people produce more of what they don't want. This is shameful." What, exactly, is he manipulating the price of? Poverty isn't an industry and philanthropy is not the subsidizing of flagging companies. This man made a ton of wealth in his day. And now he's redistributing it. It's axiomatically accepted by most people on News.YC that wealth is not a zero-sum commodity so his giving it away isn't depriving anyone of wealth. This is besides the fact that not everything is a market and treating poverty and philanthropy like they are puts me in mind of a certain saying about people whose toolbox only contains a hammer.