4 ms·

> A stunning failure of imagination. I think the OP meant that $130B could be given to a lot of good causes in small chunks rather than all 130B to one small o

> A stunning failure of imagination. I think the OP meant that $130B could be given to a lot of good causes in small chunks rather than all 130B to one small org.

adventured 8y ago
Bezos isn't giving all of his wealth to space. He has been clear about that, stating over and over again in interviews that he plans to also donate to social causes in the US where he can have a near-term impact. He's 54 years old and has gained $104 billion in new paper wealth in the last three years. I'd rather he get his philanthropy right - assuming the wealth sticks around at all, given Amazon's valuation - instead of hurrying and dumping billions into poor decisions that accomplish little. If he perhaps has 30 years to give tens of billions to social charity efforts, then patience and prudence is called for.
nostrademons 8y ago
It can't, really, without creating the bureaucracy that leads to all that waste in the first place. $130B is 13,000 $10M chunks. No single person can find, vet, decide upon, and measure progress for 13,000 small organizations. That means you have to hire a staff to manage and give away the money. A staff means that a.) it's not your imagination that matters b.) money is allocated via horse-trading among the people who have been hired to manage the money and c.) suddenly you have a strong incentive for potential recipients to game the system and focus on making things look good for donors rather than providing the services to the ultimate beneficiaries. Organizations that previously were all about the mission become focused on the money, because there's a lot of it available and they're competing with lots of other organizations for it.
- ascorbic 8y ago
  If he wants to deploy it efficiently, without needing to build a bureaucracy around it, he could do what Buffett is doing: donate it to the Gates Foundation. It's not great if you want vanity projects, but if he really wants to do good then it's hard to think of a better way.
  - occamrazor 8y ago
    The Gates Foundation is also a bureaucracy facing the same problems described by GP. Moreover I guess that economies of scale are not so significant after a certain point. I would prefer five different 100B foundations, rather than a 500B one, to encourage diversity in the donation strategy and goals.
    - ascorbic 8y ago
      Yes, and any organisation of that scale will have bureaucracy. My point is that he could avoid needing to build another one by using a fund that already exists and has a proven track record.
      - occamrazor 8y ago
        I agree with you on that. My counterpoint is that marginal economies of scale are small, if not negative, at the size of Gates Foundation, and that having some diversity among foundations may be itself an advantage.
  - sametmax 8y ago
    Having worked in a mission financed by the Gates foundation I can tell you that a LOT of money leaves between the moment it's donated and the moment it's used in the field.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- nl 8y ago
  The Pineapple fund seems intent on trying this (although it is easier at $86M rather than $130B. Good problems...)
- notahacker 8y ago
  It's equally impossible to create a space program without a lot of middle managers and dubious allocations of funds. As others have pointed out, Bezos has already got one organization which distributes money to relatively poor and needy people called Amazon, just one which happens to be known for its lack of generosity in doing so. It's also a demonstration that a sufficiently motivated Jeff Bezos is very, very good at devising ways to allocate resources amongst huge numbers of competing needs...
- arseraptor 8y ago
  > It can't, really, without creating the bureaucracy that leads > to all that waste in the first place. Oh please. The Gates Foundation has donated > $20 bn to-date and has done it more efficiently than any other philanthropic organisation on the planet.

> A stunning failure of imagination. I think the OP meant that $130B could be given to a lot of good causes in small chunks rather than all 130B to one small org.

adventured 8y ago

Bezos isn't giving all of his wealth to space. He has been clear about that, stating over and over again in interviews that he plans to also donate to social causes in the US where he can have a near-term impact. He's 54 years old and has gained $104 billion in new paper wealth in the last three years. I'd rather he get his philanthropy right - assuming the wealth sticks around at all, given Amazon's valuation - instead of hurrying and dumping billions into poor decisions that accomplish little. If he perhaps has 30 years to give tens of billions to social charity efforts, then patience and prudence is called for.

nostrademons 8y ago

It can't, really, without creating the bureaucracy that leads to all that waste in the first place. $130B is 13,000 $10M chunks. No single person can find, vet, decide upon, and measure progress for 13,000 small organizations. That means you have to hire a staff to manage and give away the money. A staff means that a.) it's not your imagination that matters b.) money is allocated via horse-trading among the people who have been hired to manage the money and c.) suddenly you have a strong incentive for potential recipients to game the system and focus on making things look good for donors rather than providing the services to the ultimate beneficiaries. Organizations that previously were all about the mission become focused on the money, because there's a lot of it available and they're competing with lots of other organizations for it.

ascorbic 8y ago
If he wants to deploy it efficiently, without needing to build a bureaucracy around it, he could do what Buffett is doing: donate it to the Gates Foundation. It's not great if you want vanity projects, but if he really wants to do good then it's hard to think of a better way.
- occamrazor 8y ago
  The Gates Foundation is also a bureaucracy facing the same problems described by GP. Moreover I guess that economies of scale are not so significant after a certain point. I would prefer five different 100B foundations, rather than a 500B one, to encourage diversity in the donation strategy and goals.
  - ascorbic 8y ago
    Yes, and any organisation of that scale will have bureaucracy. My point is that he could avoid needing to build another one by using a fund that already exists and has a proven track record.
    - occamrazor 8y ago
      I agree with you on that. My counterpoint is that marginal economies of scale are small, if not negative, at the size of Gates Foundation, and that having some diversity among foundations may be itself an advantage.
- sametmax 8y ago
  Having worked in a mission financed by the Gates foundation I can tell you that a LOT of money leaves between the moment it's donated and the moment it's used in the field.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
nl 8y ago
The Pineapple fund seems intent on trying this (although it is easier at $86M rather than $130B. Good problems...)
notahacker 8y ago
It's equally impossible to create a space program without a lot of middle managers and dubious allocations of funds. As others have pointed out, Bezos has already got one organization which distributes money to relatively poor and needy people called Amazon, just one which happens to be known for its lack of generosity in doing so. It's also a demonstration that a sufficiently motivated Jeff Bezos is very, very good at devising ways to allocate resources amongst huge numbers of competing needs...
arseraptor 8y ago
> It can't, really, without creating the bureaucracy that leads > to all that waste in the first place. Oh please. The Gates Foundation has donated > $20 bn to-date and has done it more efficiently than any other philanthropic organisation on the planet.