11 ms·

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 expe

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.

mulmen 6y ago
I wonder if a person was more involved in charitable giving if they would have heard about this guy before? Mainstream news coverage isn't going to cover him much but stories have been written, he worked closely with Gates and Buffet. My takeaway from this story is to spend my time on things that matter to me. It's a reminder that our news sources are really just another form of entertainment, which is not something that can give your life meaning or a sense of accomplishment.
- jrochkind1 6y ago
  The article says "And he gave it away anonymously" but doesn't expand on that.
  - wombatmobile 6y ago
    He gave anonymously until 9/11 forced his hand. In the wake of the attacks, international money laundering laws were tightened, and large international transactions were scrutinised. Feeney donated some half a billion dollars to medical research in Brisbane, Australia, guided by an old friend from his young days in Hong Kong, the tennis player Ken Fletcher. When Fletcher told former Brisbane Lord Mayor Jim Soorley he had a mate with millions to give away to good causes, nobody in Brisbane would take him seriously. It forced Feeney to come out with his philanthropy, and whilst he never cultivated a public profile, Feeney did at least speak in public on a few occasions when dedicating medical research centres that were built with his donations in Brisbane.
dougmccune 6y ago
> 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 6y ago
  > 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 6y ago
    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 6y ago
      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 6y ago
        "Earning to give" doesn't mean you have to earn in dishonest fashion.
        Miraste 6y ago
        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.
dpflan 6y ago
I suggest that it does not align with consumerism/capitalist ideologies which are used in the feedback loop to promote themselves/further substantiate their existence and influence in culture. Philanthropy is great, but to some extent I think the argument that properly taxing such capitalistic gains could have greater effect on society when properly used by the system that can support massive scale projects (i.e. the government).
- chadrs 6y ago
  It just depends on whether you trust a government or a rich philanthropist to "properly use" capital (get the most impact/$). If you let billionaires make the choices then sure you get some like Feeney/Gates/Buffett but you get Koch brothers. Government could theoretically do a more equitable job but only if social programs are run competently. Think about the leadership of EPA and HUD.
  - guerrilla 6y ago
    There'd be less need for such trust if there were more democracy [1] as well. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy
    - Cederfjard 6y ago
      It also depends on how much you trust the electorate. Recent developments around the world have shaken my faith a bit.
      - iso1631 6y ago
        Indeed, the power goes to the person who can successfully manipulate the most people. Historically that tends to be people who blame minorities for all the ills of the group of people most likely to vote, and come up with what seem like easy solutions (tax the rich, ban the immigrants) I for one don't have time in my life to be an expert on running an economy, creating an immigration policy, balancing the environmental and societal needs etc. I specialize in my area of expertise and use that money to employ others who specialize in their areas, and that includes government.
trynewideas 6y ago
The 2012 Forbes story: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2012/09/18/chuck-feeney-the-billionaire-who-is-trying-to-go-broke/#335c3dbb291c https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2012/09/18/chuck-... Biography from 2013: https://www.powells.com/book/billionaire-who-wasnt-how-chuck-feeney-secretly-made-gave-away-a-fortune-9781610393348 https://www.powells.com/book/billionaire-who-wasnt-how-chuck... The last time he was reported as giving away "the last of his fortune", in the NY Times, 2017: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/nyregion/james-bond-of-philanthropy-gives-away-the-last-of-his-fortune.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/nyregion/james-bond-of-ph... NY Times at $1B left in 2014: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/01/your-money/a-billion-to-spend-and-only-two-years-to-do-it-.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/01/your-money/a-billion-to-s... At $1.5B left: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/nyregion/a-billionaire-philanthropist-struggles-to-go-broke.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/nyregion/a-billionaire-ph... NYT on his secrecy in 2007: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/nyregion/26about.html https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/nyregion/26about.html Series when he was outed in 1997 while trying to remain anonymous: https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/02/business/lone-rangers-of-charity-are-losing-their-masks.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/02/business/lone-rangers-of-..., https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/26/weekinreview/they-gave-millions-mum-s-the-word.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/26/weekinreview/they-gave-mi..., https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/24/nyregion/quiet-man-with-big-charity-mission.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/24/nyregion/quiet-man-with-b..., https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/23/nyregion/a-man-who-repaid-his-debts.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/23/nyregion/a-man-who-repaid..., https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/23/nyregion/he-gave-away-600-million-and-no-one-knew.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/23/nyregion/he-gave-away-600..., https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/23/nyregion/giving-a-fortune-secretively.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/23/nyregion/giving-a-fortune...
hkmurakami 6y ago
The book about his life is quite good. "The billionaire who wasn't".
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sharadov 6y ago
This one line "While notoriously frugal in his own life, Feeney was ready to spend big and go for broke when the value and potential impact outweigh the risk." Amazing life, made a ton of money and lived to see it all given away.
justin66 6y ago
> 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. While weighing journalist's actions you might want to consider that Chuck Feeney wanted to remain completely anonymous and the media - the members of the media acting in accordance with your desires specifically - made that impossible. (that some of us have known his name for many years might also indicate that this has never come to my attention is not a meaningful measure of the media's performance - perhaps it's a measure of your use of media)
gridlockd 6y ago
Buying "expensive shit" is an honest business transaction. Who do you think makes all this expensive shit? They all have families to feed, you know. If you're rich, buying expensive shit is probably the most beneficial thing you can do for society. By contrast, charities and non-profits get this halo of being socially beneficial, even though they're often some of the most wasteful institutions of all. Cornell gets a billion dollars from this guy, as if they didn't get enough money from the racket that is higher education in the US.
- cyberdrunk 6y ago
  > If you're rich, buying expensive shit is probably the most beneficial thing you can do for society. That's not true. You can go and pay people a 50 million dollars to make a yacht for you. Or you can pay that 50 million to other group of people to build housing for the poor. In both cases, it provides jobs and puts food on the table of the people you employed. But, the yacht is just a toy for you, while housing will be life-changing for hundreds of families.
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    "Housing for the poor" is indeed life-changing, but not in the way you like. The government has spent billions on housing for the poor, and the result is usually called a ghetto. If instead you hired some of these poor people to build something nice for you, they wouldn't be so poor anymore. They could even afford decent housing, if the government didn't prevent that from happening with zoning laws and various other regulations.
    - krapp 6y ago
      >If instead you hired some of these poor people to build something for you, they wouldn't be so poor anymore. They could even afford decent housing, if the government didn't prevent that from happening with zoning laws and various other regulations. But their labor isn't worth that much, and no one would ever pay the poor that much when they could pay someone else less, or undocumented immigrants almost nothing under the table. "Pay the poor enough not to be poor anymore" is not how capitalism works.
janee 6y ago
Good example of why I really like HN. Quite keen to read up more on Feeny. Reading about anonymous contributions and selfless behavior like this is such a mood lifter when trawling through the day to day news and information floating around
- wombatmobile 6y ago
  Wikipedia Bio of Chuck Feeney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Feeney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Feeney Biography of Chuck Feeney https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2842145-the-billionaire-who-wasn-t https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2842145-the-billionaire-... For a great read, and to get a sense of who Chuck Feeney really is, track down a copy of Hugh Lunn's book The Great Fletch, the story of Chuck's mate Ken Fletcher from his Hong Kong days. https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/the-great-fletch-story-of-a-tennis-player-and-a/2677162 https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/the-great-fletch-story-of-a-tenn...
djmips 6y ago
Also check into Andrew Carnegie if you haven't already.

mulmen 6y ago

I wonder if a person was more involved in charitable giving if they would have heard about this guy before? Mainstream news coverage isn't going to cover him much but stories have been written, he worked closely with Gates and Buffet. My takeaway from this story is to spend my time on things that matter to me. It's a reminder that our news sources are really just another form of entertainment, which is not something that can give your life meaning or a sense of accomplishment.

jrochkind1 6y ago
The article says "And he gave it away anonymously" but doesn't expand on that.
- wombatmobile 6y ago
  He gave anonymously until 9/11 forced his hand. In the wake of the attacks, international money laundering laws were tightened, and large international transactions were scrutinised. Feeney donated some half a billion dollars to medical research in Brisbane, Australia, guided by an old friend from his young days in Hong Kong, the tennis player Ken Fletcher. When Fletcher told former Brisbane Lord Mayor Jim Soorley he had a mate with millions to give away to good causes, nobody in Brisbane would take him seriously. It forced Feeney to come out with his philanthropy, and whilst he never cultivated a public profile, Feeney did at least speak in public on a few occasions when dedicating medical research centres that were built with his donations in Brisbane.

dougmccune 6y ago

> 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 6y ago
> 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 6y ago
  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 6y ago
    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 6y ago
      "Earning to give" doesn't mean you have to earn in dishonest fashion.
      - Miraste 6y ago
        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.

dpflan 6y ago

I suggest that it does not align with consumerism/capitalist ideologies which are used in the feedback loop to promote themselves/further substantiate their existence and influence in culture. Philanthropy is great, but to some extent I think the argument that properly taxing such capitalistic gains could have greater effect on society when properly used by the system that can support massive scale projects (i.e. the government).

chadrs 6y ago
It just depends on whether you trust a government or a rich philanthropist to "properly use" capital (get the most impact/$). If you let billionaires make the choices then sure you get some like Feeney/Gates/Buffett but you get Koch brothers. Government could theoretically do a more equitable job but only if social programs are run competently. Think about the leadership of EPA and HUD.
- guerrilla 6y ago
  There'd be less need for such trust if there were more democracy [1] as well. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy
  - Cederfjard 6y ago
    It also depends on how much you trust the electorate. Recent developments around the world have shaken my faith a bit.
    - iso1631 6y ago
      Indeed, the power goes to the person who can successfully manipulate the most people. Historically that tends to be people who blame minorities for all the ills of the group of people most likely to vote, and come up with what seem like easy solutions (tax the rich, ban the immigrants) I for one don't have time in my life to be an expert on running an economy, creating an immigration policy, balancing the environmental and societal needs etc. I specialize in my area of expertise and use that money to employ others who specialize in their areas, and that includes government.

trynewideas 6y ago

The 2012 Forbes story: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2012/09/18/chuck-feeney-the-billionaire-who-is-trying-to-go-broke/#335c3dbb291c https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2012/09/18/chuck-... Biography from 2013: https://www.powells.com/book/billionaire-who-wasnt-how-chuck-feeney-secretly-made-gave-away-a-fortune-9781610393348 https://www.powells.com/book/billionaire-who-wasnt-how-chuck... The last time he was reported as giving away "the last of his fortune", in the NY Times, 2017: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/nyregion/james-bond-of-philanthropy-gives-away-the-last-of-his-fortune.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/nyregion/james-bond-of-ph... NY Times at $1B left in 2014: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/01/your-money/a-billion-to-spend-and-only-two-years-to-do-it-.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/01/your-money/a-billion-to-s... At $1.5B left: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/nyregion/a-billionaire-philanthropist-struggles-to-go-broke.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/nyregion/a-billionaire-ph... NYT on his secrecy in 2007: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/nyregion/26about.html https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/nyregion/26about.html Series when he was outed in 1997 while trying to remain anonymous: https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/02/business/lone-rangers-of-charity-are-losing-their-masks.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/02/business/lone-rangers-of-..., https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/26/weekinreview/they-gave-millions-mum-s-the-word.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/26/weekinreview/they-gave-mi..., https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/24/nyregion/quiet-man-with-big-charity-mission.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/24/nyregion/quiet-man-with-b..., https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/23/nyregion/a-man-who-repaid-his-debts.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/23/nyregion/a-man-who-repaid..., https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/23/nyregion/he-gave-away-600-million-and-no-one-knew.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/23/nyregion/he-gave-away-600..., https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/23/nyregion/giving-a-fortune-secretively.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/23/nyregion/giving-a-fortune...

hkmurakami 6y ago

The book about his life is quite good. "The billionaire who wasn't".

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

sharadov 6y ago

This one line "While notoriously frugal in his own life, Feeney was ready to spend big and go for broke when the value and potential impact outweigh the risk." Amazing life, made a ton of money and lived to see it all given away.

justin66 6y ago

> 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. While weighing journalist's actions you might want to consider that Chuck Feeney wanted to remain completely anonymous and the media - the members of the media acting in accordance with your desires specifically - made that impossible. (that some of us have known his name for many years might also indicate that this has never come to my attention is not a meaningful measure of the media's performance - perhaps it's a measure of your use of media)

gridlockd 6y ago

Buying "expensive shit" is an honest business transaction. Who do you think makes all this expensive shit? They all have families to feed, you know. If you're rich, buying expensive shit is probably the most beneficial thing you can do for society. By contrast, charities and non-profits get this halo of being socially beneficial, even though they're often some of the most wasteful institutions of all. Cornell gets a billion dollars from this guy, as if they didn't get enough money from the racket that is higher education in the US.

cyberdrunk 6y ago
> If you're rich, buying expensive shit is probably the most beneficial thing you can do for society. That's not true. You can go and pay people a 50 million dollars to make a yacht for you. Or you can pay that 50 million to other group of people to build housing for the poor. In both cases, it provides jobs and puts food on the table of the people you employed. But, the yacht is just a toy for you, while housing will be life-changing for hundreds of families.
- gridlockd 6y ago
  "Housing for the poor" is indeed life-changing, but not in the way you like. The government has spent billions on housing for the poor, and the result is usually called a ghetto. If instead you hired some of these poor people to build something nice for you, they wouldn't be so poor anymore. They could even afford decent housing, if the government didn't prevent that from happening with zoning laws and various other regulations.
  - krapp 6y ago
    >If instead you hired some of these poor people to build something for you, they wouldn't be so poor anymore. They could even afford decent housing, if the government didn't prevent that from happening with zoning laws and various other regulations. But their labor isn't worth that much, and no one would ever pay the poor that much when they could pay someone else less, or undocumented immigrants almost nothing under the table. "Pay the poor enough not to be poor anymore" is not how capitalism works.

janee 6y ago

Good example of why I really like HN. Quite keen to read up more on Feeny. Reading about anonymous contributions and selfless behavior like this is such a mood lifter when trawling through the day to day news and information floating around

wombatmobile 6y ago
Wikipedia Bio of Chuck Feeney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Feeney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Feeney Biography of Chuck Feeney https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2842145-the-billionaire-who-wasn-t https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2842145-the-billionaire-... For a great read, and to get a sense of who Chuck Feeney really is, track down a copy of Hugh Lunn's book The Great Fletch, the story of Chuck's mate Ken Fletcher from his Hong Kong days. https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/the-great-fletch-story-of-a-tennis-player-and-a/2677162 https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/the-great-fletch-story-of-a-tenn...

djmips 6y ago

Also check into Andrew Carnegie if you haven't already.