4 ms·

I feel like if I somehow ended up with billions and was struck by large-scale altruism, instead of just giving it away, I'd set up some kind of fund that would

by bane 6y ago

I feel like if I somehow ended up with billions and was struck by large-scale altruism, instead of just giving it away, I'd set up some kind of fund that would ensure it was around forever, would grow at the pace of inflation, and would use the excess to make the world a better place. A billion dollars today ain't worth that far into the future. But spread out over decades or even gasp, centuries, it could do far more good in the long run. One really interesting example is the Battelle Memorial Institute. A charitable trust that also happens to be one of the largest R&D organizations on the planet and does over $6 billion/year in revenue. But has strict governance principles over working on weapons, or things that might harm people. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battelle_Memorial_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battelle_Memorial_Institute

tracer4201 6y ago
Why not both? Save some so it can grow and you can continue to provide to charitable causes in the fire but also find some causes you believe in and organizations you trust, and let them do things they’re good at.
tehlike 6y ago
Her money is mostly in AMZN stock, as far as i am concerned, which will provide far larger returns than the inflation. What you said will probably still work out.
- repsilat 6y ago
  This is kinda like dividends -- if the value of the dividend (or charitable donation) grows more slowly than the AMZN stock, then delaying the dividend/donation a year and giving the invested/grown amount later might mean greater impact. And then inductively...
eezurr 6y ago
Helping people today also has exponential returns in the long run. More than investment returns since economic growth is tied to people.
- Balgair 6y ago
  A 'rule of thumb' in education funding is that every dollar you put in nets you three on the backend. The issue being that the backend is 20-40 years from the initial investment.
  - harperlee 6y ago
    Do you have a source for this rule of thumb? I'm curious!
    - Balgair 6y ago
      Oh geeze! I'll try to find a paper on this, but it varies a lot in the US's K-12 at least, hence the 'rule of thumb'. The source I have off the top of my head is family members that are in education consulting and therefore talks over dinners and whatnot, but that is not a 'source' in the HN sense.
      - harperlee 6y ago
        No worries, it was a genuine question, not a “citation needed” ;).
jedberg 6y ago
She didn't suddenly end up with billions. She's been a billionaire for a long time. She's basically a cofounder of Amazon. She's just legally separate from Jeff now, so legally it's a separate fortune, but it was always hers.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  > She's basically a cofounder of Amazon. Being married to someone who founded a business does not make you a cofounder.
  - jedberg 6y ago
    No, but she worked in the business just as much as he did at the beginning, and Jeff himself said Amazon wouldn't exist without her work.
    - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
      Most successful startups wouldn't exist without the hard work of those who were not founders. To be honest I don't think Mackenzie herself would consider herself "basically a cofounder".
    - redis_mlc 6y ago
      For the record, I've read that she did some accounting for the first year. Generally founders don't consider early bookkeeping to be a major contribution, though often legal firms get $50,000 and a small amount of stock in SV to run a Wordperfect macro, but: 1) courts could look at that differently and 2) depends on the state's divorce laws. California is proud of being among the "most progressive", but I don't know about their state.
  - vmception 6y ago
    and I also find it disingenuous to elevate unpaid spousal contributions to unlimited asset and dollar figures and call that empowerment. that is a slap in the face to every spouse with a much harder life and smaller platform. the divorce settlement they came to was decent and good for them as individuals, clever to separate the voting rights from the assets. Other people adding more to that as a statement for society is what I find disingenuous.
vmception 6y ago
Yes, this is what all university endowments are and do. She gave away 6% of her estimated wealth, extrapolated from the public holdings of her Amazon stock. All wealth estimates pull from a snapshot of a public event and assumes that person never trades in anything at all. With that aside, her estimated wealth jumped 67% this year, and she is donated 6% of the net amount.

by bane 6y ago

tracer4201 6y ago

Why not both? Save some so it can grow and you can continue to provide to charitable causes in the fire but also find some causes you believe in and organizations you trust, and let them do things they’re good at.

tehlike 6y ago

Her money is mostly in AMZN stock, as far as i am concerned, which will provide far larger returns than the inflation. What you said will probably still work out.

repsilat 6y ago
This is kinda like dividends -- if the value of the dividend (or charitable donation) grows more slowly than the AMZN stock, then delaying the dividend/donation a year and giving the invested/grown amount later might mean greater impact. And then inductively...

eezurr 6y ago

Helping people today also has exponential returns in the long run. More than investment returns since economic growth is tied to people.

Balgair 6y ago
A 'rule of thumb' in education funding is that every dollar you put in nets you three on the backend. The issue being that the backend is 20-40 years from the initial investment.
- harperlee 6y ago
  Do you have a source for this rule of thumb? I'm curious!
  - Balgair 6y ago
    Oh geeze! I'll try to find a paper on this, but it varies a lot in the US's K-12 at least, hence the 'rule of thumb'. The source I have off the top of my head is family members that are in education consulting and therefore talks over dinners and whatnot, but that is not a 'source' in the HN sense.
    - harperlee 6y ago
      No worries, it was a genuine question, not a “citation needed” ;).

jedberg 6y ago

She didn't suddenly end up with billions. She's been a billionaire for a long time. She's basically a cofounder of Amazon. She's just legally separate from Jeff now, so legally it's a separate fortune, but it was always hers.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
> She's basically a cofounder of Amazon. Being married to someone who founded a business does not make you a cofounder.
- jedberg 6y ago
  No, but she worked in the business just as much as he did at the beginning, and Jeff himself said Amazon wouldn't exist without her work.
  - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
    Most successful startups wouldn't exist without the hard work of those who were not founders. To be honest I don't think Mackenzie herself would consider herself "basically a cofounder".
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    For the record, I've read that she did some accounting for the first year. Generally founders don't consider early bookkeeping to be a major contribution, though often legal firms get $50,000 and a small amount of stock in SV to run a Wordperfect macro, but: 1) courts could look at that differently and 2) depends on the state's divorce laws. California is proud of being among the "most progressive", but I don't know about their state.
- vmception 6y ago
  and I also find it disingenuous to elevate unpaid spousal contributions to unlimited asset and dollar figures and call that empowerment. that is a slap in the face to every spouse with a much harder life and smaller platform. the divorce settlement they came to was decent and good for them as individuals, clever to separate the voting rights from the assets. Other people adding more to that as a statement for society is what I find disingenuous.

vmception 6y ago

Yes, this is what all university endowments are and do. She gave away 6% of her estimated wealth, extrapolated from the public holdings of her Amazon stock. All wealth estimates pull from a snapshot of a public event and assumes that person never trades in anything at all. With that aside, her estimated wealth jumped 67% this year, and she is donated 6% of the net amount.