3 ms·

> Charlie Munger does not decide "what to build", he decides whether to participate. Sure, this is a convenient way to look at this particular situation. Yet I

by dls2016 5y ago

> Charlie Munger does not decide "what to build", he decides whether to participate. Sure, this is a convenient way to look at this particular situation. Yet I google "strings attached donation university" and see many instances of this crap: Koch brothers, John Allison, etc. It's serious enough that Harvard recently issued a "Gift Policy Guide" discourage strings-attached giving. Ironically, only the elite private universities have enough cachet to make such a policy stick.

refurb 5y ago
The schools are entirely free to just reject the donation.
- josefx 5y ago
  Can they? I have seen politicians cut budgets whenever they smelled blood in the water, even when the idea was completely harebrained^1 . Just the offer existing may interfere with a proper building funded through public means. ^1 For some time German universities had to require higher fees from students, officially to provide an improved learning experience. Seeing that universities now had an alternative income source some states cut public funding, they didn't care about the specifics, the courts did, some universities ended up not heating their buildings during winter because they couldn't legally touch the money.
mdp2021 5y ago
And what alternative would you propose? Whatever I finance, I will have to approve. This is a pretty solid principle. What other «way[s] to look at this» are there? Point of view or practical proposal, I do not get what are the other options.
- dls2016 5y ago
  Raising taxes, primarily. Or at least force donations to public institutions to be no-strings-attached. Many years ago when I attended UCSB and this project was in its infancy, someone told me that UCLA has a long-term development plan where large donors can choose from a menu of pre-planned projects. Not sure how true that it, but much better idea. But my more extreme view is that individuals should not be able to amass so many resources to begin with. It's absurd.

refurb 5y ago

The schools are entirely free to just reject the donation.

josefx 5y ago
Can they? I have seen politicians cut budgets whenever they smelled blood in the water, even when the idea was completely harebrained^1 . Just the offer existing may interfere with a proper building funded through public means. ^1 For some time German universities had to require higher fees from students, officially to provide an improved learning experience. Seeing that universities now had an alternative income source some states cut public funding, they didn't care about the specifics, the courts did, some universities ended up not heating their buildings during winter because they couldn't legally touch the money.

mdp2021 5y ago

And what alternative would you propose? Whatever I finance, I will have to approve. This is a pretty solid principle. What other «way[s] to look at this» are there? Point of view or practical proposal, I do not get what are the other options.

dls2016 5y ago
Raising taxes, primarily. Or at least force donations to public institutions to be no-strings-attached. Many years ago when I attended UCSB and this project was in its infancy, someone told me that UCLA has a long-term development plan where large donors can choose from a menu of pre-planned projects. Not sure how true that it, but much better idea. But my more extreme view is that individuals should not be able to amass so many resources to begin with. It's absurd.