8 ms·
MacKenzie Scott is giving away more money, faster, than anyone has before
- 1cvmask 5y agohttps://archive.md/9ZISw https://archive.md/9ZISw
- FetusP 5y agoAppreciate you. I miss the days of simple internet where you could just click and read without accepting cookies, subscriptions, ad blocker blockers... Etc
- GhettoComputers 5y agoYou could try no JavaScript.
- FetusP 5y agoI have/do. It's a very mixed bag of results
- 1cvmask 5y agoThere are so many examples of massive fortunes that were given away completely. No mention of them at all. Andrew Carnegie gave away a larger fortune as a percentage of GDP for instance. Chuck Feeney, inspired by Andrew Carnegie and his essay Wealth, gave away his fortune anonymously while alive: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-54300268 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-54300268
- reginold 5y agoBut there's no calls for Scott Hall ;)
- ramraj07 5y agoNot to discount but Mackenzie Scott is giving it away within a few years of getting it. Not wait till the end of their lives and just write it off. Still great to do, but not to discount the impressiveness of what she’s doing.
- notsureaboutpg 5y agoThis isn't true. She's essentially had all the fruits of that wealth during her entire marriage to Bezos. I mean, she just "legally" got it. But in reality she was getting to enjoy it for decades.
- jimbob45 5y agoThe dead comment below yours had a legitimate point but it’s highly unlikely she could have actually been as philanthropic while still married to Jeff due to sharing issues.
- marcell 5y agoMackenzie Scott didn’t earn her fortune, so it’s not really comprable to those who did. She is giving away a windfall.
- GhettoComputers 5y agoShe did help with Amazon starting, I don’t think she was a trophy wife who had no effect on Amazon.
- stbtrax 5y agoyeah because all of the wealthy bootstrapped themselves and didn't start with a fortune or great privilege
- missedthecue 5y agoLots of people start with fortunes and great privilege. Why aren't they all worth $60B? Both you and I are in places of great privilege. Why aren't we billionaires?
- ldjkfkdsjnv 5y agoPretty easy to squander what you didnt earn
- devwastaken 5y agoPoint foundations requirements: https://pointfoundation.org/point-apply/application-faqs/ https://pointfoundation.org/point-apply/application-faqs/ "A proven track record of leadership and community involvement Strong academic achievement Working for the betterment of the LGBTQ community Financial need" These orgs don't actually research their target base. You can't show strong leadership without your parents having the funds to put you in programs to show that and get references. You're not going to get great marks at bad schools. And you're sure as hell not doing any of those when your parents disown you. It's not a foundation to help, it's a foundation to fund elitism. People like Mackenzie Scott are better served in making their own orgs if their intention is to help people in need and not give people a free ride they already could afford.
- s5300 5y ago> It's not a foundation to help, it's a foundation to fund elitism. Dude… what?
- thisarticle 5y agoThey’re basically saying “Rich people should give money to people in need. Not those needy. Not those needy either, gawd.”
- epicureanideal 5y agoAlright, I had to upvote that even though I disagree with you, just because that was hilarious and made me laugh out loud.
- dahart 5y agoThe comment is referring to the meritocracy trap; the observation that it takes privilege to get to a position of being able to excel at hard work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#The_Meritocracy_Trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#The_Meritocracy_Tr...
- 5y ago
- lazyasciiart 5y agoIt helps to have more money than anyone else has before.
- jldugger 5y agoAnd as the article points out, despite the philanthropy she's even more wealthy now than when she started: > Shares in the ecommerce giant have rallied some 95% since then. Ms Scott’s safe is fuller now than it was when she began shovelling money out the door.
- onion2k 5y agoEven if she fails to give it all away in her lifetime, she has signed up to The Giving Pledge which means the rest will be given away after she dies. Many billionaires have signed up to the same pledge. Notably, however, Jeff Bezos hasn't sign it.
- jollybean 5y agoBezos, Gates, Musk, Buffer have their fortunes tied up in the operational reality of their companies. Gates and Buffet have committed to giving away almost everything, and at least for now, frankly, it's probably better for all of us that Musk keeps plowing into Musk projects. Mackenzies money is essentially her bank account, which is a very different thing. It's not a condemnation, but I think an important contextualization.
- sumedh 5y ago> Mackenzies money is essentially her bank account, Isnt that "money" in Amazon stock, just like Buffett and Gates whose "money" is in stocks of various companies.
- bongoman37 5y agoNot true for Gates.
- ivalm 5y agoMackenzie’s money is as tied or not to operational realities as Jeff’s, as their fortunes are in the form of Amazon stock. Both of them are capable of saying “I am selling X shares to give to philanthropy” except only one of them does it.
- eftychis 5y agoThere is the reality of wanting to keep control of your company. I can't guess Bezos' reasoning and philanthropy beyond that -- I don't have access to his taxes to state if he gives some amount secretly or not. I would be more surprised than you if he doesn't give anything as there is a substantial tax incentive. But a lot of people give away or become art benefactors in the U.S. because taxes. At the end of the day, I would suggest we don't wait for anyone to feel bad about us to give us philanthropy. If they do great, but if they don't we should take care of our society's kids.
- onion2k 5y agoThere is the reality of wanting to keep control of your company. Jeff owns about 10% of Amazon in shares that have ordinary voting rights. He stood down as CEO a little while ago. Retaining control is not the reason, because he doesn't have control.
- senectus1 5y agoIf Billionaires must give away their money rather than give it to inefficient gov's in the form of taxes I'd much prefer that do they do things that involve market forces that improve the world as a whole. A great example of this I feel is (and I'm biased here, I work for one of his businesses) Andrew Forrest. Using his business connections and buying power to try and force a clean supply chain from slavery. Using his investing and business building capability to develop Green Hydrogen and Green Ammonia supplies and doing it in places that can utilize their renewable resources to export them. etc etc Its not a perfect set of solutions, but it fits in a capitalist gov corrupted world, so that we all benefit. Putting himself and his money out there in a way that benefits everyone and also those not involved. Making market forces be profitable AND responsible in a way that isn't just greenwashing or just dumping money into a pet charity.
- GhettoComputers 5y agoCapitalism isn’t corruption. It’s just sales. Doug Tompkins who founded north face bought a bunch of land and it’s now a national park in Chile.
- senectus1 5y agoI don't agree that Gov's are not corrupted by capitalism. neither are corrupt on their own, but you layer one with the other and it seems to me that corruption is nearly inevitable, ubiquitous even.
- GhettoComputers 5y agoAny non capitalist governments with no corruption?
- senectus1 5y agoI didn't jump up and down saying there there is an alternative. But called a spade a spade.
- 5y ago
- monocasa 5y agoIn 1324 Mansa Musa gave away so much on his pilgrimage to Mecca that he crashed the North African gold market for ten years. On his way back, realizing that he had caused massive inflation, he borrowed as much gold as he could with high interest rates attempting to bring the price back down. It's the only time in recorded history that a single man controlled the price of gold for the Mediterranean. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansa_Musa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansa_Musa
- garmaine 5y agoSeriously the first thing I thought of. Don't make bombastic claims if you don't know your history...
- sillysaurusx 5y ago1324 is nearly a millennium ago. I think they can have this one. It's also hard to measure wealth from that era with respect to modern money systems. Most money is an abstraction now. Was it then? He also made the city a part of his empire when he returned in 1325. I'm not sure enriching an area and then capturing it counts as giving away your wealth.
- monocasa 5y ago"The city", he crashed the market for the entire Mediterranean, and that was predominately because of what he gave away in Cairo (a city he never part of his empire, and the primary market for gold at the time).
- sillysaurusx 5y agoHe was a warlord who conquered territory with force. I don't understand how anyone can believe that his contributions were made with philanthropic intentions. Imagine Paul Graham conquering San Fransisco after measurably enriching North America. Would you still feel inclined to feel he's charitable? Timbuktu was the center of trade at the time. Making it a part of his empire was a logical move.
- bshepard 5y ago"We are often told that the poor are grateful for charity. Some of them are, no doubt, but the best amongst the poor are never grateful. They are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious. They are quite right to be so. Charity they feel to be a ridiculously inadequate mode of partial restitution, or a sentimental dole, usually accompanied by some impertinent attempt on the part of the sentimentalist to tyrannise over their private lives. Why should they be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man’s table?"-- Oscar Wilde
- sillysaurusx 5y agoWhat a horrible quote. It sounds like Oscar has never spent any time around poor people. Those crumbs can make or break their ability to treat a life threatening wound. https://watsi.org/ https://watsi.org/
- jakelazaroff 5y agoI don’t think the quote is criticizing charity itself, but rather the inequity and lack of redistribution that makes charity necessary.
- echelon 5y agoMacKenzie Scott is giving away more money faster than ever, and yet this thread is full of comments saying that it isn't going to be effective or isn't enough. Or that it was a windfall she didn't earn. Or that the poor shouldn't be happy about crumbs while the rich dine on caviar. Can't we applaud her for what she's doing?
- lordnacho 5y agoI agree in applauding her, but I also don't think she didn't earn it. She signed up to be part of a team with her husband, and part of that agreement is you get a piece of the earnings if you get divorced. You can claim that Jeff did all the work but she held up her end of the bargain.
- raverbashing 5y ago
- eric4smith 5y ago[flagged]
- yaacov 5y agoShe should slow down and get better at picking cost-effective charities
- ISL 5y agoThe time-value of money is a real thing. Her speed has real value.
- crakenzak 5y agomeh, easy to give away money by the boatload if you didn't earn it yourself.
- selcuka 5y agoIf it was easy everyone who inherited a big chunk of money would give it away.
- tehwebguy 5y agoPeople cannot “earn” $60B, they can work hard and smart but luck is always the key multiplier in reaching astronomical success.
- sheerdried13 5y agoYes the luck was marrying a certain person. No hardwork required.
- autotech 5y agoI teach at a technical college and we were the recipients of a milt-million dollar donation from Makenzie Scott. Our students are mostly low income people with little or college experience. They are not privileged and often have few prospects besides a dead end mcjob. They leave our school with skills in trades that can put food on their tables consistently. I have no idea what the vetting process was for our grant, all I’m saying is not all of the recipients are some fringe or fashionable interest.
- shawnb576 5y agoJust that tagline alone “ But America’s champion philanthropist operates like a middle-class donor” reeks of condescension. Are there similar articles for large grant male philanthropists? Are there similar articles for other rich ladies who are giving money to, say, groups trying to end abortion or democratic institutions? Or just hoarding it altogether? Would this article be written if she was buying yachts and doing normal super rich person consumption stuff?
- karlkeefer 5y agoI think you might be creating the value judgement on middle-class? I don't read the label as condescending.
- TYPE_FASTER 5y agoShe gave the biggest donation on record to a local food bank during the pandemic.
- GoodJokes 5y ago“Middle class giving” If you all couldn’t tell by now, the economist is a elitist British rag run by 20 something’s that don’t have the balls to put their actual names to articles.