6 ms·

Chuck Feeney has died

148 points by anotherhue 3y ago

monero-xmr 3y ago
I guarantee you the $8 billion he gave away was better spent than whatever the government spends multiples of that on every day. And that’s why allowing private people to amass large wealth is useful to society.
- kadoban 3y ago
  The choice isn't between the government or billionares,
- jjtheblunt 3y ago
  > And that’s why allowing private people to amass large wealth is useful to society. Do you mean private people who give it all away, from your first sentence?
- irjustin 3y ago
  I get the sentiment, but i sincerely doubt it. Plus billionaires giving their money away willingly seems hard to guarantee.
- daguava 3y ago
  Trickle down economics does not work, we've got textbooks on this.
- dang 3y ago
  Ok, but please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. They're not the kind of conversation this site is for. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=generic%20ideolog%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
toomuchtodo 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Feeney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Feeney
- Semaphor 3y ago
  Interesting parts: > As of 2016, he lived in a rented apartment in San Francisco, with remaining assets of $2 million. > [I]n 1984, [he] secretly transferred his entire 38.75% stake in DFS, then worth about $500 million, to the foundation. Not even his business partners knew that he no longer personally owned any part of DFS. For years, Atlantic gave away money in secret, requiring recipients to not reveal the sources of their donations.
  - oldbbsnickname 3y ago
    Embodies the antithesis of most billionaires, some of whom abuse the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF) to cheat the US govt (and other US taxpayers) by not paying their fair share. Why pay taxes when you can promise something in the distant future and get a tax dodge now?
    - wbl 3y ago
      A DAF is not promising to give in the future: the shares are given immediately to a charity and must be donated at a certain minimum rate to other recipient charities. A DAF has the same tax status as a charitable foundation you create but without the organizational overhead or potential abuses.
      - somsak2 3y ago
        Have you used a DAF before? Shares actually do not have to be given to a specific charity when using one, at least not what most people would consider a "charity" when they use it colloquially -- this first charity is there mostly for bookkeeping. You are correct that DAF contributions are considered charitable donations in the year they are made, however.
PeterStuer 3y ago
[flagged]
- bhb916 3y ago
  What specifically did you find objectionable in his list of charities?
- phinnaeus 3y ago
  My first look revealed nothing so heinous, care to share some details? I'm not sure I'd consider this guy part of the billionaire class if he, according to TFA, was living as a renter in SF and didn't own a car, and of course had already given away all of his business assets 40 years ago.
raminf 3y ago
Life goals. RIP Mr. Feeney.
SCUSKU 3y ago
Personally I don't believe in effective altruism, however it sounds like Mr. Feeney lived this philosophy much better than Sam Bankman Fried ever did, without attracting attention. May he rest in peace.
- ramraj07 3y ago
  Feeney didn’t do “effective altruism”. Looks like he just gave to whoever he pleased to.
  - dale_glass 3y ago
    I don't have a horse in this race, but I am curious: who did he give to, and in what way do those donations not align with effective altruism?
    - obscur 3y ago
      Effective altruists are most commonly donating to specific relatively high-evidence causes in low-income countries or much more speculative existential risk causes. Donations such as his donations to Carneggie Mellon University are an example of donations that is not common among effective altruists.
    - AdamN 3y ago
      They're kind of missing the most important point of altruism being "effective". It's not that the recipient is effective with the money, it's that the net value of one's altruism is higher if you work and make alot of money and give it to donors rather than if you just did the work that the donors are doing. This is only applicable for those earning more than the people doing the work within the recipient organization of course.
- wombat-man 3y ago
  It was amazing how much attention SBF got for saying he'd donate a lot of money someday. I don't think he made any actual donation or formal commitment.
catonmylap 3y ago
I didn't know who he was until I saw this headline and read the article. Sadly I know who Bezos, Musk and all the others are…
simonswords82 3y ago
If you can access BBC sounds the podcast app from the BBC I recommend you check out this one: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0gd9yql?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0gd9yql?partner=uk.co.bbc... Really insightful and from all accounts Chuck was a rare combination of both shrewd and immensely kind…
Stratoscope 3y ago
> Feeney was a proponent of “Giving While Living,” believing he could make more of a difference in causes he cared about while he was alive, rather than setting up a foundation after he died, according to the Atlantic Philanthropies. > “It’s much more fun to give while you are alive than to give when you are dead.” Words to live by.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gigatexal 3y ago
What a beautiful story and an even more amazing guy for giving it all away. Condolences to his friends and family.
SeanLuke 3y ago
I think the single most important aspect of Chuck Feeney's philanthropy was that it was done quietly, often in secret. He had already secretely given away much of his money before he was outed. If I'm funding the Sean Luke Home for Distressed Kids, or publically giving $100M to, I dunno, the Red Cross, it's not really charity. It's buying a name for myself. The highest charity is giving where there is no quid pro quo at all. This means in secret. (Yes, I know, a public gift by the Bill Gates Foundation might have a chance at attracting other charity, so public charity could in some situations be positive. But it's still a lesser gift compared to Feeney). Charity should also hurt. A poor woman giving $50 she could have used to eat, that hurts. The Bill Gates Foundation giving away $10M is barely noticed. The value of money is nonlinear. Feeney gave away all of his money, as if it were a burden and his duty was to relieve himself of it. [Edit: I should have worded this better. I'm not a Mother Teresa style morality = pain person. But the value of money is highly nonlinear. I think that to be considered real charity, the amount of giving must be considered (nonlinearly) in context of the wealth of the individual. $50 is amazing from someone who is poor. $100M is practically nothing from someone who is superrich, and they should not be lionized for their trivial contribution by Objectivists.] Were I as impressive a man as this. I am not. But I aspire to be. Edit: this statement is terrible: > In 2011, Feeney signed the “Giving Pledge,” a commitment started by Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett that encourages America’s wealthiest families and individuals to dedicate their wealth to philanthropic endeavors. This obfuscates the fact that Gates's Giving Pledge was inspired by what Feeney had done. Feeney didn't agree to live to Gates's principles, but the other way around.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  You really can't "secretly" give away 100m dollars. You just hope they don't dig deep enough and try to uncover you. But 100m gives a lot of attention to muck rackers. >Charity should also hurt. I'm not sure I agree. "the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need." I don't see the philiophical argument for significant sacrifice to be required. Charity isn't altruism. And if we're being pragmatic, 0.1% of a billionaire's riches means a lot more than half the riches of 1000 minimum wage workers. Even if the latter is much more altruistic. Most religions that ask for tithes and offerings work in a similar vein. Tithe literally means "tenth" after all (as in,10% your wealth).
dmkirwan 3y ago
What a legacy. I watched an excellent documentary on this man a few years back[0]. He donated massive sums of money (up to $1 billion) to third level institutions in Ireland, all on the condition of anonymity. I would love to see an assessment of the return that this investment had on Ireland and the world. On institution benefited from the lion's share of this: University of Limerick. I recall the then-President of the university saying in an interview that he was under extreme pressure to reveal the source of investment as there was a significant drug problem in the city at the time and people were speculating it was the proceeds of crime! Another story that came out years after the fact was that he once invested millions in third level education in Ireland on the condition that the government match it, which they reluctantly did. 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMcjxe8slYI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMcjxe8slYI
- dvas 3y ago
  In my opinion, Feeney had a massive impact on Ireland with his contributions. A great example of what it means to give back. Take an example such as a multiplier effect of 5 times, that $1 billion created at least $5 billion of value at a minimum and second-order effects economically that are harder to measure over time.
a_c 3y ago
Highly recommend the biography The Billionaire Who Wasn’t mentioned in the article. Mr Feeney inspired many. RIP
mortallywounded 3y ago
I'm amazed by people I have never heard of that made billions of dollars doing something that seems boring/simple like selling things in an airport. Yet, I work my ass off and had a hard time getting to 20k/month in my software business.
- steveBK123 3y ago
  It’s sort of a truism in wealth management that most fortunes are made quietly in boring stuff you’ve never heard of, far outside NYC/SF bubbles. It’s the unicorn software riches that are uncommon.
AdamN 3y ago
What I really like about him is that he didn't use a tax shelter. He also 'gave' money to the government that he otherwise could have used towards his recipients more aggressively.

148 points by anotherhue 3y ago

I guarantee you the $8 billion he gave away was better spent than whatever the government spends multiples of that on every day. And that’s why allowing private people to amass large wealth is useful to society.

kadoban 3y ago
The choice isn't between the government or billionares,
jjtheblunt 3y ago
> And that’s why allowing private people to amass large wealth is useful to society. Do you mean private people who give it all away, from your first sentence?
irjustin 3y ago
I get the sentiment, but i sincerely doubt it. Plus billionaires giving their money away willingly seems hard to guarantee.
daguava 3y ago
Trickle down economics does not work, we've got textbooks on this.
dang 3y ago
Ok, but please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. They're not the kind of conversation this site is for. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=generic%20ideolog%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

toomuchtodo 3y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Feeney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Feeney

Semaphor 3y ago
Interesting parts: > As of 2016, he lived in a rented apartment in San Francisco, with remaining assets of $2 million. > [I]n 1984, [he] secretly transferred his entire 38.75% stake in DFS, then worth about $500 million, to the foundation. Not even his business partners knew that he no longer personally owned any part of DFS. For years, Atlantic gave away money in secret, requiring recipients to not reveal the sources of their donations.
- oldbbsnickname 3y ago
  Embodies the antithesis of most billionaires, some of whom abuse the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF) to cheat the US govt (and other US taxpayers) by not paying their fair share. Why pay taxes when you can promise something in the distant future and get a tax dodge now?
  - wbl 3y ago
    A DAF is not promising to give in the future: the shares are given immediately to a charity and must be donated at a certain minimum rate to other recipient charities. A DAF has the same tax status as a charitable foundation you create but without the organizational overhead or potential abuses.
    - somsak2 3y ago
      Have you used a DAF before? Shares actually do not have to be given to a specific charity when using one, at least not what most people would consider a "charity" when they use it colloquially -- this first charity is there mostly for bookkeeping. You are correct that DAF contributions are considered charitable donations in the year they are made, however.

PeterStuer 3y ago

[flagged]

bhb916 3y ago
What specifically did you find objectionable in his list of charities?
phinnaeus 3y ago
My first look revealed nothing so heinous, care to share some details? I'm not sure I'd consider this guy part of the billionaire class if he, according to TFA, was living as a renter in SF and didn't own a car, and of course had already given away all of his business assets 40 years ago.

raminf 3y ago

Life goals. RIP Mr. Feeney.

SCUSKU 3y ago

Personally I don't believe in effective altruism, however it sounds like Mr. Feeney lived this philosophy much better than Sam Bankman Fried ever did, without attracting attention. May he rest in peace.

ramraj07 3y ago
Feeney didn’t do “effective altruism”. Looks like he just gave to whoever he pleased to.
- dale_glass 3y ago
  I don't have a horse in this race, but I am curious: who did he give to, and in what way do those donations not align with effective altruism?
  - obscur 3y ago
    Effective altruists are most commonly donating to specific relatively high-evidence causes in low-income countries or much more speculative existential risk causes. Donations such as his donations to Carneggie Mellon University are an example of donations that is not common among effective altruists.
  - AdamN 3y ago
    They're kind of missing the most important point of altruism being "effective". It's not that the recipient is effective with the money, it's that the net value of one's altruism is higher if you work and make alot of money and give it to donors rather than if you just did the work that the donors are doing. This is only applicable for those earning more than the people doing the work within the recipient organization of course.
wombat-man 3y ago
It was amazing how much attention SBF got for saying he'd donate a lot of money someday. I don't think he made any actual donation or formal commitment.

catonmylap 3y ago

I didn't know who he was until I saw this headline and read the article. Sadly I know who Bezos, Musk and all the others are…

simonswords82 3y ago

If you can access BBC sounds the podcast app from the BBC I recommend you check out this one: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0gd9yql?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0gd9yql?partner=uk.co.bbc... Really insightful and from all accounts Chuck was a rare combination of both shrewd and immensely kind…

Stratoscope 3y ago

> Feeney was a proponent of “Giving While Living,” believing he could make more of a difference in causes he cared about while he was alive, rather than setting up a foundation after he died, according to the Atlantic Philanthropies. > “It’s much more fun to give while you are alive than to give when you are dead.” Words to live by.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

gigatexal 3y ago

What a beautiful story and an even more amazing guy for giving it all away. Condolences to his friends and family.

SeanLuke 3y ago

I think the single most important aspect of Chuck Feeney's philanthropy was that it was done quietly, often in secret. He had already secretely given away much of his money before he was outed. If I'm funding the Sean Luke Home for Distressed Kids, or publically giving $100M to, I dunno, the Red Cross, it's not really charity. It's buying a name for myself. The highest charity is giving where there is no quid pro quo at all. This means in secret. (Yes, I know, a public gift by the Bill Gates Foundation might have a chance at attracting other charity, so public charity could in some situations be positive. But it's still a lesser gift compared to Feeney). Charity should also hurt. A poor woman giving $50 she could have used to eat, that hurts. The Bill Gates Foundation giving away $10M is barely noticed. The value of money is nonlinear. Feeney gave away all of his money, as if it were a burden and his duty was to relieve himself of it. [Edit: I should have worded this better. I'm not a Mother Teresa style morality = pain person. But the value of money is highly nonlinear. I think that to be considered real charity, the amount of giving must be considered (nonlinearly) in context of the wealth of the individual. $50 is amazing from someone who is poor. $100M is practically nothing from someone who is superrich, and they should not be lionized for their trivial contribution by Objectivists.] Were I as impressive a man as this. I am not. But I aspire to be. Edit: this statement is terrible: > In 2011, Feeney signed the “Giving Pledge,” a commitment started by Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett that encourages America’s wealthiest families and individuals to dedicate their wealth to philanthropic endeavors. This obfuscates the fact that Gates's Giving Pledge was inspired by what Feeney had done. Feeney didn't agree to live to Gates's principles, but the other way around.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
You really can't "secretly" give away 100m dollars. You just hope they don't dig deep enough and try to uncover you. But 100m gives a lot of attention to muck rackers. >Charity should also hurt. I'm not sure I agree. "the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need." I don't see the philiophical argument for significant sacrifice to be required. Charity isn't altruism. And if we're being pragmatic, 0.1% of a billionaire's riches means a lot more than half the riches of 1000 minimum wage workers. Even if the latter is much more altruistic. Most religions that ask for tithes and offerings work in a similar vein. Tithe literally means "tenth" after all (as in,10% your wealth).

dmkirwan 3y ago

What a legacy. I watched an excellent documentary on this man a few years back[0]. He donated massive sums of money (up to $1 billion) to third level institutions in Ireland, all on the condition of anonymity. I would love to see an assessment of the return that this investment had on Ireland and the world. On institution benefited from the lion's share of this: University of Limerick. I recall the then-President of the university saying in an interview that he was under extreme pressure to reveal the source of investment as there was a significant drug problem in the city at the time and people were speculating it was the proceeds of crime! Another story that came out years after the fact was that he once invested millions in third level education in Ireland on the condition that the government match it, which they reluctantly did. 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMcjxe8slYI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMcjxe8slYI

dvas 3y ago
In my opinion, Feeney had a massive impact on Ireland with his contributions. A great example of what it means to give back. Take an example such as a multiplier effect of 5 times, that $1 billion created at least $5 billion of value at a minimum and second-order effects economically that are harder to measure over time.

a_c 3y ago

Highly recommend the biography The Billionaire Who Wasn’t mentioned in the article. Mr Feeney inspired many. RIP

mortallywounded 3y ago

I'm amazed by people I have never heard of that made billions of dollars doing something that seems boring/simple like selling things in an airport. Yet, I work my ass off and had a hard time getting to 20k/month in my software business.

steveBK123 3y ago
It’s sort of a truism in wealth management that most fortunes are made quietly in boring stuff you’ve never heard of, far outside NYC/SF bubbles. It’s the unicorn software riches that are uncommon.

AdamN 3y ago

What I really like about him is that he didn't use a tax shelter. He also 'gave' money to the government that he otherwise could have used towards his recipients more aggressively.