5 ms·
He apparently bought this place in 2016: https://streeteasy.com/blog/craigslist-property/ https://streeteasy.com/blog/craigslist-property/
by bluedino 4mo ago
He apparently bought this place in 2016:
https://streeteasy.com/blog/craigslist-property/ https://streeteasy.com/blog/craigslist-property/
- mattbettinson 4mo agoWhat an absolute dream
- jmalicki 4mo agoIt is both absolutely gorgeous and luxurious, yet still at less than $6 million, pretty modest for someone capable of giving away half a billion.
- socalgal2 4mo ago[flagged]
- csbrooks 4mo agoIt's even easier to give away money when you don't have it.
- dyauspitr 4mo agoGiving away money is stupid. With that much money I would rather fund companies that push the frontier on something. If it fails no biggie, if it succeeds it will probably end up employing people and giving them a source of income for life while simultaneously contributing to human progress.
- Forgeties79 4mo agoWhy wouldn’t you fund nonprofits and artists?
- rayiner 4mo agoA lot of non-profits are just jobs programs for people who run in the same educational/social circles as the wealthy people. Not all non-profits obviously. But a shocking amount when you get close to it.
- Forgeties79 4mo agoAnd for-profit companies are better than a quality non-profit…how?
- rayiner 4mo agoNote my caveat: "Not all non-profits obviously." I didn't say anything about a "quality non-profit." I said that a lot of non-profits are jobs programs for people who travel in the same social circles as wealthy people. Those non-profits often make little meaningful impact. Those non-profits are worse than for-profit companies because ineffectual for-profit companies at least go out of business. By contrast, fund-raising for non-profits generally isn't based on results, it's based on social networks. Donors get the same tax write-off whether the non-profit is effective or not. And they have social reasons for donating to non-profits run by people they or their spouse went to school with, grew up with, etc.
- Forgeties79 4mo agoWhy does any of this need to be discussed? Did you think I was saying just throw money at any random nonprofit without any research? Do you think I blindly trust all non-profits? Clearly the implication is “give to quality non-profits.” I didn’t just start talking about how there are lots of bad private companies, I assumed what you meant. So this just feels like an attempt at spiking the conversation.
- dyauspitr 4mo agoBecause you get very little value from them. I haven’t seen anything paradigm shifting come out of non profit besides OpenAI which they then promptly turned into a for profit spinoff.
- jmalicki 4mo agoYou're saying charities like OpenAI that people have given money to haven't pushed the frontier on anything? You'd rather vibecode a SaaS or start a dropshipping business because that is somehow pushing the frontier more than a charity like OpenAI people gave away money to?
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- Rooster61 4mo agoThat's a very naive, but common, viewpoint of wealth. "Worth" 1.3 billion does not mean "has 1.3 billion lying around in liquid cash". Net worth is tied up usually in many bank accounts across multiple banks, securities, real estate, trusts, etc. And that's all excluding capital tied up in corporations/orgs. Freeing up and giving away half of a billion dollar net worth is a difficult and time consuming thing, one which requires effort to do.
- tripleee 4mo agoI promise they can afford to hire someone to do the difficult and time consuming thing here.
- Rooster61 4mo agoThey certainly can. And the list of people who have become rich only to have it siphoned away by bean counters is at least as long as the people who are still rich.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- hnthrow10282910 4mo agoWell when you say it like that, he’s basically just one of us!
- brazukadev 4mo agoYou would not, tho. The people that think they need to get rich first before giving away won't ever give away. They always want more.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- swatcoder 4mo agoIt's easy for some to give away money if they have it, but it's hard to accumulate that much money if you're one of those people. Newmark maybe representing the occasional exception, most people who accumulate great wealth through their effort and ideas are afflicted with an addiction problem and have a hard time saying "this is enough for me". They become attached to how much more wealth they might be able to gather and recognize how the wealth they already hold plays a role in making the most of that. Even if they somehow imagine themselves as philanthropists or minimalists, they tend to put off giving away too much too soon under the rationale that they'll be able to eventually share more if they hold out and use it more practically. And if you don't have that kind of mindset, you're probably just not going to climb your way into the level of riches we're discussing here. You might still do quite well as far as most people are concerned, but that billionaire milestone is hard to catch without some propensity for wealth addiction.
- throwway120385 4mo ago> Even if they somehow imagine themselves as philanthropists or minimalists, they tend to put off giving away too much too soon under the rationale that they'll be able to eventually share more if they hold out and use it more practically. What you're describing sounds exactly like Effective Altruism. The issue is that the expected value of an act that happens at an unspecified time in the future is zero.
- selcuka 4mo ago> the expected value of an act that happens at an unspecified time in the future is zero It doesn't have to be an unspecified time. Imagine you make $100K and want to donate $50K of that every year. One might say "well, I will bank that money instead, buy a property for $250K, then donate the rental income forever". You now have a specific time in the future (almost, depending on how property prices fluctuate in the next 5 years).
- georgemcbay 4mo ago> it's easy to give away money if you have it. You'd think that, and yet so few of them give anything significant away (unless you count political donations). For every one Newmark or MacKenzie Scott who does give there are hundreds who only use charitable trusts as a tax haven, if at all. So when one of them manages to avoid the extreme-wealth-to-meanness pipeline theorized by Paul Piff (et al) I'm happy to recognize the good they are doing in the world when so many of their peers are going so hard in the other direction.
- rayiner 4mo ago> MacKenzie Scott What exactly has been achieved with the billions MacKenzie Scott has given away? She seems to do very little vetting of the organizations she donates to. And upon a cursory inspection, they mostly seem like the kinds of organizations where most of the donor dollars go to white collar non-profit employees that produce little in the way of results, with very little going to needy people. I feel like the billions might be better used to piggyback on government programs that have already identified need. For example, we could offer universal school lunch for an incremental $11 billion a year (on top of the $18 billion the government already spends). I bet a few of these “giving pledge” billionaires could just fund such a program in perpetuity.
- georgemcbay 4mo agoNot really interested in arguing about whether or not she is giving her money away perfectly or to the best causes according to your (or my or anyone's) standards. She gets credit from me for doing actual philanthropy instead of just cosplaying it for tax purposes, which has been the norm even for quite a few of the other "giving pledge" donors. As far as bolstering government programs go, I'd love to see billionaires doing more in that area, but I'd also like to see us tax wealth properly to fund the government doing the government's job.
- rayiner 4mo agoIt seems odd to give someone credit for something while refusing to engage with whether those actions have a meaningful positive effect.
- agumonkey 4mo agot's also really easy to get greedy or ambitious/selfish.
- paulddraper 4mo agoIt is empirically not easy.
- dsatrainer 4mo agoI'd be okay with someone who has it giving it to poor old me who has not
- jazz9k 4mo agoI find that the people complaining the most about billionaires, don't put much effort into help others. You can always give away labor, in the form of volunteering.
- browningstreet 4mo agoI respect someone with a good, proper library. So many luxury properties seem to miss that one.
- winstonp 4mo agodo we think he found it on craigslist
- sudo_cowsay 4mo agoLooks cozy and nice. Pretty humble/modest for a guy like that.
- xandrius 4mo ago6 million house is not "modest", cmon.
- SXX 4mo agoHave you checked real estate prices in Manhattan? Today for these prices you can likely buy an appartment. Its just area itself is expensive. Not like owns mansion with a zoo and 100 servants.
- giancarlostoro 4mo agoI mean he owns craigslist I am sure he can summon many people to do his bidding.
- mattkrause 4mo agoTrue—-but half of them forget to actually show up and many of the ones that do try to renegotiate the deal.
- giancarlostoro 4mo agoIf you meme it well enough, you could get people to show up for free and still do it.
- wahnfrieden 4mo agoThe 6 million was a decade ago so can’t be compared with today’s prices
- bigstrat2003 4mo agoThat just means that there does not exist any "modest" property in Manhattan. It doesn't make a $6m purchase modest. There is no frame of reference whatsoever which can justify calling $6m "modest".
- senordevnyc 4mo agoThat style of library is my dream
- nickjj 4mo agoMakes me wonder what a property like that would go for today, 10 years later.
- yubblegum 4mo agoThat or Tribeca have to be my favorite areas of the city to live in if I had silly money which I don't so I don't and likely ever won't unless my venture petfood.ai strikes it big in which case I'll buy the entire building but won't put my name on it with large gold san serif letters. I may be poor but I have class.
- bmitc 4mo agoThat library is sick.
- kennethallen 4mo agoLooks like Blue Prince interiors. :D