4 ms·

You view charity in terms of the benefit to the recipient. I think that's the exact wrong way to view it. I think charity should be measured by how much it hu

You view charity in terms of the benefit to the recipient. I think that's the exact wrong way to view it. I think charity should be measured by how much it hurts to give. $500 million is about 1/20 of Mark Zuckerberg's estimated wealth. He could donate $8.4 billion and still be a billionaire. He could donate $9 billion and still be set for the rest of his life. $500 million is almost inconsequential to him. Compare this to an impoverished widow who lives off of $10K a year and donates half of that. Now that is charity. But by your measure, this is merely five thousand dollars, not 500. MILLION. DOLLARS. That miserly widow. Also, charity isn't charity if there is any kind of quid pro quo. Your name on a building. Donating to that orchestra you always patronize. In Mark's case, the quid pro quo is the positive press he and Facebook receives from it. If he really cared, he'd have given as anonymously as possible (like Chuck Feeney did). Generally, I view acts like this as the wealthy trying to buy their way out of hell.

dudurocha 14y ago
I think you are viewing in the wrong way. I see charity in terms of impact you can make. If I have 1000 bucks, and give 500 for charity, this means that I donate half of what I have. If Zuck fives 500 Million, he donated 1.000.000 times more than me. It doesn't matter how much do he has, it matter how much he can impact. 1 milion dollars are stiill 1 million dollars, despite if the donors has only 2 millions, or 1 billion.
dclusin 14y ago
The present value of the securities is certainly one aspect of measuring the value of said securities to Mr. Zuckerberg. Another aspect would also be the control of his company that he's giving up (since it's primarily stock I assume). The second one I believe is one that would interest Mr. Zuckerberg more than the dollar value of said securities. But even then, it probably amounts to a negligible steak in the company as well.
pablasso 14y ago
It doesn't hurt him as much as the widow, but taxes or not $500 million will do a whole lot more than $5000.
TimJRobinson 14y ago
You're falling prey to one of the biggest flaws in human psychology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game This is a win-win scenario, the charity gets lots of money and he gets his name on a building and positive press. Yet you're turning it into a negative because you believe he gets more than he gives.
epaga 14y ago
On the one hand I can see where you're coming from - charity can very often be done as a self-serving way to justify other evils. Kind of like the dad who out of guilt for never being home buys his kids a nice computer. On the other hand, 500 million dollars hurts for anybody - even viewing it relatively, 1/20th of your wealth is a pretty sizable chunk of change to be giving away. Having his name on it is right in line with the Gates/Buffett thing of trying to provoke other billionaires to action. As a side note...I may be wrong, but as I read your note, I think I hear echoes of Jesus talking about the impoverished widow's donation in Luke 21 - if so, I'd say this is a misunderstanding of what Jesus is getting at here - he's not saying the large donations were bad or wrong, but rather that the woman's giving both(!) of her two small coins caused her donation to be most valuable to God. He was focussing on the positive rather than being cynical about the others' gifts - he simply said her gift was more valuable.
Gormo 14y ago
I'm really, really trying to restrain myself from vigorously flaming you here in the way that I'd be tempted to if I'd seen this post in a forum where the cultural norms tend toward less civility than HN. Suffice to say that I find your views utterly abhorrent and unconscionable. Charity is about helping people who need help, creating more happiness in the world than previously existed. Measuring its virtue in terms of how much pain it creates - for anyone - is a shameful, Manichean inversion of morality. Maybe "the wealthy" are "trying to buy their way out of hell". They're also buying other people's way out of hell. Good on all counts; who wants to see anybody living in hell, other than someone who thinks that pain is good?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

dudurocha 14y ago

I think you are viewing in the wrong way. I see charity in terms of impact you can make. If I have 1000 bucks, and give 500 for charity, this means that I donate half of what I have. If Zuck fives 500 Million, he donated 1.000.000 times more than me. It doesn't matter how much do he has, it matter how much he can impact. 1 milion dollars are stiill 1 million dollars, despite if the donors has only 2 millions, or 1 billion.

dclusin 14y ago

The present value of the securities is certainly one aspect of measuring the value of said securities to Mr. Zuckerberg. Another aspect would also be the control of his company that he's giving up (since it's primarily stock I assume). The second one I believe is one that would interest Mr. Zuckerberg more than the dollar value of said securities. But even then, it probably amounts to a negligible steak in the company as well.

pablasso 14y ago

It doesn't hurt him as much as the widow, but taxes or not $500 million will do a whole lot more than $5000.

TimJRobinson 14y ago

You're falling prey to one of the biggest flaws in human psychology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game This is a win-win scenario, the charity gets lots of money and he gets his name on a building and positive press. Yet you're turning it into a negative because you believe he gets more than he gives.

epaga 14y ago

On the one hand I can see where you're coming from - charity can very often be done as a self-serving way to justify other evils. Kind of like the dad who out of guilt for never being home buys his kids a nice computer. On the other hand, 500 million dollars hurts for anybody - even viewing it relatively, 1/20th of your wealth is a pretty sizable chunk of change to be giving away. Having his name on it is right in line with the Gates/Buffett thing of trying to provoke other billionaires to action. As a side note...I may be wrong, but as I read your note, I think I hear echoes of Jesus talking about the impoverished widow's donation in Luke 21 - if so, I'd say this is a misunderstanding of what Jesus is getting at here - he's not saying the large donations were bad or wrong, but rather that the woman's giving both(!) of her two small coins caused her donation to be most valuable to God. He was focussing on the positive rather than being cynical about the others' gifts - he simply said her gift was more valuable.

Gormo 14y ago

I'm really, really trying to restrain myself from vigorously flaming you here in the way that I'd be tempted to if I'd seen this post in a forum where the cultural norms tend toward less civility than HN. Suffice to say that I find your views utterly abhorrent and unconscionable. Charity is about helping people who need help, creating more happiness in the world than previously existed. Measuring its virtue in terms of how much pain it creates - for anyone - is a shameful, Manichean inversion of morality. Maybe "the wealthy" are "trying to buy their way out of hell". They're also buying other people's way out of hell. Good on all counts; who wants to see anybody living in hell, other than someone who thinks that pain is good?

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]