<story><title>Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke</title><url>https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2020/09/15/exclusive-the-billionaire-who-wanted-to-die-brokeis-now-officially-broke/#2d2d3103a2aa</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>gringoDan</author><text>&amp;gt; we must remind ourselves that this is unimpressive compared to the poor person who donates $25 to others while starving herself&lt;p&gt;Is it? This is a very Christian way of looking at donations: personal sacrifice &amp;#x2F; self-deprivation is what matters. [1]&lt;p&gt;However, utilitarians – notably Effective Altruists [2] – would make the opposite argument: what matters is the impact that you make with the dollars you donate (both in amount and allocation).&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Lesson_of_the_widow%27s_mite&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Lesson_of_the_widow%27s_mite&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[2] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.effectivealtruism.org&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.effectivealtruism.org&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>SeanLuke</author><text>I vaguely recall that there are classic levels in Jewish philosophy regarding philanthropy, and among the highest is to give with no expectation of any return whatsoever: that means not only giving where it matters, but to do so anonymously, to organizations that don&amp;#x27;t benefit you (no opera companies), and to people with no ties to you.  In this respect Chuck Feeney has been incredible.&lt;p&gt;This is not to dismiss the likes of Bill Gates: he has been very public with his donations, but in some cases (notably celebrity) notoriety in your donations may create a multiplier effect as it encourages others to do likewise.  Even so, I think this is still on a lower-rung, philanthropy-wise, than Feeney&amp;#x27;s approach.&lt;p&gt;Nonetheless, we&amp;#x27;re sitting here praising someone who reduced himself from billions to $2M, but we must remind ourselves that this is unimpressive compared to the poor person who donates $25 to others while starving herself.  The value of money is nonlinear.  I&amp;#x27;m sure that Feeney would say this as well: he no doubt sees himself as saddled with the burden of billions of dollars rather than someone doing something amazing.&lt;p&gt;I wonder if I ever will have the strength to do what he has done.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>teruakohatu</author><text>Gates&amp;#x27; wealth keeps increasing. Sure he gives a lot away but, but he is making 1+ billion per year above what he gives away.&lt;p&gt;It is great that money is going to charity, it is great that money previously belonging to Gates&amp;#x27; is going to charity, but I would be far more impressed by you if you donated $100&amp;#x2F;year to the Internet Archive than I am if Bill Gates donated $100 million.&lt;p&gt;In other words, I don&amp;#x27;t think anyone claims that $100 will help more than $100 million, but there is no great personal moral achievement in giving away something you don&amp;#x27;t need and can&amp;#x27;t use.</text></comment>
<story><title>Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke</title><url>https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2020/09/15/exclusive-the-billionaire-who-wanted-to-die-brokeis-now-officially-broke/#2d2d3103a2aa</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>gringoDan</author><text>&amp;gt; we must remind ourselves that this is unimpressive compared to the poor person who donates $25 to others while starving herself&lt;p&gt;Is it? This is a very Christian way of looking at donations: personal sacrifice &amp;#x2F; self-deprivation is what matters. [1]&lt;p&gt;However, utilitarians – notably Effective Altruists [2] – would make the opposite argument: what matters is the impact that you make with the dollars you donate (both in amount and allocation).&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Lesson_of_the_widow%27s_mite&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Lesson_of_the_widow%27s_mite&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[2] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.effectivealtruism.org&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.effectivealtruism.org&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>SeanLuke</author><text>I vaguely recall that there are classic levels in Jewish philosophy regarding philanthropy, and among the highest is to give with no expectation of any return whatsoever: that means not only giving where it matters, but to do so anonymously, to organizations that don&amp;#x27;t benefit you (no opera companies), and to people with no ties to you.  In this respect Chuck Feeney has been incredible.&lt;p&gt;This is not to dismiss the likes of Bill Gates: he has been very public with his donations, but in some cases (notably celebrity) notoriety in your donations may create a multiplier effect as it encourages others to do likewise.  Even so, I think this is still on a lower-rung, philanthropy-wise, than Feeney&amp;#x27;s approach.&lt;p&gt;Nonetheless, we&amp;#x27;re sitting here praising someone who reduced himself from billions to $2M, but we must remind ourselves that this is unimpressive compared to the poor person who donates $25 to others while starving herself.  The value of money is nonlinear.  I&amp;#x27;m sure that Feeney would say this as well: he no doubt sees himself as saddled with the burden of billions of dollars rather than someone doing something amazing.&lt;p&gt;I wonder if I ever will have the strength to do what he has done.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>SeanLuke</author><text>&amp;gt; This is a very Christian way of looking at donations: personal sacrifice &amp;#x2F; self-deprivation is what matters.&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t think it&amp;#x27;s what matters necessarily, but I &lt;i&gt;do&lt;/i&gt; think that this is why he is receiving praise here and elsewhere.  That&amp;#x27;s a problem, because if we&amp;#x27;re going to praise him for his sacrifice, we should remind ourselves that his sacrifice is minor compared to other donations due to the nonlinear effect of money.&lt;p&gt;Now Feeney certainly has had more of an &lt;i&gt;impact&lt;/i&gt;, and that&amp;#x27;s great, but he had that impact because he was fortunate enough to have billions of dollars to give away in the first place.  Being lucky is not a valid reason to be praised, I think.&lt;p&gt;Indeed I don&amp;#x27;t think Feeney wants to be praised: he just wants to be rid of his wealth in a meaningful way.</text></comment>