From what I've heard, the hard part is using the money effectively to create meaningful change. It's easy to "give it to charity", but will it help people or just line the pockets of those operating the charity? Being able to measure the impact, and help people in a way that will be sustainable, is not an easy thing. It would be interesting to be able to follow the money he donated to see if it actually helps people or if it was effectively thrown away, just so he can say he isn't a billionaire.
jonahbenton•5mo ago
True but not the point and also false.
There is a ton of impact measurement- Gates Foundation, for instance, does a tremendous amount of that, as did MacAskill's Effective Altruism infrastructure. The landscape is littered with NGOs doing work and measuring and modeling. CZI and Laurene Powell Jobs' Emerson Collective are orgs that have strong opinions about what and how while still generally being "philanthropists." And there are plenty of folks on the other end of the spectrum, more Chicago School people, who have completely different opinions of what charity is and is not and what our goals for humanity are and so forth.
BOK is saying- none of that is his job, that is not the hat he wants to wear. He is not wrong about that. Having enormous private capital pools is its own dysfunction. The strongest way to say it is that those capital pools are a sociopathic fundamentally unequal indulgence, and there is nothing wrong with relatively indiscriminately giving money away. So much of the metering and the "capital efficiency" of a "charity" that goes on is itself complete bullshit. "Throwing money away" is not a problem. Holding and thinking you think you know better- that's actually a problem.
Cheers.
throwmeaway222•5mo ago
never do that - companies that buy your company can turn around in a few years and sue you for the entire amount back claiming the company wasn't actually worth anything
al_borland•5mo ago
jonahbenton•5mo ago
There is a ton of impact measurement- Gates Foundation, for instance, does a tremendous amount of that, as did MacAskill's Effective Altruism infrastructure. The landscape is littered with NGOs doing work and measuring and modeling. CZI and Laurene Powell Jobs' Emerson Collective are orgs that have strong opinions about what and how while still generally being "philanthropists." And there are plenty of folks on the other end of the spectrum, more Chicago School people, who have completely different opinions of what charity is and is not and what our goals for humanity are and so forth.
BOK is saying- none of that is his job, that is not the hat he wants to wear. He is not wrong about that. Having enormous private capital pools is its own dysfunction. The strongest way to say it is that those capital pools are a sociopathic fundamentally unequal indulgence, and there is nothing wrong with relatively indiscriminately giving money away. So much of the metering and the "capital efficiency" of a "charity" that goes on is itself complete bullshit. "Throwing money away" is not a problem. Holding and thinking you think you know better- that's actually a problem.
Cheers.