MacKenzie Scott is giving away more money, faster, than anyone has before | Hacker News Reader

MacKenzie Scott is giving away more money, faster, than anyone has before

economist.com

88 pointscarabiner97 comments

I teach at a technical college and we were the recipients of a milt-million dollar donation from Makenzie Scott. Our students are mostly low income people with little or college experience. They are not privileged and often have few prospects besides a dead end mcjob. They leave our school with skills in trades that can put food on their tables consistently. I have no idea what the vetting process was for our grant, all I’m saying is not all of the recipients are some fringe or fashionable interest.

In 1324 Mansa Musa gave away so much on his pilgrimage to Mecca that he crashed the North African gold market for ten years. On his way back, realizing that he had caused massive inflation, he borrowed as much gold as he could with high interest rates attempting to bring the price back down. It's the only time in recorded history that a single man controlled the price of gold for the Mediterranean.

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

Seriously the first thing I thought of. Don't make bombastic claims if you don't know your history...

1324 is nearly a millennium ago. I think they can have this one.

It's also hard to measure wealth from that era with respect to modern money systems. Most money is an abstraction now. Was it then?

He also made the city a part of his empire when he returned in 1325. I'm not sure enriching an area and then capturing it counts as giving away your wealth.

"Dude lived so long ago, is okay to forget his generosity"

A warlord would need to be pretty generous to make up for their past. We're not exactly talking about a Watsi donor here.

"The city", he crashed the market for the entire Mediterranean, and that was predominately because of what he gave away in Cairo (a city he never part of his empire, and the primary market for gold at the time).

He was a warlord who conquered territory with force. I don't understand how anyone can believe that his contributions were made with philanthropic intentions.

Imagine Paul Graham conquering San Fransisco after measurably enriching North America. Would you still feel inclined to feel he's charitable?

Timbuktu was the center of trade at the time. Making it a part of his empire was a logical move.

> Timbuktu was peacefully annexed by King Musa I when returning from his pilgrimage in 1324 to Mecca.

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

The very next line:

> The city became part of the Mali Empire and Musa I ordered the construction of a royal palace.

I don't think MacKenzie is ordering anyone to build a palace for her.

It's sad that this thread had to be buried because HN can't just be happy that MacKenzie is giving away wealth. It's an intellectually interesting, substantive, new phenomenon. Instead we get "Actually this warlord from the past gave away more than her" and "The best poor people are ungrateful for charity."

He paid for it. You don't think MacKenzie has a house that would be considered a palace? And what's your point now?

The comparison seems incongruent. Surely her donations aren't on the same scale as, say, the stimulus checks, let alone the sort of money that would crash the entire US economy.

It's funny how you chose Mansa Musa as an example because I just watched an Epic Rap Battles of History between Jeff Bezos and Mansa Musa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCeUvPL9rMc

Point foundations requirements: https://pointfoundation.org/point-apply/application-faqs/

"A proven track record of leadership and community involvement Strong academic achievement Working for the betterment of the LGBTQ community Financial need"

These orgs don't actually research their target base. You can't show strong leadership without your parents having the funds to put you in programs to show that and get references. You're not going to get great marks at bad schools. And you're sure as hell not doing any of those when your parents disown you.

It's not a foundation to help, it's a foundation to fund elitism. People like Mackenzie Scott are better served in making their own orgs if their intention is to help people in need and not give people a free ride they already could afford.

> It's not a foundation to help, it's a foundation to fund elitism.

Dude… what?

They’re basically saying “Rich people should give money to people in need. Not those needy. Not those needy either, gawd.”

Alright, I had to upvote that even though I disagree with you, just because that was hilarious and made me laugh out loud.

The comment is referring to the meritocracy trap; the observation that it takes privilege to get to a position of being able to excel at hard work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#The_Meritocracy_Tr...

I am not really sure how a scholarship could do otherwise, but arguably it's better to support 10 LGBTQ kids who aren't in a position to be able to get the credentials to get a scholarship.

Ideally you'd do both, I'd hope, just because we haven't solved world hungry doesn't mean scientific research is a waste of time and money. Don't get me wrong, it's ridiculous that we haven't solved world hunger, but we can also both support people with a social safety net and also support education.

Still waiting on that social safety net though.

> I am not really sure how to scholarship could do otherwise

There are whole countries where higher education is provided to all interested residents, e.g., Finland, Norway, right?

I’d agree we should do both -- I don’t actually see a distinction between solving hunger and supporting education, they’re two sides of the same coin.

> but arguably it's better to support 10 LGBTQ kids

Why? You just engaged in elitism, by putting LGBTQ above everyone else.

No, I made a comparison between two options.

And then I stated the paradox you are attempting to I assume explain to me?

There's no need to pretend there's an argument.

Parents dictate these outcomes, not the teens. Those in the best position to meet these requirements fundamentally need them the least, because their parents had the money and ability to put their kids into good schools, good programs, volunteering, and did not throw them to the streets for their LGBTQ status. That already meets plenty of generic scholarship requirements. If this org was for the betterment of LGBTQ individuals they would target those whom are disadvantaged and did not have these opportunities.

I replied in a separate comment, but want to respond to this:

> their parents had the money and ability to put their kids into good schools, good programs, volunteering, and did not throw them to the streets for their LGBTQ status. That already meets plenty of generic scholarship requirements.

I fit your description. My daughter applied for well over 100 independent scholarships. She received zero. Her peers had about the same success rate.

Anyone whose parents earn above poverty wages will find it exceedingly difficult to qualify for scholarships, because the vast majority are need based and hugely oversubscribed.

Sure, the top top tier of valedictorians and overachievers may get those elusive full ride or performance-based scholarships, but that is a tiny minority and far from the "generic scholarship requirements."

If you disagree, I suggest you fill out the FAFSA application to understand the depth of financial analysis done on parents and students. Though designed for federal financial aid, many schools and scholarship programs also use it to screen for financial need.

> it's a foundation to fund elitism

This is a complete false dichotomy. You appear to be arguing that either an organization funds highly underprivileged or homeless youth from "bad schools" or they're funding elitism? "Giving people a free ride they already could afford?" I disagree.

College expenses are so ridiculously high that a broad swath of the middle class can simply not afford to help their children pay for college. A University of California school costs over $35,000/year for California residents. Private schools and costs for out of state residents are far higher. Add in bare bones other expenses, and an almost-impossible-to-attain-in-4-years-4-year-degree can cost $150K+ for a public school.

These people are not "elites." These are solid middle class families and the college cost problem is huge. Imagine making enough money to support your family, pay ridiculous rent/house prices, get your kids into decent programs, maybe save a bit for retirement...and are ineligible for almost all forms of financial aid, and 90% of scholarships, because that salary that barely pays the cost of living is considered excessive. Getting a second mortgage or raiding a retirement fund may not be an option. And what if you have 2 or 3 kids?

This is assuming that these families still support their kids after they've come out.

As a result, hundreds of thousands of young people start their lives under a crushing debt burden that can't be lifted even through bankruptcy. Or, they simply skip college entirely. An organization that assists with college costs by looking at a student's complete picture (not just financial need) will help far more people than "elites."

Not every LGBTQ student gets disowned by their families. Some do and still show strong leadership simply by continuing to strive for a college of their dreams. Some, tragically, suffer in immeasurable and innumerable ways and may need other kinds of support. All of these kids deserve a chance, and if this organization helps some of them then I think that's fantastic.

The attitude of "if you're not helping this one segment that I deem most at risk then you're part of the problem" is corrosive and unnecessarily cynical.

The people in need I am talking about are the middle class. The overwhelming majority of families don't have the time, money, or education necessary to do these things. This is especially true of those in poverty.

That would be all fine and good if there was support systems that actually helped those whom needed it. FAFSA even at it's maximum amount doesn't cover that much, and it certainly won't cosign a private loan.

These kinds of "merit based" scholarships are everywhere and overwhelmingly taken by those whom don't even need a college degree. The only thing different with this one is they plaster LGBTQ over it the same as Apple or Google will wave rainbows around. That doesn't actually target the community that needs it.

What I'm interpreting from you here is: "these well off middle class kids deserve this more because they're well off middle class kids that can't afford the California schools.". That's elitism.

You're interpreting incorrectly. I never used the word "more" in my response.

My points are:

(a) "merit based" scholarships are not everywhere. The vast majority are financial need based - which is not a bad thing.

(b) You mentioned "bad schools" and "elites" - nothing about the middle class. My point was to assert that just because someone can afford to live where there are decent public schools doesn't mean they can afford college. These people are not "elites." The cost of California schools was a data point; the problem is nationwide.

(c) A charity which chooses to help kids who need help is still doing good, even if some of the kids are not the most disadvantaged in the country.

At no point did I indicate that "middle class kids that can't afford California schools" were somehow more deserving than those with a poorer SES. I simply pointed out that they exist, and that some do need help, and they frequently fall into a gap of being neither rich enough or poor enough to get help.

First you accused the charity of elitism, and now you accuse me of elitism. I find that interesting and curious.

Financial based scholarships are bad. They assume that the parents are giving money to the children. By definition every single person going to collage has no money as they are still children, not even legal adults.

They also make very odd choices like your family must be under the poverty line ($14k) yet a family making $25k is no more able to pay for college.

>This is a complete false dichotomy.

Her wealth makes her part of the elite. She is deciding by her own made up rules who deserves and who does not deserves her help and money. If that is not elitism what is it? Just because she chooses what are called "historically disenfranchised" does not make it fine. The elitism comes from her ruling from on high as she wishes without oversight. Which she is doing so it is elitism plain and simple.

Elitism. -Control, rule, or domination by the members of an elite.

OP was saying the LGBTQ charity that gave scholarships to students was elitist because it incorporated criteria like leadership and performance in addition to financial need. That's what I responded to.

I did not comment on whether MacKenzie Scott is elitist or not.

And as the article points out, despite the philanthropy she's even more wealthy now than when she started:

> Shares in the ecommerce giant have rallied some 95% since then. Ms Scott’s safe is fuller now than it was when she began shovelling money out the door.

Even if she fails to give it all away in her lifetime, she has signed up to The Giving Pledge which means the rest will be given away after she dies. Many billionaires have signed up to the same pledge.

Notably, however, Jeff Bezos hasn't sign it.

Just that tagline alone “ But America’s champion philanthropist operates like a middle-class donor” reeks of condescension.

Are there similar articles for large grant male philanthropists? Are there similar articles for other rich ladies who are giving money to, say, groups trying to end abortion or democratic institutions? Or just hoarding it altogether?

Would this article be written if she was buying yachts and doing normal super rich person consumption stuff?

I think you might be creating the value judgement on middle-class? I don't read the label as condescending.

"We are often told that the poor are grateful for charity. Some of them are, no doubt, but the best amongst the poor are never grateful. They are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious. They are quite right to be so. Charity they feel to be a ridiculously inadequate mode of partial restitution, or a sentimental dole, usually accompanied by some impertinent attempt on the part of the sentimentalist to tyrannise over their private lives. Why should they be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man’s table?"-- Oscar Wilde

MacKenzie Scott is giving away more money faster than ever, and yet this thread is full of comments saying that it isn't going to be effective or isn't enough. Or that it was a windfall she didn't earn. Or that the poor shouldn't be happy about crumbs while the rich dine on caviar.

Can't we applaud her for what she's doing?

I agree in applauding her, but I also don't think she didn't earn it. She signed up to be part of a team with her husband, and part of that agreement is you get a piece of the earnings if you get divorced. You can claim that Jeff did all the work but she held up her end of the bargain.

I'd suggest you try to explain this to the next person that asks you for money on the streets.

> Some of them are, no doubt, but the best amongst the poor are never grateful

What does this even mean? That ungrateful poor people are the best poor people?

This entire thread is actually making me upset. I'll bow out.

/r/antiwork would have a field day with that quote. It's pretty much the poster child of disconnected rich folk. A real "let them eat cake" mentality.

That ungrateful poor people are the best poor people?

The best among the poor are ungrateful because they don't want to have to rely on charity; they want to be self-reliant, to work and earn and not need charity in the first place. Rather than being grateful for charity they want a society where they don't end up in a situation where charity is necessary.

In a just society people would have equality, equity, and opportunity to provide for themselves, and support from the community if they're unlucky enough not to be able to. No one should have to be grateful for someone else's help because no one should need someone else's help. Needing to rely on the charity of another person is an indignity that drives home how unequal two people are.

Since you seem interested in chatting, I left a response over on a parallel thread. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29413523

In a society where some people get more than others, it's hard to imagine that there are zero poor people. Therefore it's up to the rich to be generous enough to help them. It doesn't even cost us that much -- small acts of charity can ahve a huge impact.

it's hard to imagine that there are zero poor people

Of course, but that's OK. "Poor" is a relative term that we measure against "rich". It's OK to be poor.

I don't believe the rich should give to the poor simply to equalize how much wealth each person has. The concept of rich people is fine. One day I'd like to be one. Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk could marry and form the world's first half-a-trillion-dollars power couple for all I care. The issue is people having that much money while at the same time people on their doorstep are starving, homeless, and dying because they have to ration their medicine. The fact that corporations and the elite refuse to pay taxes means the structural issues in society aren't being addressed (taxation is part of the issue; how the government spends what they raise in taxes is the other half.)

We could live in a society where no one is homeless, everyone has enough food and warmth, and everyone gets a good education and hospital treatment if they need it, and everyone would be able to work to buy the best Ferrari or to travel or to make art. 21st century human society is capable of that. We choose not to.

Being grateful means implicitly accepting the status quo that poor people have to rely on rich people's charity. Oscar Wilde is saying that society should not accept that status quo, and that wealth redistribution should be unconditional, either via better opportunities of earning money or via taxes. Not sure what makes you upset about that.

It makes me upset for a few reasons, if you're interested to know.

First is the idea that a rich person can measure the "best" type of poor person. Excluding criminals, there aren't better or worse poor people. Just people struggling to survive.

The second is the idea that charity isn't beneficial. I've personally benefitted from countless acts of small charity throughout my life, and I'm not even poor. Nowadays I try to pay it forward by donating to Watsi, and I'm quite certain that the kid whose finger got cut off by a bandsaw is now grateful to be treating his staph infection, thanks to charitable donations.

The third reason is that it's being used as a talking point on HN rather than us, y'know, thanking her for giving away so much when she didn't need to. It's implicitly criticizing what she's doing. Which would be fine, if the critique had merit. But what is being proposed here, exactly? A wealth redistribution program that makes such "donations" mandatory?

...either via better opportunities of earning money or via taxes.

These aren't the only possibilities.

Are you trying to suggest that a registered non-profit charity organization is an equivalent to a panhandler?

What a horrible quote. It sounds like Oscar has never spent any time around poor people. Those crumbs can make or break their ability to treat a life threatening wound. https://watsi.org/

I don’t think the quote is criticizing charity itself, but rather the inequity and lack of redistribution that makes charity necessary.

She gave the biggest donation on record to a local food bank during the pandemic.

Bezos, Gates, Musk, Buffer have their fortunes tied up in the operational reality of their companies. Gates and Buffet have committed to giving away almost everything, and at least for now, frankly, it's probably better for all of us that Musk keeps plowing into Musk projects.

Mackenzies money is essentially her bank account, which is a very different thing.

It's not a condemnation, but I think an important contextualization.

Mackenzie’s money is as tied or not to operational realities as Jeff’s, as their fortunes are in the form of Amazon stock. Both of them are capable of saying “I am selling X shares to give to philanthropy” except only one of them does it.

There is the reality of wanting to keep control of your company. I can't guess Bezos' reasoning and philanthropy beyond that -- I don't have access to his taxes to state if he gives some amount secretly or not. I would be more surprised than you if he doesn't give anything as there is a substantial tax incentive.

But a lot of people give away or become art benefactors in the U.S. because taxes. At the end of the day, I would suggest we don't wait for anyone to feel bad about us to give us philanthropy. If they do great, but if they don't we should take care of our society's kids.

There is the reality of wanting to keep control of your company.

Jeff owns about 10% of Amazon in shares that have ordinary voting rights. He stood down as CEO a little while ago. Retaining control is not the reason, because he doesn't have control.

Sure. He is still the executive chair of the board and the largest stakeholder. There are different type of board members in companies -- some are "independent" -- essentially free floating and attaching their vote to the "top dog." There was even a top article on hacker news describing how to keep track of your board and what the board does really.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/052816/top-4-...

If you read the summary above, you will note that as part of the settlement Bezos kept the voting rights of their communal stock, she got the ownership of 25% of that stock which was 4% of total. Why do that if it doesn't matter? Note there are only three insiders on the board and only Bezos has above 1%. She could have gotten a board seat if she wanted to I guess -- although things would probably be "interesting."

P.S. If one had a dirty mind, and depending how the contract was written, one could say Scott was selling the stock to remove votes from Bezos. Otherwise, the efficient way would be to borrow money against your stock, sell some later perhaps to cover the low to no interest rate you would get etc. Generally at these scales you only sell stock to diversify, income taxes(rsus/options), or cover interest (and usually not even for that). (Imagine 4% of the Amazon stock up for sale in a matter of weeks.)

On average ~0.5% of amzn trades every day, with some days going up to 1.5%. 4% in a matter of weeks is honestly not going to have too major of impact.

These are not additive however. If you are a daytrader for instance you will buy and sell, say amazon, multiple times in a week, and will clear your portfolio over the weekend or holidays etc. If you do statistical arbitrage/mispricing you keep for weeks usually and you have to account for slippage. (You always have to account for slippage.)

So a 0.5% trading back and forth trying to converge on a price and meet some new demand either way is stable state and it can involve the same players (buyers/sellers incl. market makers). Now imagine if the market suddenly demands an extra 5-10 billion of dollars per week on top of the existing stable demand. The money has to be introduced in the market somehow. It means that for me it must be worth it more to buy amazon over something else in my investing horizon. And even with margin I expect this is going to raise the collateral the clearing houses would require. Now also imagine a SEC entry (form 4) stating that 4% is dropping on the market. A recent example is Elon Musk with Tesla and he tricked people into thinking it was their choice and to my knowledge he still has not sold that whole 10% of his position.(Not 10% of the company...)

Mackenzie has the time to be a full time philanthropist. Despite retiring as CEO of Amazon, Jeff is still playing an active role in Amazon and Blue Origin.

That may be true but wasn’t the point discussed. Grandop suggested other billionaire fortunes are “tied down” while Mackinzie’s was liquid. This is false.

Blue Origin is a hobby.

Well, he is doing it somewhat:

> Bezos’ known charitable gifts, totaling more than $13 billion, would rank him among the biggest donors ever. Except all but about $1.5 billion of that sum are pledges of future money—meaning he hasn’t given the cash away yet. Meanwhile, another major Amazon stockholder is giving away a greater percentage of her fortune, and doing it much faster: Bezos’ ex-wife, MacKenzie Scott.

More details:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2021/07/22/how-je...

No, this is not true.

Bezos needs to maintain a huge an material % ownership of his company in order to maintain control - and - it's something investors will expect.

Mackenzie could care less about influence over Amazon. If the stock markets would allow transactions at that scale without distortion, she could feasibly trade all of her AMZN for some other kind of portfolio and it would be just the same to her.

Completely different situations.

And the same thing applies to almost all Founder/CEOs until they retire, and then for some period afterwards.

Except Jeff’s voting power is tied to Mackinzie’s holding of $AMZN as he retained voting rights (until she sells). The transaction itself is small relative to overall volume.

At some point Jeff might rue the agreement that he votes her shares.

The situation for Gates seems similar? He’s no longer CEO or on the board of directors of Microsoft, and isn’t the largest shareholder either, having donated stock to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Based on the article, they are giving money away at a somewhat slower rate. But maybe for longer?

Gates started selling off large portions of MSFT a long time ago, but at a very controlled and planned rate.

Investors do not like to see serindipitous transactions at that scale, from post-Founders who are still effectively 'Godheads' even if they are not in control.

Just like coupon payments or stock dividends, what matters is the consistency.

So they signal well in advance, offer a structured plan, and then sell of $X every year, which goes into Gates Foundation etc..

It's 100% the purview of these mega donors to enshrine some kind of vision for their funds, which may last a long time, if not generations.

They make take the view that they will invest 100% of the money into a charity fund, and the returns from that fund get distributed.

I don't think there is really any specific merit in 'how quickly you give your money away'.

Mackenzie was 'one degree removed' from Amazon as it was built, she probably feels less attached to it, and maybe she just wants to push it out the door now, that's fine, good on her, but I don't think it means anything really.

> Mackenzies money is essentially her bank account,

Isnt that "money" in Amazon stock, just like Buffett and Gates whose "money" is in stocks of various companies.

billg has sold the majority of his Microsoft stake over the years. He owned 24% of MSFT in 1996, and as of 2017 owned 1.3%.

meh, easy to give away money by the boatload if you didn't earn it yourself.

If it was easy everyone who inherited a big chunk of money would give it away.

People cannot “earn” $60B, they can work hard and smart but luck is always the key multiplier in reaching astronomical success.

Yes the luck was marrying a certain person. No hardwork required.

She should slow down and get better at picking cost-effective charities

The time-value of money is a real thing. Her speed has real value.

It helps to have more money than anyone else has before.

If Billionaires must give away their money rather than give it to inefficient gov's in the form of taxes I'd much prefer that do they do things that involve market forces that improve the world as a whole.

A great example of this I feel is (and I'm biased here, I work for one of his businesses) Andrew Forrest.

Using his business connections and buying power to try and force a clean supply chain from slavery.

Using his investing and business building capability to develop Green Hydrogen and Green Ammonia supplies and doing it in places that can utilize their renewable resources to export them.

etc etc

Its not a perfect set of solutions, but it fits in a capitalist gov corrupted world, so that we all benefit. Putting himself and his money out there in a way that benefits everyone and also those not involved. Making market forces be profitable AND responsible in a way that isn't just greenwashing or just dumping money into a pet charity.

Capitalism isn’t corruption. It’s just sales. Doug Tompkins who founded north face bought a bunch of land and it’s now a national park in Chile.

I don't agree that Gov's are not corrupted by capitalism. neither are corrupt on their own, but you layer one with the other and it seems to me that corruption is nearly inevitable, ubiquitous even.

Any non capitalist governments with no corruption?

I didn't jump up and down saying there there is an alternative. But called a spade a spade.

There are so many examples of massive fortunes that were given away completely. No mention of them at all. Andrew Carnegie gave away a larger fortune as a percentage of GDP for instance. Chuck Feeney, inspired by Andrew Carnegie and his essay Wealth, gave away his fortune anonymously while alive:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-54300268

But there's no calls for Scott Hall ;)

Not to discount but Mackenzie Scott is giving it away within a few years of getting it. Not wait till the end of their lives and just write it off. Still great to do, but not to discount the impressiveness of what she’s doing.

The dead comment below yours had a legitimate point but it’s highly unlikely she could have actually been as philanthropic while still married to Jeff due to sharing issues.

Mackenzie Scott didn’t earn her fortune, so it’s not really comprable to those who did. She is giving away a windfall.

She did help with Amazon starting, I don’t think she was a trophy wife who had no effect on Amazon.

yeah because all of the wealthy bootstrapped themselves and didn't start with a fortune or great privilege

Lots of people start with fortunes and great privilege. Why aren't they all worth $60B? Both you and I are in places of great privilege. Why aren't we billionaires?

That's totally irrelevant. The point is the relatively low number of bootstrapped billionaires. Bezos started with a $250K (equivalent to $450K today) "investment" from his parents yet some criticise Scott for not earning her own fortune.

Jeff Bezos had been running Amazon for a year before his parents invested $250k in it. He did not start with that.

Any rando can get a 250K investment from VCs today, so that is irrelevant.

Categorically false.

She was literally one of the first employees.

Who cares if she made it. The question is who gave it off. Let’s not get into discussions on who truly made their fortune vs. being in the right place time with the right idea and mindset.

https://archive.md/9ZISw

Appreciate you.

I miss the days of simple internet where you could just click and read without accepting cookies, subscriptions, ad blocker blockers... Etc

You could try no JavaScript.

I have/do. It's a very mixed bag of results

Reply on news.ycombinator.com