[jimmyvanhalen]

clearly a PR ploy. it's a waste of capital imo. Reduce your management fee and carried interest income and return them to your LP. or re-invest that capital in start-ups to create even more jobs.

edit: it's their money and what they do with it is their business. but they're in the venture capital business, not in the charity business. their job is to deploy capital and maximize returns to their investors (they create jobs and companies in the process).

Horowitz shakes off the potential for such troubles at Andreessen Horowitz, saying that half of firm earnings will be more than enough to satisfy its partners' lifestyles. "We don't play polo," he says. "And our skills are better suited for doing this than working full-time at a non-profit... I think this works out better for both us and the nonprofits."

Again: If they think they're earning too much. reduce their management fee and carried interest income and return the money to their LPs.

[lotharbot]

> "they're in the venture capital business, not in the charity business"

They're in the business of being human.

As is true for any of us, that means something complex, multidimensional, and personal. It's not some sort of affront to venture capitalism to use the profits it generates for something other than more venture capitalism. It's not a "waste of capital" to use your own capital for whatever you find important.

[jimmyvanhalen]

the money they make for their LPs goes to pension funds, universities, businesses, etc. which in turn creates more jobs, start-ups, investments, donations to charities, etc.

If you're going to donate to charity, do it personally and without all the media hype.

[lotharbot]

The money they give to charity goes to researchers, consumers, and so on. That money gets spent, moving back into the economy, which creates more jobs, start-ups, investments, donations to charities, etc. It's hard to say which route generates more benefit down the line; I have yet to see a robust economic model that handles even second-order effects well.

Media hype can be a good thing or a bad thing. If it's about your own ego, I agree, STFU and give privately. But hype can also convince others to change their behavior. Consider the use of "matching funds" as an incentive to increase charitable giving. Various publicity techniques (such as somebody famous emphasizing philanthropy) can increase giving or help direct it to where it can do the most good.