[dekhn]

It's not bollocks, the endowments are contributions that have constraints on their spending. They cannot legally redirect much of the endowment towards these researchers in the way you want. Instead, they use the endowment as an investment that produces interest which is spent on operating expenses.

[tgma]

The way you describe it as if a widow is reaching out to interest from a nest egg to get by and I got a little tear.

But since I do know better:

- some of these endowments grow over time to infinity.

- that's tax-free gain/interest and any hedge fund would kill to get that special treatment.

As long as they have such special tax treatment, it is only fair they should stay in line with a framework that taxpayers provide.

[dekhn]

No endowment grows over time to infinity; that's hyperbole (and impossible).

The tax-free status - that's definitely something that could be changed by updating the laws (legislative). That sounds a lot better than the executive division starving UCLA of funds.

[tgma]

- Infinity is not a number. "To infinity" means grows without bounds (under the current underlying system; now I do agree the system will at some point adjust.)

- Politics operates in reality, not ideals. There would never be such a legislation without a forcing function like this.

[eviks]

Is this just a general dismissal or so you know the actual number?

> They cannot legally redirect much of the endowment

Since endowments at top universities are huge, they don't need much. So how much before it's "illegal"?