posted on February 4, 2002 11:20:51 AM new
Seems like a lot more dough for upper class students than the money eBay spent giving to AFA. Guess it's a matter of priorities.
posted on February 4, 2002 12:12:17 PM new
Let's see... $30,000,000 for 500 new students, that comes down to only $60,000 per student. Last I heard, tuition at princeton is more then that... Why couldn't they build their own new buildings?
posted on February 4, 2002 12:21:57 PM new
Over the years I've come to the conclusion that the only real reason that these large contributions are made is for tax purposes. If you have to deter taxes via donations you might as well help out your old school.
posted on February 4, 2002 12:22:23 PM new
Unless the article is wrong, the gift is from Meg Whitman, not ebay.
As usual, the reason ebay raises fees is because they can, and feel it is in their best interest to do so. If part of that interest is to compensate Ms. Whitman handsomely, it is certainly OK for them to do so.
What Ms. Whitman does with her money is her own business.
[ edited by Damariscotta on Feb 4, 2002 12:24 PM ]
[ edited by Damariscotta on Feb 4, 2002 12:25 PM ]
posted on February 4, 2002 12:31:58 PM new
This is not why ebaY raised fees.
However, That ebaY is strong enough to arbitrarily raise fees is why Ms. Whitman can afford to be so generous.
posted on February 4, 2002 12:40:19 PM new
Actually what well-known people do with their money is everyone's business, which is why it is publicized. That she could do that after cheerleading small sellers to donate for AFA lends new meaning to the term hypocrisy.
What the world needs more of is people like the NYC firefighters and less Meg Whitmans who don't risk breaking a fingernail much less getting their dainty little hands dirty.
posted on February 5, 2002 05:01:17 AM new
Yes, we should ignore the doings of CEOs and corporate leaders. Doling out stock options and giving money away is benign activity and shouldn't even be on our radar scope.
posted on February 5, 2002 05:42:34 AM new
"Yes, we should ignore the doings of CEOs and corporate leaders. Doling out stock options and giving money away is benign activity and shouldn't even be on our radar scope.
We need more Enrons"
So how does being a busybody about how Meg spends her PERSONAL money help reduce the future possibility of corporate malfeasance?
You want fewer enrons? Great idea, spend your time digging through CORPORATE records, not hanging here criticizing someone who is helping colleges.
"What the world needs more of is people like the NYC firefighters and less Meg Whitmans who don't risk breaking a fingernail much less getting their dainty little hands dirty."
Interesting. Someone gives away $30M and it gets turned into a personal attack. Could you kindly provide an itemized list of donations, both time and money, spent by both you, meg, and the average person, so we can truly compare and contrast efforts? I'm sure that YOUR contributions will appear clearly superior in every way.
You gotta love this place. Meg is definitely "damned if she does, damned if she doesn't". She gets criticized for making a lot of money, then criticized again for giving it away.
So tell me, what WOULD satisfy the vultures here? What does Meg have to do to make her fit your vision of morality and virtue? And by the way...do YOU fit your own vision?
posted on February 5, 2002 06:17:29 AM new
captainkirk said <<So how does being a busybody about how Meg spends her PERSONAL money help reduce the future possibility of corporate malfeasance? >>
A busybody? Meg's mug is all over the papers and TV concerning this story. She put herself out there for the unwashed masses to see and react to.
BTW, I'm sure it ruined Meg's day to read the criticism on this message board.
posted on February 5, 2002 06:18:36 AM new
Apparently Captain, you didn't pay any attention regarding what happened at Enron.
Dig through corporate records ? Haven't you read anything about Enron ? The records were false and misleading or omitted.
Enron and it's corporate leaders made many charitable donations too. These donations increased the naivette quotient very much with both the local and investing community and politicians. These folks at Enron donated to colleges too, and even had a law school dean on the board of directors.
These people control vast amounts of resources and power. Their actions should be closely scruntinized.
Meg and eBay, sooner or later, will need favors when eBay comes under Federal regulatory oversight. The dean of the Princeton business school will probably be tapped testify on eBay's behalf.
Of course some people believe it is best to remain blind, deaf, and dumb, and ignorant for fear they might upset the beast. Then there are others, as has been recently revealed, that are paid by eBay to frequent BBs and cast a positive spin to any negative information regarding eBay.
posted on February 5, 2002 06:57:14 AM new
"Apparently Captain, you didn't pay any attention regarding what happened at Enron.
Dig through corporate records ? Haven't you read anything about Enron ? The records were false and misleading or omitted."
I know all about enron. Its pretty interesting. sad, too, of course.
The point you seem to be missing is that you somehow justify the personal attacks on people making college donations by helping prevent future enrons or something foolish like that.
YOU brought up enron into this discussion, not me, somehow thinking discussing meg's college donation was tied in. Its not, of course.
My point is that if YOU are so concerned about preventing future enrons, rather than sit here making snide comments about charitable contributions, get out there and do relevant research.
"A busybody? Meg's mug is all over the papers and TV concerning this story. She put herself out there for the unwashed masses to see and react to.
BTW, I'm sure it ruined Meg's day to read the criticism on this message board.
Saint Pelorus"
Ah, so its HER fault that the people here felt compelled to make personal attacks? Gotta love it...hooray for the end of personal responsibility! whenever I do anything wrong from now on, I can cheerfully blame SOMEONE ELSE! Yes!
and I'm sure Meg cares not a whit about what we write here. I just thought it was quite interesting that someone gives away $30M and gets criticized.
As I said...would anyone with guts kindly describe the requirements to be considered a moral/virtuous person here, such that they don't get criticized, and then kindly compare those requirements to both meg and themselves? I'm dying to see.
posted on February 5, 2002 07:06:45 AM new
"Of course some people believe it is best to remain blind, deaf, and dumb, and ignorant for fear they might upset the beast. Then there are others, as has been recently revealed, that are paid by eBay to frequent BBs and cast a positive spin to any negative information regarding eBay"
Interesting but irrelevant to why someone would attack meg for giving $30M to a college.
"Busybody ? See link below. You need to read and research more before posting. "
Nope, I don't need to do a bit more "research" before posting here. As I said, I am focusing on the PERSONAL attack on meg for a CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTION. No more research required there. Again, if you think ebay's accounting is screwed up, by all means, work on that problem. Be a hero!
posted on February 5, 2002 07:12:30 AM new
In case you missed everything in this thread, moral and virtue are not the topic. But it is also a straw man to ask for a more virtuous person. Our jails would be empty under your standards.
We are dealing with a virtual monoply and a CEO paid billions in stock.
You obviously didn't read links showing that eBay, while reporting profits, actually lost money due to these options.
Remember, eBay is a "community" wherein one part of the community has the unbridled power to take money from another part of the community, and give it to another community member, who can then donate a very small portion of it to a university, and write it off their taxes.
What are Captain, one of eBay's paid "everything is wonderful" posters ? Last time they were here was for the AFA fiasco.
posted on February 5, 2002 07:23:40 AM new
"In case you missed everything in this thread, moral and virtue are not the topic"
See the post, for example, by mballai, wherein virtue is, in fact, discussed. Please re-read the thread.
"We are dealing with a virtual monoply and a CEO paid billions in stock.
You obviously didn't read links showing that eBay, while reporting profits, actually lost money due to these options"
You obviously are wrong. I read them. so what does that have to do with HOW meg spends the money she's received?
"Remember, eBay is a "community" wherein one part of the community has the unbridled power to take money from another part of the community, and give it to another community member, who can then donate a very small portion of it to a university, and write it off their taxes"
Completely, utterly wrong. Ebay has not one iota of "power" to "take money", let alone "unbridled" power. Let anyone who doesn't want to give their money to ebay, not do so. Last I checked, no one had a gun to their head, forcing them to submit listings to ebay. Can you provide evidence that they have done so? I doubt it.
"What are Captain, one of eBay's paid "everything is wonderful" posters ? Last time they were here was for the AFA fiasco."
Your grammar is a bit scrambled here, but if you are accusing me of being on the ebay payroll, you would again be wrong. I work for a large, 3-letter corporation that everyone has heard of.
posted on February 5, 2002 10:45:33 PM new
<<"We are dealing with a virtual monoply and a CEO paid billions in stock. >>
As of monday, her stock is worth $656 million.
There are at least a dozen Ebay clones. If we are selling and buying on Ebay, WE are the ones responsible for Ebay's prominance. We are the ones who voluntarily give money to Ebay, so we should be the ones punished since we refuse to go elsewhere.
