Zuckerberg shows that even among #skeptics, there's a sucker born every minute

Or maybe I should put "skeptic" in scare quotes. And, I definitely should advise you that I have a follow-up post, refuting pseudoskeptics who didn't want to accept what's in this initial one.

Marky Mark, Priscilla Chan and daughter Max.
Who could resist such cuteness? I could.

Early this week, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg announced that with the birth of his daughter, he was creating a new charitable foundation in his wife's name and that he would give away 99 percent of his Facebook stock.

Gawker, a day later, provided the reality of what this meant.

First, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative isn't a charitable organization, it's an LLC. That means that it can spend those Facebook stocks, when cashed out, on whatever it damn well pleases.

I noted that, as well as the fact that Zuckerberg's announced desire to promote "connecting people and building strong communities" sure made it sound like he'd be giving all this Facebook stock to ...

Promote the use of Facebook.

Because, hey, Facebook connects us all, right? Into communities, right?

What's not patently self-serving in the announcement?

Well, much of it that isn't that is New Age drivel.

Advancing human potential is about pushing the boundaries on how great a human life can be. 

Can you learn and experience 100 times more than we do today?

Because that, too, is among what Marky Mark wants to fund.

If you can read that second sentence without barfing, you're probably not much of a real skeptic.

When I posted this on Facebook, alleged "skeptics" claim that I'm just a heartless cynic.

Since I don't normally post to "public," I can't name their names by my Facebook ethics.

Which, of course, is far more ethics related to Facebook than its inventor has ever shown.

Meanwhile, per BuzzFeed, which pointed out that the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is not a charity, Marky Mark already has for-profit activities lined up:

A Facebook release this afternoon stated as much. “The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative will pursue its mission by funding non-profit organizations, making private investments and participating in policy debates, in each case with the goal of generating positive impact in areas of great need,” it said. “Any profits from investments in companies will be used to fund additional work to advance the mission.”

"Policy debates" could be translates as "lobbying," in my book.

But I'm just a cynic.

Other buzz phrases could be similarly translated. "Areas of great need" could be neoliberal tech-powered education, where Marky Mark's already been a flop, per the Gawker link.

Which, from there, goes on to note about said education initiatives:

“Micro-schools”? Putting Facebook software in public schools? Software, software, more software. If you have a headache, take a software. Jimmy can’t read? Give him software. The conceit that code can solve all social ills and free the species from the chains of aging, illness, and flatulence is the height of Silicon Valley bullshit, and Zuckerberg’s massive giveaway will clearly be predicated on that conceit.

Yep. Like Chris Whittle and others, Zuckerberg wants to get our schoolkids hooked on the tech-neoliberal version of Marlboros ASAP. 

Or, his attempt to ram Facebook down Indians' throats while offering a bait-and-switch with a lure of a crappy free Internet plan to try to get people to buy a slightly less crappy paid plan.

But I'm just a cynic. And the MSM, like "skeptics," are suckers. Right, NYT? Right again, NYT? Even while co-suckering others to play along?

And not mentioned by Zuckerberg is that this "giveaway" surely will allow him a sweet tax write-off.

Indeed, Pro Publica has now weighed in on exactly that issue

Mark Zuckerberg did not donate $45 billion to charity. You may have heard that, but that was wrong. 

Here’s what happened instead: Zuckerberg created an investment vehicle. 

In doing so, Zuckerberg and Chan did not set up a charitable foundation, which has nonprofit status. He created a limited liability company, one that has already reaped enormous benefits as public relations coup for himself. His PR return-on-investment dwarfs that of his Facebook stock. Zuckerberg was depicted in breathless, glowing terms for having, in essence, moved money from one pocket to the other.

Sounds about right. 

But, wait, it gets "better."

What’s more, a charitable foundation is subject to rules and oversight. It has to allocate a certain percentage of its assets every year. The new Zuckerberg LLC won’t be subject to those rules and won’t have any transparency requirements.

And, only one person makes the decision on how to invest this. 

But wait, Pro Publica goes further on this:

Any time a superwealthy plutocrat makes a charitable donation, the public ought to be reminded that this is how our tax system works. The superwealthy buy great public relations and adulation for donations that minimize their taxes.

Yep. 

And, Zuckerberg gets tax benefits from this:

So what are the tax implications? They are quite generous to Zuckerberg. I asked Victor Fleischer, a law professor and tax specialist at the University of San Diego School of Law, as well as a contributor to DealBook. He explained that if the LLC sold stock, Zuckerberg would pay a hefty capital gains tax, particularly if Facebook stock kept climbing. 

If the LLC donated to a charity, he would get a deduction just like anyone else. That’s a nice little bonus. But the LLC probably won’t do that because it can do better. The savvier move, Professor Fleischer explained, would be to have the LLC donate the appreciated shares to charity, which would generate a deduction at fair market value of the stock without triggering any tax.

Meanwhile, some pseudoskeptics are claiming that a California benefits corporation, which is the type of LLC this is in California, will keep him in line.

Per California's enabling statute, I don't see it that way.

That's in part because, per that same lawyer, and contra one neolib pseudoskeptic, Zuckerberg's money can be used for lobbying purposes, too.

The only way to "enforce" whether such a body is living up to its charter, etc., is through a "benefits proceeding."

However, such proceeding is all "inside baseball":

(a) No person may bring an action or assert a claim against a benefit corporation or its directors or officers under this chapter except in a benefit enforcement proceeding.
(b) A benefit enforcement proceeding may be commenced or maintained only as follows:
(1) Directly by the benefit corporation.
(2) Derivatively by any of the following:
(A) A shareholder.
(B) A director.
(C) A person or group of persons that owns beneficially or of record 5 percent or more of the equity interests in an entity of which the benefit corporation is a subsidiary.
(D) Other persons as have been specified in the articles or bylaws of the benefit corporation.
(c) A benefit corporation shall not be liable for monetary damages under this part for any failure of the benefit corporation to create a general or specific public benefit.

So, that would mean the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative corporately, or any shareholders or directors named Priscilla Chan, Mark Zuckerberg or cronies thereof, of such persons unlikely to hold more than 5 percent of the Initiative's stock, are the only people who can do anything about its performance.

As for whether such incorporation is better than a traditional 501(c)3 nonprofit? I think not.

True that they don't have tremendous amounts of oversight, either. However, theoretically, the IRS can come down on nonprofits more than these LLCs. The fact that IRS enforcement is bupkis in reality doesn't refute the theoretical angle. And, I'll take even minimal IRS enforcement over this.

And, places like Charity Navigator do annual reviews of charity performance, but, I assume, not of for profit LLCs, even if they're allegedly for a vague "public benefit."

As for the idea this boosts stakeholder value rather than shareholder value? Well, theoretically, but only if your LLC's board isn't a fount of nepotism.

Speaking, what is a “public benefit”? In California’s enabling law, it says it is:

(D)efined as a material positive impact on society and the environment, taken as a whole, as assessed against a 3rd-party standard, as defined, that satisfies certain requirements. 

But, that “third party standard” is undercut by lack of third-party enforcement.

But, I'm just a cynic.

Hey, alleged skeptics? (One of him is somewhere between right-neolib and libertarian, so understandable.) Sometimes cynicism is the proper social and emotional stance to adopt as a result of skeptical perusal of an issue.

Of course, I love being a deliberate contrarian at times. And a capital-C philosophical Cynic.

But, Zuckerberg doesn't even make a public announcement about going to the bathroom unless there's some self-interest involved.

Part of the problem is that many Americans, including said neoliberal pseudoskeptic, don't understand what philanthropy actually is. Per this piece, remember:

If you are giving money to somebody with the expectation that they will carry out your instructions, further your agenda, owe you compliance and assistance, or complete a project you've assigned them — you're not a philanthropist. If your giving is designed to give you power or control over an aspect of public life in our country — you're not a philanthropist.

Period and end of story.

===

Update, April 12, 2016: Facebook's new Siri-on-Oxy-slow bot-apps are surely a public benefit, right?

Is Ben Zobrist worth $60 million? Or even more?

Super-utility Ben Zobrist:
will an owner overpay?

Over at Hardball Conversations, a group baseball blog where I'm one of the authors, that's recent talk — that free agent utility man Ben Zobrist wants $60 million on a four-year contract. Or more.

Meanwhile, at Fangraphs, proprietor Dave Cameron, who has good insights at times and "interesting" ones at other times, thinks Zobrist is not the $60 million man, but should be — and will be — the $76 million man.

I strongly disagree.

First, second basemen age out more rapidly than any other position than catcher, which I noted in this post this summer, from my blog, about Robinson Cano, and historic aging out at that position, including Roberto Alomar, Bobby Grich, Lou Whitaker, Ryne Sandberg, Frank Frisch, and even HOF greats Rogers Hornsby and Nap Lajoie, above others.

The continued slippage of Chase Utley this year is another warning sign.

Age 35, which Zobrist will be next year, is a "wall" for second basemen, on average. Yes, there's the occasional outlier, like Joe Morgan, but they're definite, rare exceptions.

Yes, that's not his only position, but, it has been his primary one in years past. And, if he wants to be a single-position starter, it's probably the position most teams would look at. I don't think he's got the range to be a valuable full-time shortstop. He doesn't have the bat power to be an everyday third baseman (high-average folks like Matt Carpenter aside). And, certainly in the AL, he doesn't have the pop to project as an everyday LF, or the arm/range for RF.

Second, Zobrist's defensive stats must be noted as "relative" and viewed through the lens of Joe Maddon being an early, and aggressive, adopter of defensive shifts. And, that aggressiveness increased, as did Tampa's winning, right as Zobrist worked himself into the regular lineup.

If one point of WAR is worth about $6.6 million, then Cameron is expecting Zobrist to be a 3-WAR per year guy through age 38. Lesser estimates, at the $60 million mark, are still expecting him to average 2.25 WAR or so.

Steamer projects 3 WAR next year and B-Ref about 2.5. I'll venture 2.3 this year, 2 in 2017, 1.7 in 2018 and 1.4 in 2019. That's 7.4 WAR.

My guesstimate? He's going to be less than 2 WAR a year on average. Yes, he slumped in 2015 due to a knee injury, and yes, that injury was on the basepaths, not in the field. Nonetheless, he's got mileage on him. And, maybe the defensive side of his utility skills has been overrated. In 2014, Fielding Bible added a multi-position award. In that year, a healthy Zobrist couldn't beat out Lorenzo Cain.

Let's round down to 7 WAR x $7M per WAR. He's worth 4/$49 ... maybe 4/$52 if one wants to give him a bit of candy. No more.

That said, there may be an owner who will give Zobrist a straight four years, instead of the 3/$50 that had been early talk, and $60 million. There may even be an owner dumb enough to pay Zobrist what Cameron thinks he's worth.

It will be an overpay.

Dallas Morning News to take 3rd stab at paywall next year and other Belo fun

Regular readers of this blog, especially media news followers, will the great degree of hilarity with which I have greeted previous Snooze attempts to implement a paywall, followed by rejection of them. I wrote just three months ago about the Snooze/Belo anti-paywall stance, shortly after wondering if the paper's slouching toward Gomorrah had increased.

After their second paywall faded away, they tried a "premium website" model, which then flopped. It flopped for very good reasons.

So, when Belo announced it would take another crack next year, I was skeptical.

Jim Moroney is right that for a regional daily, even a large one like the Snooze, digital advertising and digital circulation alone isn't enough to offset print revenue declines in those two areas.

He ignores that having a paywall on the digital side can help stanch hardcopy circulation declines, though. (Why pay for a hardcopy newspaper when I can get it online for free, after all?) That, in turn, arguably would stanch the decline in hardcopy advertising. (The Snooze, while not as bad as the Austin American Statesman, had a paid adhole of just 25 percent on a mid-November Thursday of random choice from my recent browsing at a nearby library. That's throwing out full house ads and semi-house ads, but counting obits as paid ad inches. Those are not good numbers for a Thursday. For a Tuesday, they would be; probably for a Wednesday. Bit skimpy for a Thursday, though.)

He admits the Snooze has blown it on execution on the previous two paywall shots. He also says even a New York Times isn't at the point it could be digital only. Agreed, Jim, and nobody's saying that.

That said, Moroney also plans to keep putting eggs in other baskets:

Publisher Jim Moroney III has led the paper’s two-year-old acquisition strategy under parent company A.H. Belo. He says this tactic — aggressively seeking out marketing, data and innovative search companies to complement its existing business strengths — is what the DMN needs to sufficiently diversify its revenue base. 

In the interview, he doesn't detail how successful this has or has not been so far. Nor does he detail what conflicts of interest this might already involve. After all, it's just one step from marketing to public relations — long known as the "dark side" to journalists. 

He goes on:

We have not stopped looking since we started this two years ago. We still have an investment banker helping us go look for acquisitions in the categories of data analytics, marketing automation platform companies, very sophisticated search companies. We’ve looked at direct mail and outdoor, video production for advertising purposes, companies that can build apps and websites and improve them — all the kinds of marketing services that our current customers either are using or [to which] we want to introduce them. 

OK, the first question is: Why would a Snooze advertiser use your marketing (or PR) services rather than someone else's in DFW? Are you offering package deals? At what discount? If so, how much does that bring the ethics issue up?

Other than that, again, why would they want you? "Because we're A.H. Belo!"? "Because we're the Dallas Morning News!"? That type of thinking has led to some of the problems in the first place.

Direct mail? Jim, that's the fricking dinosaur age, first. Second, the last thing a lot of people what is the Snooze cluttering their mailboxes.

Outdoor? I don't think folks like Lamar are doing that well as we speak. What makes you think significant money is out there?

Web design, etc.? What do you think you bring that established companies don't already offer? 

Moroney then says, Oh, hey, we're debt-free, etc.

Yea? That's because you're a one-newspaper "newspaper company," in essence, not counting the spinoff products there in Dallas. Selling Providence, Riverside, etc., cleaned up your debt but left you with no margin for further error. And, the guy you sold Riverside to filed for bankruptcy, so good luck getting all the money he paid, if it wasn't up front, which I certainly presume it wasn't.

And, the interviewer gives him a pass on this.

#ParisClimateConference: India

From what I heard on NPR last night, reinforced by stories like this and this, India wants to have its cake and eat it too on climate change.

Indian Prime Minister Narenda Modi says that Indian should be lumped more with sub-Saharan Africa than China on climate regulations. As part of this, he notes that fair chunks of India aren't even electrified.

But, once the Paris talks are done, just watch and wait.

Soon enough, Modi will bitch that India's not drawing nearly as much foreign investment as China, even though it should be treated just like China, or words to the similar.

It's an issue over which India has grown increasingly schizophrenic in the last decade or so, in my opinion, and is only likely to become more so. It has a "tar baby" relationship with China, and even more with the corporate West's relationship with China.

Meanwhile, even including the Potemkin Village aspects of China's economy, India continues to do worse. The infrastructure is worse. The graft and other corruption, because it's petty, diffuse, and multilayered, is worse than China's strongarm shakedowns.

And, the BJP's idea, even if not directly espoused by Modi, of trying to win, or rather, "win," a population growth war with China is simply nuts.

If ANYTHING in the developing world is anti-climate change, it's unchecked birthrates.

And, tragically, and stubbornly, for all his pronouncements about climate change, Francis the Talking Pope won't do anything about stopping papal and Vatican opposition to birth control.

TX Progressives talk socialism, Medicaid, more

The Texas Progressive Alliance stands with Planned Parenthood as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff gave three more looks at the Houston electorate in 2015.

Socratic Gadfly is willing to go beyond Bernie Sanders and supports a selective use of corporate socialism.

The last Houston mayoral debate is scheduled for Saturday, December 5, and as early voting begins Wednesday, December 2nd, PDiddie at Brains an Eggs offered his P-Slate for the runoff.

Neil at All People Have Value took more pictures of Houston as part of making plain the value of everyday life. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

====================

And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.

The TSTA Blog thinks school funding trumps test score concerns.

The Makeshift Academic considers the state of Medicaid expansion in the wake of the Louisiana election.

Lize Burr interprets Greg Abbott's most recent bout of shameless base-pandering.

Texas Watch invites you to donate to important causes for #GivingTuesday.

The Lunch Tray has a Thanksgiving message about childhood hunger.

Beyond BONES relates a more complete history of Thanksgiving.

Michael Brick celebrates as more offensive team nicknames bite the dust.

TransGriot reveals the Secret Trans Agenda.

And finally, the TPA welcomes Swamplot back from its sabbatical.