6 ms·
Krämer: So it's not the state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich want to decide. That's a development that I find really bad. What
by HiLo 11y ago
Krämer: So it's not the state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich want to decide. That's a development that I find really bad. What legitimacy do these people have to decide where massive sums of money will flow?
SPIEGEL: It is their money at the end of the day.
Krämer: In this case, 40 superwealthy people want to decide what their money will be used for. That runs counter to the democratically legitimate state. In the end the billionaires are indulging in hobbies that might be in the common good, but are very personal.
...
"There’s nothing necessarily wrong with the American system of tax-subsidized charity, of course."
"The critique is that this system affords too much power to the rich, whose decisions may not align with what’s best for society. This is not to say that the government is a paragon of efficacy either, but it risks a lot to depend on a handful of mega-billionaires to be prudent, effective philanthropists."
"What genre of philanthropy will Chan and Zuckerberg invest in? Possibly anything. Their letter Tuesday set two missions, both ambitiously vague: “advancing human potential” and “promoting equality." They mention curing diseases, improving clean energy, promoting entrepreneurship, fighting poverty and hunger, empowering women and minorities, and so on.
The pair do not have a sterling track record when it comes to effective charity. One of their previous efforts, a high-profile $100 million donation to fix the schools in Newark, N.J., has been widely criticized as a failure.
Chan and Zuckerberg write in their announcement that they have learned from their past experiences with philanthropy. For now, they will start with their own community in San Francisco, focusing on education, health and “connecting people.”
- merpnderp 11y agoYou make it sound like Zuckerberg's donation in Newark happened in a vacuum. It happened in tight collaboration with the school system, who stated needs and approved every step of the process. It's not like Zuckerberg stepped in and said "you shall obey!!!" Course in this case it just turned out that not only could the democratically elected government of Newark magically waste all their tax revenue, they were excellent at wasting donated money.
- 6stringmerc 11y agoI do find it rather disheartening that a tech inventor and a PhD in Biology are being looked to as legitimate critics and saviors of public education.
- HiLo 11y agoThis is actually a pretty solid 1-line summary of the whole problem.
- merpnderp 11y agoMakes sense as the PhD's and government "experts" in education gave us the unpopular and widely criticized No Child Left Behind and Common Core, which hasn't done anything to stem the flood of unprepared kids going to college and the work force.
- HiLo 11y agoYes, I'm sure GWB staffed his cabinet with "experts." Yes.
- merpnderp 11y agoWell Obama has had 6 years to fix it. Which makes this less of a republican/democrat issue than a "why the hell aren't we copying Finland" issue. You know like why would government spend all this money on contractors and consultants to figure out a new way to do things when they could just copy a highly functional and successful system? Oh, corruption. Right.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> Well Obama has had 6 years to fix it. In the world where Obama was a dictator and could unilaterally rewrites statutes, sure. In the real world, Obama had just under two years (because Congressional terms start earlier than Presidential terms) with Democratic majorities in Congress.