5 ms·

Why Are Chinese Millionaires So Stingy?

11 points by askar_yu 16y ago

TGJ 16y ago
Huff "Why don't people give their money away like I want them too?" Huff "The busy Mr. Zong said he thinks philanthropy is a bad idea. He can do much more for society by running a productive business, the beverage billionaire noted. Not every Chinese tycoon is so cold-hearted, however. " So the guy thinks he can do better for people by running a business and that makes him cold hearted. Just what exactly is going on here? Who are these people to tell other people what to do with their money? Who are these people that think they know better how money should be used? Who are these people and what's their cut? People that want other people to give away their money to help other people are just as selfish as the people that have the money. They want other people to do good things so they can feel warm and fuzzy knowing that good things are being done and they had a part in it, without actually doing anything at all like earning the money that did those good deeds. It's the grasshopper and the ant all over again just pointed in a different direction.
- rottencupcakes 16y ago
  > They want other people to do good things so they can feel warm and fuzzy knowing that good things are being done and they had a part in it, without actually doing anything at all like earning the money that did those good deeds. Your argument held weight until you said that. Yes, China is still more underdeveloped than the US, and yes, there are many more opportunities for companies there to make large differences. But did you even read this article? Who exactly is trying to encourage these donations?
  - TGJ 16y ago
    "The public is outraged by the country’s wealthiest ducking out on the Gates-buffet event" What differences can these companies make, and more importantly why do they have to make them? There has to be a reason why you think these companies need to do something and I'm going to go with wanting other people to do what you think is right. So when other people do right, you feel right which leads to you needing other people to do right in order to feel right (if you didn't need too this would all be a non-issue) which makes you just as selfish as the people that don't want to spend the money in the first place.
- DannoHung 16y ago
  Did you even read the rest of the article? It goes on to explain that one of the largest reasons for an absence of philanthropy in China is because of Government interference with charitable organizations; the necessity for a government sponsor, the inability for a non-sponsored organization to get funding because of the fear of government reprisal. A lack of Government intervention is apparently only good when it involves the accumulation of wealth by a few, is that right?
  - TGJ 16y ago
    Ok, at this point I'm starting to wonder what the point of this article was. Is it that China doesn't let people engage in philanthropy or that rich people are not engaging in philanthropy? Because the way the article came across to me was that the rich were not engaging in philanthropy.
  - narrator 16y ago
    The Chinese gov probably wants to keep the "Tax-Exempt Foundations" from gaining too much influence. The Chinese are very paranoid about influence in their society. They shut down bloggers who get popular, even if they're just talking about stock tips or dating. They shut down talent shows and professional sports if there's any individual who is becoming too popular. That's why there is comparatively little sports and celebrity culture in China. When the average Chinese person looks out into eternity, the Chinese government wants them to see what the Chinese government wants them to see and not a bunch of celebrities and sports stars, as the average citizens of western nations do.
- dinkumthinkum 16y ago
  Poppycock. People that want the rich to be more involved in philanthropy are not necessarily doing so just to get a "warm and fuzzy feeling because they had a part in it" or some such nonsense. Simply wanting rich people to, say, I don't know, help people doesn't mean that the "wanter" actually believes he has a part in the philanthropy. The idea that just selling beverages and storing up billions of dollars helps people more than selling beverages and giving some of those billions away to actually help people is naive. Your analogy doesn't seem to make much sense here. Now, maybe it is not fair to expect billionaires to "give their money away" or maybe it is but either way it is not necessarily selfish to want them to.
  - TGJ 16y ago
    Why do people want these companies to participate in philanthropy? Because they think it is the right thing to do. So when companies engage in activities that the public believes are right, the public is happy aka, warm and fuzzy. We can go back and forth on what is right and what is not. The issue I see, is that what you are asking in wanting companies to engage in philanthropy, is to have the companies live at your behalf. To have them do what you think is right, whether or not they feel it is right. The public is trying to make the rich slaves to the public's ideals and I think that is the problem.
    - dinkumthinkum 16y ago
      But that's not what you said. You made a pretty incendiary charge that those people are selfish and want to take the credit of helping without actually making the money to do it. That's an entirely different story. Also, I think it is a bit much to say people who want the rich to become philantropists are wanting to enslave them. That may be accurate if you make a cartoon of the whole thing and make caricatures of everyone but it is a bit naive. Sure, maybe people should just shut up about telling others what to do with their money but it's hardly comparable to slavery to state that people with obscene wealth should, if they are to be good people, use some of their money to help people. Now, some might argue that actually helping people hurts them - that's fine. But that's not the point I'm making (by the way, that's pretty ridiculous as well!)
DevX101 16y ago
This article was awfully condescending and insulting to the wealthy in China. I stopped reading a few paragraphs in.
credo 16y ago
See http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/chinese-philanthropist-donates-it-all/article1650447/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/chinese-philanthro... for another example - a Chinese philanthropist who donated his entire fortune (more than $1 Billion) to charity. A quote from him "If my children are competent, they don’t need my money, Mr. Yu explained. If they’re not, leaving them a lot of money is only doing them harm."
- OmniBus 16y ago
  Hong Kong is a quite different place. It differs from Mainland China. It preserves Chinese traditional values while accepts Western values. Traditionally, Chinese manages themselves according Confucian, Buddhist and Taoist views. Riches are encouraged to donate in order to secure better later life, reincarnation, lives of offsprings. Sometimes it was rewarded with some good "titles" from mandarin. Communist in Mainland Chines destroyed all the traditions while Hong Kong preserves it. In Hong Kong, there are many international non-government organisation. Western type of charities can establish in Hong Kong. Some of them extends their charity services into China based in Hong Kong. Charity fund-raising happens all round the years.
ebaysucks 16y ago
The author's remark on how it's impossible to become rich in China without being corrupt is extremely ignorant.
prodigal_erik 16y ago
Charity is implicitly a critique of a government's inability to meet its citizens' urgent needs. I'm not surprised that an allegedly communist government doesn't like attention drawn to problems it isn't solving yet should be.
gojomo 16y ago
The author overlooks the same factors that cause non-millionaire Chinese to have such a high savings rate: uncertainty about health, retirement, and social stability. There's none of the social insurance that exists in North America or Europe; less than 50 years ago there were serious famines; the regime itself is only about 60 years old and the current era of economic liberalization only about 30 years old. In such a environment, people will be a bit more clingy "just in case" they're going to need every last cent in an upheaval.

11 points by askar_yu 16y ago

TGJ 16y ago

Huff "Why don't people give their money away like I want them too?" Huff "The busy Mr. Zong said he thinks philanthropy is a bad idea. He can do much more for society by running a productive business, the beverage billionaire noted. Not every Chinese tycoon is so cold-hearted, however. " So the guy thinks he can do better for people by running a business and that makes him cold hearted. Just what exactly is going on here? Who are these people to tell other people what to do with their money? Who are these people that think they know better how money should be used? Who are these people and what's their cut? People that want other people to give away their money to help other people are just as selfish as the people that have the money. They want other people to do good things so they can feel warm and fuzzy knowing that good things are being done and they had a part in it, without actually doing anything at all like earning the money that did those good deeds. It's the grasshopper and the ant all over again just pointed in a different direction.

rottencupcakes 16y ago
> They want other people to do good things so they can feel warm and fuzzy knowing that good things are being done and they had a part in it, without actually doing anything at all like earning the money that did those good deeds. Your argument held weight until you said that. Yes, China is still more underdeveloped than the US, and yes, there are many more opportunities for companies there to make large differences. But did you even read this article? Who exactly is trying to encourage these donations?
- TGJ 16y ago
  "The public is outraged by the country’s wealthiest ducking out on the Gates-buffet event" What differences can these companies make, and more importantly why do they have to make them? There has to be a reason why you think these companies need to do something and I'm going to go with wanting other people to do what you think is right. So when other people do right, you feel right which leads to you needing other people to do right in order to feel right (if you didn't need too this would all be a non-issue) which makes you just as selfish as the people that don't want to spend the money in the first place.
DannoHung 16y ago
Did you even read the rest of the article? It goes on to explain that one of the largest reasons for an absence of philanthropy in China is because of Government interference with charitable organizations; the necessity for a government sponsor, the inability for a non-sponsored organization to get funding because of the fear of government reprisal. A lack of Government intervention is apparently only good when it involves the accumulation of wealth by a few, is that right?
- TGJ 16y ago
  Ok, at this point I'm starting to wonder what the point of this article was. Is it that China doesn't let people engage in philanthropy or that rich people are not engaging in philanthropy? Because the way the article came across to me was that the rich were not engaging in philanthropy.
- narrator 16y ago
  The Chinese gov probably wants to keep the "Tax-Exempt Foundations" from gaining too much influence. The Chinese are very paranoid about influence in their society. They shut down bloggers who get popular, even if they're just talking about stock tips or dating. They shut down talent shows and professional sports if there's any individual who is becoming too popular. That's why there is comparatively little sports and celebrity culture in China. When the average Chinese person looks out into eternity, the Chinese government wants them to see what the Chinese government wants them to see and not a bunch of celebrities and sports stars, as the average citizens of western nations do.
dinkumthinkum 16y ago
Poppycock. People that want the rich to be more involved in philanthropy are not necessarily doing so just to get a "warm and fuzzy feeling because they had a part in it" or some such nonsense. Simply wanting rich people to, say, I don't know, help people doesn't mean that the "wanter" actually believes he has a part in the philanthropy. The idea that just selling beverages and storing up billions of dollars helps people more than selling beverages and giving some of those billions away to actually help people is naive. Your analogy doesn't seem to make much sense here. Now, maybe it is not fair to expect billionaires to "give their money away" or maybe it is but either way it is not necessarily selfish to want them to.
- TGJ 16y ago
  Why do people want these companies to participate in philanthropy? Because they think it is the right thing to do. So when companies engage in activities that the public believes are right, the public is happy aka, warm and fuzzy. We can go back and forth on what is right and what is not. The issue I see, is that what you are asking in wanting companies to engage in philanthropy, is to have the companies live at your behalf. To have them do what you think is right, whether or not they feel it is right. The public is trying to make the rich slaves to the public's ideals and I think that is the problem.
  - dinkumthinkum 16y ago
    But that's not what you said. You made a pretty incendiary charge that those people are selfish and want to take the credit of helping without actually making the money to do it. That's an entirely different story. Also, I think it is a bit much to say people who want the rich to become philantropists are wanting to enslave them. That may be accurate if you make a cartoon of the whole thing and make caricatures of everyone but it is a bit naive. Sure, maybe people should just shut up about telling others what to do with their money but it's hardly comparable to slavery to state that people with obscene wealth should, if they are to be good people, use some of their money to help people. Now, some might argue that actually helping people hurts them - that's fine. But that's not the point I'm making (by the way, that's pretty ridiculous as well!)

DevX101 16y ago

This article was awfully condescending and insulting to the wealthy in China. I stopped reading a few paragraphs in.

credo 16y ago

See http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/chinese-philanthropist-donates-it-all/article1650447/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/chinese-philanthro... for another example - a Chinese philanthropist who donated his entire fortune (more than $1 Billion) to charity. A quote from him "If my children are competent, they don’t need my money, Mr. Yu explained. If they’re not, leaving them a lot of money is only doing them harm."

OmniBus 16y ago
Hong Kong is a quite different place. It differs from Mainland China. It preserves Chinese traditional values while accepts Western values. Traditionally, Chinese manages themselves according Confucian, Buddhist and Taoist views. Riches are encouraged to donate in order to secure better later life, reincarnation, lives of offsprings. Sometimes it was rewarded with some good "titles" from mandarin. Communist in Mainland Chines destroyed all the traditions while Hong Kong preserves it. In Hong Kong, there are many international non-government organisation. Western type of charities can establish in Hong Kong. Some of them extends their charity services into China based in Hong Kong. Charity fund-raising happens all round the years.

ebaysucks 16y ago

The author's remark on how it's impossible to become rich in China without being corrupt is extremely ignorant.

prodigal_erik 16y ago

Charity is implicitly a critique of a government's inability to meet its citizens' urgent needs. I'm not surprised that an allegedly communist government doesn't like attention drawn to problems it isn't solving yet should be.

gojomo 16y ago

The author overlooks the same factors that cause non-millionaire Chinese to have such a high savings rate: uncertainty about health, retirement, and social stability. There's none of the social insurance that exists in North America or Europe; less than 50 years ago there were serious famines; the regime itself is only about 60 years old and the current era of economic liberalization only about 30 years old. In such a environment, people will be a bit more clingy "just in case" they're going to need every last cent in an upheaval.