6 ms·

It's been a while since I've watched it, but my recollection is of his main point is that philanthropy by the winners (like the wealthy) pushes "win win" change

It's been a while since I've watched it, but my recollection is of his main point is that philanthropy by the winners (like the wealthy) pushes "win win" change that preserves or enhances the mechanisms that allowed those wealthy people to win in the first place. However, if we truly want to improve society for everybody, we may need solutions where the existing winners lose in some way. Philanthropy led by the winners carefully avoids that. It's a really great talk, and I recommend you take the time to watch it. I can't do the argument justice.

UncleEntity 8y ago
> However, if we truly want to improve society for everybody, we may need solutions where the existing winners lose in some way. So, basically, the broken window fallacy? I don't doubt that philanthropists act out of their own self interest (as do all rational humans) but forcing them to lose seems like just an extension of a zero-sum game argument where someone has to lose in order for them to win in their philanthropising (or whatever the proper word is).
- CharlesColeman 8y ago
  It's not about forcing them to lose, but dismissing all solutions where they don't win. That makes philanthropy more of an exercise in preserving the status quo than a real attempt at solving the problems that it purports to be.
- JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
  Not that I necessarily agree with it (I'm on the fence) but doesn't sound like it. Broken window fallacy is saying "if I destroy your stuff, I'm actually doing society a favour". So, damage to you = benefit to society, which is bunk. This is saying, lets not be led by the nose by people who gain the most from what we are doing - because while it (arguably) helps society a bit, society could overall benefit a lot more from better balanced solutions that aren't stymied by those seeking to reinforce their wealth/power. A wealthy person may "lose" if we tax them more, but that isn't breaking their window, that's balancing who gets what - which is what we do anyway, middle class already loses when a big company finds a tax loop-hole, to use a trite example.
  - UncleEntity 8y ago
    > A wealthy person may "lose" if we tax them more, but that isn't breaking their window, that's balancing who gets what... But this is after tax income that they're just spending however they wish. The same arguments were used in the recent article about the superyachts where people were saying society is broken because someone can actually earn enough money to buy one of those things. I'd much rather have Bill Gates spending his wealth on whatever philanthropic projects he deems worthy than the city taxing me to renovate the baseball stadium down the street "for society".
  - repolfx 8y ago
    That argument is assuming government directed 'philanthropy' is more efficient, better directed or somehow less supporting of the status quo than private philanthropy. But private philanthropists got where they were by being good at management and effecting change in the world, whereas government employees did not, so it strikes me that it's likely to be the opposite - governments are less likely to do good things with the money, and more likely to support the status quo.
- kethinov 8y ago
  We all prefer win-win solutions, but not everything in life is like that. Sometimes in order to get justice for one group of people, an overly privileged group has to be knocked down a peg. Just because Certain People Who Shall Remain Nameless™️ are promoting a toxic zero-sum attitude that unnecessarily divides us nowadays doesn't mean there aren't some things in life that truly are zero-sum. At the moment, economic justice appears to be a pretty zero-sum proposition. Ending billionaires would end poverty. And there doesn't seem to be a way to end poverty without ending billionaires. (Or at least significantly reducing inequality.)

UncleEntity 8y ago

> However, if we truly want to improve society for everybody, we may need solutions where the existing winners lose in some way. So, basically, the broken window fallacy? I don't doubt that philanthropists act out of their own self interest (as do all rational humans) but forcing them to lose seems like just an extension of a zero-sum game argument where someone has to lose in order for them to win in their philanthropising (or whatever the proper word is).

CharlesColeman 8y ago
It's not about forcing them to lose, but dismissing all solutions where they don't win. That makes philanthropy more of an exercise in preserving the status quo than a real attempt at solving the problems that it purports to be.
JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
Not that I necessarily agree with it (I'm on the fence) but doesn't sound like it. Broken window fallacy is saying "if I destroy your stuff, I'm actually doing society a favour". So, damage to you = benefit to society, which is bunk. This is saying, lets not be led by the nose by people who gain the most from what we are doing - because while it (arguably) helps society a bit, society could overall benefit a lot more from better balanced solutions that aren't stymied by those seeking to reinforce their wealth/power. A wealthy person may "lose" if we tax them more, but that isn't breaking their window, that's balancing who gets what - which is what we do anyway, middle class already loses when a big company finds a tax loop-hole, to use a trite example.
- UncleEntity 8y ago
  > A wealthy person may "lose" if we tax them more, but that isn't breaking their window, that's balancing who gets what... But this is after tax income that they're just spending however they wish. The same arguments were used in the recent article about the superyachts where people were saying society is broken because someone can actually earn enough money to buy one of those things. I'd much rather have Bill Gates spending his wealth on whatever philanthropic projects he deems worthy than the city taxing me to renovate the baseball stadium down the street "for society".
- repolfx 8y ago
  That argument is assuming government directed 'philanthropy' is more efficient, better directed or somehow less supporting of the status quo than private philanthropy. But private philanthropists got where they were by being good at management and effecting change in the world, whereas government employees did not, so it strikes me that it's likely to be the opposite - governments are less likely to do good things with the money, and more likely to support the status quo.
kethinov 8y ago
We all prefer win-win solutions, but not everything in life is like that. Sometimes in order to get justice for one group of people, an overly privileged group has to be knocked down a peg. Just because Certain People Who Shall Remain Nameless™️ are promoting a toxic zero-sum attitude that unnecessarily divides us nowadays doesn't mean there aren't some things in life that truly are zero-sum. At the moment, economic justice appears to be a pretty zero-sum proposition. Ending billionaires would end poverty. And there doesn't seem to be a way to end poverty without ending billionaires. (Or at least significantly reducing inequality.)