6 ms·

"a larger civic purpose: creation of a shared public realm. Copenhagen feels, in a way that no other American city does, like a group effort." George Monbiot e

"a larger civic purpose: creation of a shared public realm. Copenhagen feels, in a way that no other American city does, like a group effort." George Monbiot emphasizes a similar idea: public luxury. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/31/private-wealth-labour-common-space https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/31/privat... "securing private space through private spending. Attempts to do so are highly inefficient, producing ridiculous levels of redundancy and replication. Look at roads, in which individual people, each encased in a tonne of metal, each taking up (at 70mph) 90 metres of lane, travel in parallel to the same destination. The expansion of public wealth creates more space for everyone; the expansion of private wealth reduces it, eventually damaging most people’s quality of life."

seibelj 7y ago
When someone gets older and starts staring death in the face they start thinking about their legacy. “What is the world going to remember me for?” This is when the real philanthropy starts. In addition to buildings, charity, endowed academic chairs, etc. I think buying and donating land would be a great thing to do. If I had N millions to donate then buying a city block, turning it into a park, and putting my name on the gate would be a pretty nice way to be remembered.
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  Except it never happens at any reasonable scale. It just seems like an excuse not to do what is needed.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    That's the question though right? Is philanthropy the reason the state does not do what's needed? Or is the state not doing what's needed the reason for philanthropy? Or perhaps it's both? In any case we can't really figure out how to get to a game theoretic local optimum of maximum state participation and maximum philanthropy, until we can dig into the real reasons a lot of these things are and are not done.
    - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
      Or perhaps it’s neither? It seems obvious the state doesn’t do enough when you have a government that doesn’t believe in the state doing anything but the barest minimum that will get them elected. On the scale of government spending philanthropy barely registers, it’s only raised as an issue in an attempt to distract from the real question.
- malandrew 7y ago
  That works until social mores change and then some comment of action acceptable in your day becomes a controversy and they strip your name off your legacy. Whenever you donate something now, make sure you have an ironclad agreement that prevents your name from ever being removed.
- prepend 7y ago
  I’ve thought about this a bit since I love urban green spaces. I don’t have N millions to give so it’s not a practical problem that I need to immediately solve, but what aim currently stuck on is if I bought up any block that’s currently a skyscraper and turned it into a garden, it would fill with homeless people very quickly. My city hasn’t figured out homeless people yet so most urban parks have people sleeping on benches. The thing I liked about donating a park is the idea of people sitting on benches, reading a book, relaxing, dreaming of nature. Having my name over a park that is an adult nap zone for drunk people isn’t something I’m too interested in.
rorykoehler 7y ago
I had this conversation today about Bali. The place is a mess. Lots of expensive private clubs extracting money from the local economy and siphoning it offshore. If they took just a portion of their (speculated) ridiculous profits to pay taxes (to a non corrupt non mafia government... Ie not what currently exists) they could solve some major problems very simply and actually make Bali a pleasant place to be in public.
- southerndrift 7y ago
  Would the labor for the private clubs still be cheap if the money stayed in Bali?
  - malandrew 7y ago
    I don't understand why this was downvoted. It's pretty basic economics here by at least two mechanisms: - when the money leaves the country, it reduces the money supply so less money is chasing goods and services like labor, thereby mitigating inflation. - when money leaves the country, it reduces the demand for that country's currency, increasing the buying power of visitors from other countries when they are in Bali. That said, the magnitude of the importance of these two effects is debatable.
  - rorykoehler 7y ago
    I don't really care if labour is cheap. You're gonna be paying Singapore /Australian prices regardless. The point is more around when you pay those prices in sg or au your also paying for the government and the infrastructure that they fund with your tax money. What exactly are you paying for in Bali? To sit in traffic because no one thought to build footpaths or plan the town? It's just bad value for money and I feel the locals are getting robbed. All the costs (pollution etc) are internalised by them because they have no choice while all the benefits are privatised.
- Synaesthesia 7y ago
  Yeah Indonesia in general has very corrupt leadership which doesn’t so much make provisions for the population as seek to profit from them. It will require a proper political revolution to change.

seibelj 7y ago

When someone gets older and starts staring death in the face they start thinking about their legacy. “What is the world going to remember me for?” This is when the real philanthropy starts. In addition to buildings, charity, endowed academic chairs, etc. I think buying and donating land would be a great thing to do. If I had N millions to donate then buying a city block, turning it into a park, and putting my name on the gate would be a pretty nice way to be remembered.

tonyedgecombe 7y ago
Except it never happens at any reasonable scale. It just seems like an excuse not to do what is needed.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  That's the question though right? Is philanthropy the reason the state does not do what's needed? Or is the state not doing what's needed the reason for philanthropy? Or perhaps it's both? In any case we can't really figure out how to get to a game theoretic local optimum of maximum state participation and maximum philanthropy, until we can dig into the real reasons a lot of these things are and are not done.
  - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
    Or perhaps it’s neither? It seems obvious the state doesn’t do enough when you have a government that doesn’t believe in the state doing anything but the barest minimum that will get them elected. On the scale of government spending philanthropy barely registers, it’s only raised as an issue in an attempt to distract from the real question.
malandrew 7y ago
That works until social mores change and then some comment of action acceptable in your day becomes a controversy and they strip your name off your legacy. Whenever you donate something now, make sure you have an ironclad agreement that prevents your name from ever being removed.
prepend 7y ago
I’ve thought about this a bit since I love urban green spaces. I don’t have N millions to give so it’s not a practical problem that I need to immediately solve, but what aim currently stuck on is if I bought up any block that’s currently a skyscraper and turned it into a garden, it would fill with homeless people very quickly. My city hasn’t figured out homeless people yet so most urban parks have people sleeping on benches. The thing I liked about donating a park is the idea of people sitting on benches, reading a book, relaxing, dreaming of nature. Having my name over a park that is an adult nap zone for drunk people isn’t something I’m too interested in.

rorykoehler 7y ago

I had this conversation today about Bali. The place is a mess. Lots of expensive private clubs extracting money from the local economy and siphoning it offshore. If they took just a portion of their (speculated) ridiculous profits to pay taxes (to a non corrupt non mafia government... Ie not what currently exists) they could solve some major problems very simply and actually make Bali a pleasant place to be in public.

southerndrift 7y ago
Would the labor for the private clubs still be cheap if the money stayed in Bali?
- malandrew 7y ago
  I don't understand why this was downvoted. It's pretty basic economics here by at least two mechanisms: - when the money leaves the country, it reduces the money supply so less money is chasing goods and services like labor, thereby mitigating inflation. - when money leaves the country, it reduces the demand for that country's currency, increasing the buying power of visitors from other countries when they are in Bali. That said, the magnitude of the importance of these two effects is debatable.
- rorykoehler 7y ago
  I don't really care if labour is cheap. You're gonna be paying Singapore /Australian prices regardless. The point is more around when you pay those prices in sg or au your also paying for the government and the infrastructure that they fund with your tax money. What exactly are you paying for in Bali? To sit in traffic because no one thought to build footpaths or plan the town? It's just bad value for money and I feel the locals are getting robbed. All the costs (pollution etc) are internalised by them because they have no choice while all the benefits are privatised.
Synaesthesia 7y ago
Yeah Indonesia in general has very corrupt leadership which doesn’t so much make provisions for the population as seek to profit from them. It will require a proper political revolution to change.