4 ms·
The argument seems to be that the donor is not making any actual financial sacrifice, and therefore shouldn't enjoy any publicity or goodwill for their non-sacr
by wtracy 7y ago
The argument seems to be that the donor is not making any actual financial sacrifice, and therefore shouldn't enjoy any publicity or goodwill for their non-sacrifice.
There's also this cynical idea that these donations are made purely for PR purposes, not out of any desire to do good. But that's intangible and unquantifiable.
- jlokier 7y agoBut the donor is making an actual financial sacrifice, a large one, as the GP explained.
- wmf 7y agoMaybe. If Amazon buys $10B worth of electric trucks and clean energy (which coincidentally saves them money and increases the stock price) then Bezos hasn't sacrificed anything. But calling it a fund makes me think this is not the case. Anyway, philanthropy shouldn't be measured in terms of sacrifice.
- ahartman00 7y ago"donations are made purely for PR purposes, not out of any desire to do good" I dont understand this sentiment(not saying you agree with it). Let's express this as a contract: in exchange for 3 compliments, 4 pats on the back, and 2 rounds of applause, $WEALTHY_PERSON agrees to donate $LARGE_AMOUNT to a charitable cause. Let's also assume that $WEALTHY_PERSON is proficient in business, and wont continue to contract with parties who do not honor their end of the bargain. Assuming you want these charitable contributions to continue, would it not be prudent to give them their 3 compliments, 4 pats on the back, and 2 rounds of applause?? Not that I am saying all wealthy people donate for no other reason than for pr. Just that if you think that, you might not want to go out of your way to tell them that they are not getting what they wanted.