3 ms·

um…no?

pclmulqdq 5y ago
He actually did. He called for a very high inheritance tax and believed that the the rich should spend their wealth for the good of everyone (and society should inventivize that by allowing wealthy people to feel good about sticking their names on things).
- mmmpop 5y ago
  I don't think that's the part of your assertion the commenter was disagreeing with...
  - pclmulqdq 5y ago
    Where I live, the only philanthropic organizations normal people interact with are universities, museums, hospitals, and maybe arts organizations. The government runs libraries, schools, orphanages, parks, other museums and hospitals, and playgrounds. These all used to be nonprofit philanthropic activities. Philanthropic organizations have been forced into corners trying to solve very hard problems (like eradicating diseases and global warming) rather than helping people day to day. You can go through a decent life never directly benefitting from a billionaire's money, but you can't do it without a helpful government institution.
    - mmmpop 5y ago
      That's sort of the tacit agreement here in America. Countless hospital wings, university buildings, etc., are the result of private donors who made it big and felt like giving back. Again, if I got rich, I'd give so much and wouldn't need a name on it. I just genuinely believe in the agreement.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  He did NOT call for a high inheritance tax! http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com/2007/10/disengenuous-defence-of-inheritance-tax.html?m=1 http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com/2007/10/disengenuou... >>believed that the the rich should spend their wealth for the good of everyone He believed the rich did this without any intention, while pursuing their own interests: [The rich] consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity…they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species. He even wrote: I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good And this is despite his belief that altruism was a moral good: To feel much for others and little for ourselves; to restrain our selfishness and exercise our benevolent affections, constitute the perfection of human nature. His reasoning was that self-interested market activity benefited society because the free market kept actors responsible: The real and effectual discipline which is exercised over a workman is that of his customers. It is the fear of losing their employment which restrains his frauds and corrects his negligence.

um…no?

He actually did. He called for a very high inheritance tax and believed that the the rich should spend their wealth for the good of everyone (and society should inventivize that by allowing wealthy people to feel good about sticking their names on things).

mmmpop 5y ago
I don't think that's the part of your assertion the commenter was disagreeing with...
- pclmulqdq 5y ago
  Where I live, the only philanthropic organizations normal people interact with are universities, museums, hospitals, and maybe arts organizations. The government runs libraries, schools, orphanages, parks, other museums and hospitals, and playgrounds. These all used to be nonprofit philanthropic activities. Philanthropic organizations have been forced into corners trying to solve very hard problems (like eradicating diseases and global warming) rather than helping people day to day. You can go through a decent life never directly benefitting from a billionaire's money, but you can't do it without a helpful government institution.
  - mmmpop 5y ago
    That's sort of the tacit agreement here in America. Countless hospital wings, university buildings, etc., are the result of private donors who made it big and felt like giving back. Again, if I got rich, I'd give so much and wouldn't need a name on it. I just genuinely believe in the agreement.
CryptoPunk 5y ago
He did NOT call for a high inheritance tax! http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com/2007/10/disengenuous-defence-of-inheritance-tax.html?m=1 http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com/2007/10/disengenuou... >>believed that the the rich should spend their wealth for the good of everyone He believed the rich did this without any intention, while pursuing their own interests: [The rich] consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity…they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species. He even wrote: I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good And this is despite his belief that altruism was a moral good: To feel much for others and little for ourselves; to restrain our selfishness and exercise our benevolent affections, constitute the perfection of human nature. His reasoning was that self-interested market activity benefited society because the free market kept actors responsible: The real and effectual discipline which is exercised over a workman is that of his customers. It is the fear of losing their employment which restrains his frauds and corrects his negligence.