5 ms·

I also don't understand how there can so much money to throw at startups and not one person to "adpot-a-highway" for a year.

zarzavat 5y ago
Much of the money for startups comes ultimately from pension funds. They have a fiduciary duty to make sure the money is invested in something that is expected to make a return.
ahelwer 5y ago
Because you cannot rely on the rich to fund common goods through voluntary donations. It is not a good idea and never will be. Other than some medical research, charity has never solved a single social ill.
- leephillips 5y ago
  Has any social ill been eliminated by any other means?
- mananaysiempre 5y ago
  The introductory econ course I once took mentioned the (apparently classic) lighthouse study[1], though now that I did a web search it doesn’t seem that unequivocal. Many 19th century projects were funded through public participation (the Eiffel Tower and the Statue of Liberty come to mind), even if the social value of some of them was questionable (though I think some railroads were built this way too?). Before that, I seem to remember that the Netherlands was made habitable (from essentially a coastal swamp) largely through private enterprise. In more recent times, the late engineer turned entrepreneur Dmitrij Zimin funded a significant portion of the Russian hard sciences in the 2000s and 2010s (after Soros grants got some of the people through the Soviet collapse in the 1990s and then ceased), though the problem is still far from solved. It is peculiar that the model of fundraising via newspaper ads and a couple of wealthy donors (including in some cases the national government, yes) doesn’t seem to have survived past the world wars, but to say that private funding never resulted in any social good is preposterous. Something has happened in the last century or so, but it’s trickier than that. [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/724895 https://www.jstor.org/stable/724895
  - consp 5y ago
    > largely through private enterprise Calling a hoogheemraadschap a private enterprise is calling a government one. If it acts like a government it is one even if it is not benefitting everyone equally (still no difference though).
    - eecc 5y ago
      Isn’t it essentially a Corporation in its original definition where they were established for a given purpose (not just “maximize shareholder value” but rather something like “build and maintain some infrastructure” or whatnot)
  - telxosser 5y ago
    You can just visit Pittsburgh to see how preposterous this is. The city is practically unimaginable culturally without Andrew Carnegie's wealth.
- WHA8m 5y ago
  Discard the last sentence. You're talking in absolute terms and that's leading nowhere. It's been some time, but this is what came to my mind immediately: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuggerei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuggerei That you can not rely on the rich to put their money in good use with the general public in mind is right. Does it happen? Yes. Does it happen often? Definitely not.
  - astrange 5y ago
    The anti-charity people get around their absolutism by inventing "mutual aid", which is what they call charity when they like it. (similar thing in education involved deciding "equality" was bad, so they invented "equity", which is the same thing except they like it.)
    - demygale 5y ago
      Mutual aid is decentralized charity, the aid comes from the community instead of a NGO.
      - astrange 5y ago
        I don't think normal people define "charity" only to mean "charity that doesn't work" though. Giving to a local food bank is charity to most people. And, like, GiveWell/GiveDirectly are NGOs that are actually effective.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - thrwn_frthr_awy 5y ago
    Right! And that’s really my point–there are so many people in tech with money and an ego that I’m surprised this isn’t done more. Pineapple person in the most recent memorable example.
    - WHA8m 5y ago
      Yes, I think we're on the same page here. Your main point was, that you can not rely on the rich to use their money to benefit others and I totally agree.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- thrwn_frthr_awy 5y ago
  A lot very confident statements there. > Other than some medical research, charity has never solved a single social ill. This is very broad and incorrect statement that I suggest you research more before stating as fact. Maybe start with libraries in the 19th and 20th century if you don’t know where to start.

zarzavat 5y ago

Much of the money for startups comes ultimately from pension funds. They have a fiduciary duty to make sure the money is invested in something that is expected to make a return.

ahelwer 5y ago

Because you cannot rely on the rich to fund common goods through voluntary donations. It is not a good idea and never will be. Other than some medical research, charity has never solved a single social ill.

leephillips 5y ago
Has any social ill been eliminated by any other means?
mananaysiempre 5y ago
The introductory econ course I once took mentioned the (apparently classic) lighthouse study[1], though now that I did a web search it doesn’t seem that unequivocal. Many 19th century projects were funded through public participation (the Eiffel Tower and the Statue of Liberty come to mind), even if the social value of some of them was questionable (though I think some railroads were built this way too?). Before that, I seem to remember that the Netherlands was made habitable (from essentially a coastal swamp) largely through private enterprise. In more recent times, the late engineer turned entrepreneur Dmitrij Zimin funded a significant portion of the Russian hard sciences in the 2000s and 2010s (after Soros grants got some of the people through the Soviet collapse in the 1990s and then ceased), though the problem is still far from solved. It is peculiar that the model of fundraising via newspaper ads and a couple of wealthy donors (including in some cases the national government, yes) doesn’t seem to have survived past the world wars, but to say that private funding never resulted in any social good is preposterous. Something has happened in the last century or so, but it’s trickier than that. [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/724895 https://www.jstor.org/stable/724895
- consp 5y ago
  > largely through private enterprise Calling a hoogheemraadschap a private enterprise is calling a government one. If it acts like a government it is one even if it is not benefitting everyone equally (still no difference though).
  - eecc 5y ago
    Isn’t it essentially a Corporation in its original definition where they were established for a given purpose (not just “maximize shareholder value” but rather something like “build and maintain some infrastructure” or whatnot)
- telxosser 5y ago
  You can just visit Pittsburgh to see how preposterous this is. The city is practically unimaginable culturally without Andrew Carnegie's wealth.
WHA8m 5y ago
Discard the last sentence. You're talking in absolute terms and that's leading nowhere. It's been some time, but this is what came to my mind immediately: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuggerei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuggerei That you can not rely on the rich to put their money in good use with the general public in mind is right. Does it happen? Yes. Does it happen often? Definitely not.
- astrange 5y ago
  The anti-charity people get around their absolutism by inventing "mutual aid", which is what they call charity when they like it. (similar thing in education involved deciding "equality" was bad, so they invented "equity", which is the same thing except they like it.)
  - demygale 5y ago
    Mutual aid is decentralized charity, the aid comes from the community instead of a NGO.
    - astrange 5y ago
      I don't think normal people define "charity" only to mean "charity that doesn't work" though. Giving to a local food bank is charity to most people. And, like, GiveWell/GiveDirectly are NGOs that are actually effective.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- thrwn_frthr_awy 5y ago
  Right! And that’s really my point–there are so many people in tech with money and an ego that I’m surprised this isn’t done more. Pineapple person in the most recent memorable example.
  - WHA8m 5y ago
    Yes, I think we're on the same page here. Your main point was, that you can not rely on the rich to use their money to benefit others and I totally agree.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
thrwn_frthr_awy 5y ago
A lot very confident statements there. > Other than some medical research, charity has never solved a single social ill. This is very broad and incorrect statement that I suggest you research more before stating as fact. Maybe start with libraries in the 19th and 20th century if you don’t know where to start.