Every time I hear these notions of well-meaning billionaire philanthropists set on making the world a better place, I'm unavoidably reminded of this short passa

Every time I hear these notions of well-meaning billionaire philanthropists set on making the world a better place, I'm unavoidably reminded of this short passage in Conrad's Heart of Darkness: > "It appeared, however, I was also one of the Workers, with a capital—you know. Something like an emissary of light, something like a lower sort of apostle. There had been a lot of such rot let loose in print and talk just about that time, and the excellent woman, living right in the rush of all that humbug, got carried off her feet. She talked about ‘weaning those ignorant millions from their horrid ways,’ till, upon my word, she made me quite uncomfortable. I ventured to hint that the Company was run for profit." If it was real philanthropy, the model would be one of no-strings-attached grants, delivered via a competitive process open to people in disadvantaged communities - not a model based on loans which must be repayed with interest, with collection agencies lurking in the background to go after defaulters in this manner. This is why people are better off cutting deals with the hard-nosed businesspeople who spell out risks and conditions upfront, rather than the liberal do-gooder snake-oil merchants with their ulterior motives.