3 ms·

> And since philanthropic approaches to such actions demonstrably do not work... It baffles me that you chose to share this comment on, of all things, a post a

> And since philanthropic approaches to such actions demonstrably do not work... It baffles me that you chose to share this comment on, of all things, a post about the eradication of Polio, which was primarily funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in a _clear_ example of a "philanthropic approach" working quite well. If I had to identify one organization that has contributed the _most_ to positive changes in public health infrastructure in the last decade it would be them, above any governments, churches, or other non-billionare organizations. Reaching back further, many/most top universities have billionaires to thank for their existence (Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, etc.), the widespread existence of public libraries is mostly due to Andrew Carnegie, and a lot of tech/science innovation comes from for-profit companies primarily controlled by or funded by billionaires. I won't deny that billionaire philanthropy _sometimes_ doesn't work, but that's true for any system of building infrastructure that I can imagine, and is a far cry from your claim that philanthropy is demonstrably an ineffective way to solve public infrastructure problems. I'm curious if there are other processes you see as being historically more effective, either overall or per-dollar, at producing effective public health outcomes than philanthropic organizations? If so, I'd definitely like to find ways to give them more resources.

mptest 3y ago
Ok, so first off happy thanksgiving. I'm drunk at this point so forgive my probable incoherence. while there's some validity in the notion that philanthropists do good occasionally, a better question is would their good more effective than a state solution? I don't have a ton of evidence on hand right now, but highways, the whole new deal america stuff pretty clearly did more for infrastructure than any philanthropist. In the terms of stuff like the gates foundation, at the end of the day I'm a utilitarian. They do good I'm happy. All I'm sayin is a more egalitarian state might have achieved the goal quicker had they any rich guys' will to solve it. At the end of the day I don't have the evidence off hand but everything I've read points to the state as the source of modern amenities but admittedly I'm biased towards tech and leftism and I'm no expert. I haven't exactly read ayn rand. I've read stuff like pikkety and sunkara. In the cases where billionaires do good I ask, Couldn't a state with that same will do more?
tga_d 3y ago
Saying the eradication of Polio "was primarily funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation" is a vast overstatement. Less than a third of the main organization's funding came from the Gates Foundation, and outside of funding, a lot more of the effort was from your run-of-the-mill local civil health organizations, community outreach programs, etc.. There's no solid evidence that billionaires made such programs successful, especially given that the polio eradication effort has notoriously been mired by repeated setbacks. It's also a vast overstatement to claim "most top universities have billionaires to thank for their existence" or that "the widespread existence of public libraries is mostly due to" Carnegie libraries. Most top universities in the world are public institutions, and public libraries existed long before Carnegie (there was never a point in American history where most public libraries were Carnegie libraries, let alone in other countries).

mptest 3y ago

Ok, so first off happy thanksgiving. I'm drunk at this point so forgive my probable incoherence. while there's some validity in the notion that philanthropists do good occasionally, a better question is would their good more effective than a state solution? I don't have a ton of evidence on hand right now, but highways, the whole new deal america stuff pretty clearly did more for infrastructure than any philanthropist. In the terms of stuff like the gates foundation, at the end of the day I'm a utilitarian. They do good I'm happy. All I'm sayin is a more egalitarian state might have achieved the goal quicker had they any rich guys' will to solve it. At the end of the day I don't have the evidence off hand but everything I've read points to the state as the source of modern amenities but admittedly I'm biased towards tech and leftism and I'm no expert. I haven't exactly read ayn rand. I've read stuff like pikkety and sunkara. In the cases where billionaires do good I ask, Couldn't a state with that same will do more?

tga_d 3y ago

Saying the eradication of Polio "was primarily funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation" is a vast overstatement. Less than a third of the main organization's funding came from the Gates Foundation, and outside of funding, a lot more of the effort was from your run-of-the-mill local civil health organizations, community outreach programs, etc.. There's no solid evidence that billionaires made such programs successful, especially given that the polio eradication effort has notoriously been mired by repeated setbacks. It's also a vast overstatement to claim "most top universities have billionaires to thank for their existence" or that "the widespread existence of public libraries is mostly due to" Carnegie libraries. Most top universities in the world are public institutions, and public libraries existed long before Carnegie (there was never a point in American history where most public libraries were Carnegie libraries, let alone in other countries).