3 ms·
I agree it's tricky to get right. The art world is one example where some philanthropic spending is arguably for the public benefit, but other philanthropic spe
by mjn 14y ago
I agree it's tricky to get right. The art world is one example where some philanthropic spending is arguably for the public benefit, but other philanthropic spending has arguably fallen "the prey of a clique".
I wasn't thinking in my comment upthread as systemically, though, in terms of whether philanthropy or, say, taxation, is a better way to tackle inequality. I actually lean a bit towards the latter myself, and am skeptical of whether very wealthy people are actually good at directing large philanthropic projects on average.
I was thinking more small-scale at just a cultural level, like the anecdotes this article is describing. The article paints a picture of some wealthy people in a certain set of circumstances who are quite dismissive of poor people, even contemptuous towards them. But in other circumstances, it's seen as one of the rewards of wealth that you can act as a sort of magnanimous benefactor, gracious servant of the public. Whatever causes that cultural difference strikes me as interesting. One guess is that it relates to whether wealthy people feel some sense of community with poorer people in the same area, so they gain something socially from being a town's benefactor, because the poorer people they're helping out are in the same social circles. But I imagine that's only one aspect.
- dalke 14y agoYour upstream thread reminded me of an essay I read a few months back. It concerned Downton Abbey, which is a show I've not seen so anything I say here is second- or third-hand. In the British style of the 1800s, the system was set up so the lord of the manor (or whatever the title might have been) was the caretaker of the wealth and the people. For example, he would build housing for the people of the manor, provide money to the church, support the sick and elderly, and so on. In return, the people would work for him. This makes the system dependent on one person. If that person should invest heavily in a sugar cane plantation in the Caribbean, which goes south, then that may mean economic hardship for the entire area. It's hard for me to say that this model is either philanthropy or taxation. It's remnants of feudalism. That makes me think that the issue actually one of centralized vs. decentralized power, or of resilience vs. fragility. (After all, towns and cities also go bankrupt.) Wealth is a force multiplier, which can be used for good and for bad. There are ways to attenuate its use for bad: equalize wealth (eg, through progressive taxes or increased philanthropy), strengthen laws (so those with less wealth seek remedy in case of bad treatment), inculcate (eg, through the Carnegie Formula) an ethos towards "good" philanthropy, and so on. Progressive taxation to me is the easiest to accomplish. It does require a transparent, responsive government, but then again, so do the others.