3 ms·

>The problem with relying, even partially, on philanthropy to correct some of the imbalances of capitalism is that one encounters the free rider problem. Do yo

by noarchy 12y ago

>The problem with relying, even partially, on philanthropy to correct some of the imbalances of capitalism is that one encounters the free rider problem. Do you think that the free rider problem is corrected by state-run welfare programs? I'd be skeptical of such a claim, myself. >There is also the issue where a very wealthy person has as their philanthropic cause something which few others think is a good choice of philanthropy. Such decisions should be made by society as a whole through their elected representatives. If someone chooses to give their money to a cause that isn't widely recognized, is that really a problem? If they've zeroed in on an area that they feel has been neglected by "society" (which you use here in place of "government"), this could be quite a good thing for the beneficiaries.

yequalsx 12y ago
Regarding your last paragraph. It's a problem if too much money is given to causes that don't really benefit society as a whole. There is also the fact that there are no instances of philanthropy ever being at a high enough amount to provide for the general welfare of all of the poor. Only government programs have ever been enough to do this. Government programs scale better than philanthropic ones. It is true that philanthropic organizations can focus on areas neglected by government (society). This is a good thing. However, relying on the good will of others to do this voluntarily does not make for good public policy. I know you weren't advocating that a society use only charitable giving to provide for the needs of the poor. I suppose it is the case that I believe that government is more efficient than charities in terms of scale and sustainability. Hence my desire to rely more on government and taxation. I don't advocate relying solely on this mechanism and I'm not opposed to someone being very wealthy per se. A balance is needed and I don't know where the sweet spot is for the optimal solution. The free rider problem in question was the issue of some very wealthy people deciding not to give anything to charity to help others. To avoid this particular free rider problem taxation can be used. This forces participation so to speak.
- humanrebar 12y ago
  > Only government programs have ever been enough to do this. Considering "the war on poverty" is 50 years old with no end in sight. I think it's bold to claim that any government has adequately eradicated the symptoms of poverty. And why to philanthropies need to scale? What's wrong with numerous hyperlocal philanthropies that treat the particular needs of their communities?
  - yequalsx 12y ago
    You seem to be considering only the U.S. government. The Scandinavian countries have done quite well in combating poverty. While the U.S. government has not eradicated poverty it was government programs that ensured that people were fed at decent levels in the U.S. and it was government programs that ensured the eradication, for the most part, of a host of a number of diseases that used to be endemic amongst poor people. The problem with reliance on hyperlocal philanthropies means that location A may be populated by selfish jerks who given nothing to the least of their brethren while location B does.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  Gates has an interesting take on that problem: http://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Catalytic-Philanthropy-Innovating-Where-Markets-Wont http://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Catalytic-Philant... He sees philanthropy as a way to address the areas that both markets and governments miss. Markets are good at greedy[0] optimization and growth, but are full of stupid coordination problems. Governments are good at solving some of those, but suffer from some of their own both internally and at global scale. Philanthropy, being basically rich people throwing away money on stuff they think matter, can cover some additional blind spots. [0] - "greedy" as invoking computer science connotations, not "evil capitalist" connotations.

by noarchy 12y ago

yequalsx 12y ago

Regarding your last paragraph. It's a problem if too much money is given to causes that don't really benefit society as a whole. There is also the fact that there are no instances of philanthropy ever being at a high enough amount to provide for the general welfare of all of the poor. Only government programs have ever been enough to do this. Government programs scale better than philanthropic ones. It is true that philanthropic organizations can focus on areas neglected by government (society). This is a good thing. However, relying on the good will of others to do this voluntarily does not make for good public policy. I know you weren't advocating that a society use only charitable giving to provide for the needs of the poor. I suppose it is the case that I believe that government is more efficient than charities in terms of scale and sustainability. Hence my desire to rely more on government and taxation. I don't advocate relying solely on this mechanism and I'm not opposed to someone being very wealthy per se. A balance is needed and I don't know where the sweet spot is for the optimal solution. The free rider problem in question was the issue of some very wealthy people deciding not to give anything to charity to help others. To avoid this particular free rider problem taxation can be used. This forces participation so to speak.

humanrebar 12y ago
> Only government programs have ever been enough to do this. Considering "the war on poverty" is 50 years old with no end in sight. I think it's bold to claim that any government has adequately eradicated the symptoms of poverty. And why to philanthropies need to scale? What's wrong with numerous hyperlocal philanthropies that treat the particular needs of their communities?
- yequalsx 12y ago
  You seem to be considering only the U.S. government. The Scandinavian countries have done quite well in combating poverty. While the U.S. government has not eradicated poverty it was government programs that ensured that people were fed at decent levels in the U.S. and it was government programs that ensured the eradication, for the most part, of a host of a number of diseases that used to be endemic amongst poor people. The problem with reliance on hyperlocal philanthropies means that location A may be populated by selfish jerks who given nothing to the least of their brethren while location B does.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
Gates has an interesting take on that problem: http://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Catalytic-Philanthropy-Innovating-Where-Markets-Wont http://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Catalytic-Philant... He sees philanthropy as a way to address the areas that both markets and governments miss. Markets are good at greedy[0] optimization and growth, but are full of stupid coordination problems. Governments are good at solving some of those, but suffer from some of their own both internally and at global scale. Philanthropy, being basically rich people throwing away money on stuff they think matter, can cover some additional blind spots. [0] - "greedy" as invoking computer science connotations, not "evil capitalist" connotations.