The lesson from the ruins of Notre Dame: don't rely on billionaires | Hacker News Reader

The lesson from the ruins of Notre Dame: don't rely on billionaires

theguardian.com

37 pointsfanf215 comments

It might have been something like 100 years since Notre Dame's last major reconstruction; it isn't completely beyond the realm of possibility that nobody remembers how to build a French Gothic cathedral.

It is all very well to impugn the rich, but if literally none of them have offered up a single cent there probably is a reason. Given the sums involved, it would be irresponsible to just heap money on someone who didn't have a plan or specific request for what the money was going to be for. 'Rebuilding' is a very general term that doesn't cover any of the who/what/why/how-s of project management.

And the idea that the donors want some sort of creative influence isn't as bad as it sounds. I'm put vaguely in mind of the Eiffel tower when it was opposed as the "useless and monstrous Eiffel Tower" by artists of the time. Great works create their own dignity after the fact.

> It is all very well to impugn the rich, but if literally none of them have offered up a single cent there probably is a reason. Given the sums involved, it would be irresponsible to just heap money on someone who didn't have a plan or specific request for what the money was going to be for.

Then don't make grand announcements that you'll give that sum of money if you're not ready to do it and are waiting for the actual rebuilding plans...

>"Given the sums involved, it would be irresponsible to just heap money on someone who didn't have a plan or specific request for what the money was going to be for."

Then they should explicitly say so and press whoever is responsible for the rebuild to draw up and publish such plans. Perhaps drawing up those plans is one of the costs that has to be met in the first place; perhaps what those plans are depends upon the sums at the dispense of the cathedral; perhaps they already exist.

>"And the idea that the donors want some sort of creative influence isn't as bad as it sounds. I'm put vaguely in mind of the Eiffel tower when it was opposed as the "useless and monstrous Eiffel Tower" by artists of the time. Great works create their own dignity after the fact."

I don't think the primary claim is an aesthetic one, that art funded by the rich fails on artistic grounds. It is a political one. The rebuilding of France's greatest national monument should not be under the control of a few billionaires, or treated like a grand pendant for their self-glorification.

It is a church, where the founding text of that religion has all sorts of injunctions to go and donate to the needy. Having a christian cross made of gold already embeds a bit of tension in the whole project.

The building of Notre Dame is going to be an exercise in someone showing off. The questions of who and why are only important as far as they impact the artistic integrity of a very grand building. I'll admit to not seeing a difference between politicians showing off, billionaires showing off or the Catholics showing off. The result will be a monument to the pride and ability of the French people.

I think there is a real difference between France as a nation creating a marvelous aesthetic object, and a handful of billionaires doing so. In the first case the focus isn't on the individual but the collective, and ideally on its better qualities. In the second, it is necessarily on the individuals, whose wealth and status exists at the expense of that of most everyone else. One is the correlate of democracy; the other is more reminiscent of despotism. That's my view, anyway.

There are likely wealthy individuals who are waiting for details before making a donation. There are likely wealthy individuals who who make anonymous donations with no strings attached when the time comes.

This article is about a different group of people.

What's really annoying here is it's not like the French government is exactly poor. It can afford to rebuild Notre Dame in its own if it wants.

So could the Catholic Church if it wanted to.

How about 'don't rely on bureaucrats who create faulty fire detection, alert and communication procedures'?[0]

[0]https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/16/world/europe/...

Noone relied on billionaires until they went out of the blue and announced huge donations. If they had just shut their mouth, we would be doing just as well with a different financing in mind.

The article is about the less than honorable practice of such publicity stunts, and not about blaming anyone about the fire.

There could be bad reasons why the pledges haven't been paid out yet (they never intended to give the money.) There could be good reasons why the pledges haven't been paid out (they want to know how much is needed and what it will be used for, or no one knows how much is needed yet.) I don't know which it is and the article isn't interested in telling me. He just uses the situation as an opportunity to complain about people he doesn't like.

Well if they reason they don't give the money is because they don't know how much is needed ... Well surely they didn't know at the time of pledge either?

This reminds me of the Council on Jobs and Economic Competitiveness established by the Federal Government in 2009. This group, which included some of the biggest CEOs then and now, such as Jeff Immelt from GE (led to the group), met 4 times across 5 years.

No statement beyond a press release announcing the creation of the group was ever drafted. Nothing was ever done beyond 2 televised 60 minute meetings. The group officially shutdown in 2013.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Council_on_Jobs_...

The Church itself is where one can find the money that they should be relying on. They're clearly less reliable than the billionaires who probably readily note that the Church has more than enough money to fix it back up themselves.

We written piece reminding people that pledging money and donating it are two differents things.

Unsurprisingly all is about control and taking. The billionaire don't want to donate they want to invest, they want to own the cathedral.

As usual, the rich don't really care.

The few really rich people I have known think about making and keeping money all the time, to a far greater extent than ordinary people. (This may not be a representative sample of all super-rich people of course). I worked with one who promised a generous share of the company, and then when I fell from favour spent all his efforts on taking it back. And succeeded - the painful lesson I learned from that at age 24 was always read every line of the contract you're signing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com