Elite philanthropy locks in and perpetuate inequalities | Hacker News Reader

Elite philanthropy locks in and perpetuate inequalities

onlinelibrary.wiley.com

40 pointsmalloreon16 comments

The alternative is to keep funding more and more bureaucrats. Until you get to this [0]

[0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/S-F-pays-61-000-a-...

http://LALAUNCHPAD.ORG was done on about 5% of that budget.

That’s also a symptom of a different problem. The focus on real estate as an investment has caused a lack of incentive to build affordable housing.

This insufferable screed fails to point out the one and only reason why a super-wealthy person would ‘donate’ their fortune.

Not that the alternatives are better for society. To some extent, celebration of these foundations is an admission by lawmakers that their spending choices are so corrupt and incompetent to be actually worse for society than if the money had just disappeared from the system.

> Andrew Carnegie, the pioneer of entrepreneurial philanthropy, who argued in the late 19th century that ‘the problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth, so that the ties of brotherhood may still bind together the rich and poor in harmonious relationship’

Has this ever happened? I don’t see these circles mixing much unless it is a wealthy donor donating to a charity, or a wealthy person marrying someone of a lower class.

Why not start companies that make money and do good. Entrepreneurs can eat their cake and it’s not a non profit so it’ll stand on its own two feet. If you build a successful business money will come - it’s not your fault if there is a lot of it. But how you build that business and how it impacts society - that you can control. Not saying it’s a model for everyone, but an example is Bcorp

Am I missing some new revelation here?

It seems the main point boils down to people with money influencing things through philanthropy and that one's influence is skewed towards their own communities, interests, and experiences (which can create cycles).

I'm inclined to believe the premise. Tax is just better at equalising. But, I do respect the Gates for their philanthropy towards health, especially, women's reproductive health during a time US political toxicity removed a huge amount of aid due to the anti abortionists power in domestic politics.

Are you saying that individuals wielding massive amounts of power in shaping social policy isn't such a terrible thing as long as those people have the "right" political view?

Individuals wielding massive amounts of power still add diversity in their philantropy approaches, compared to government position.

No. I'm saying that out of all the philanthropising which happens, I respect the Gates. It is still a terrible thing they got so wealthy. Thats why I prefer the tax solution.

Okay, so entrepreneurs should not be allowed to become wealthy. How do you plan to enforce that? What about politicians, should they be wealthy? How about their friends and donors and special interests that get giant contracts and banking monopolies? Should the people that control the money supply be ‘allowed’ to get rich off of it?

Is there a single example in all of history where attempts at enforcing wealth or income equality didn’t just end up putting wealth into the pockets of those in power? I’m sure this time is different.

Bill Gates was a destructive businessman. His philanthropy is tied up in his "power" world view. The way the press fawns over his every word is nauseating and a part of this power dynamic. We worship the rich.

yes, he was. But, now, he isn't. He isn't at the helm of MS any more.

I think having got to a certain place with a big caveat, what he and Melinda Gates are choosing to do with the pile of money, is better than what other people (Bezos, Musk) are doing with the money. Even Bezos' ex-wife is doing better things with her share of the money.

The caveat is that I am told, the Gates often require you to use Microsoft IT to do whatever thing you're doing.

Out of all forms of institutional inequality, philanthropy is among the ones that I would target last.

Very informative paper, but very left-wing in its base assumptions. Another problem with the paper is that in many instances, it passes off speculation, that conforms with the left-wing world view, as established fact, which is quite disingenuous/propagandistic.

It's 2021. If it's not left wing bias, it's hate speech and never gets published.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com