Seriously, look at their 'project list,' a film award is #2!
I'm looking at their financial report for the year 2019 and that's just not true. They are a very complex organization and simply looking at one film award project and calling the whole thing a scam is very wrong and frankly lazy.
Personnel and other operating expenses attributable to administration + Financial expenses, depreciation and amortization, and changes in provisions
and you're just cool with that?
It may not be charity, but at least it’s stable.
The Wittelsbacher family got of easier so, than the Habsburg rulers (they lost everything, Austria even went so far to abolish every single noble title) and the Hohenzollern of Prussia. I guess it helps not being in the main crosshairs of the Entente back then.
Like I’m sure all the black business owners in Tulsa would have loved to do the same for their grandchildren, but were systematically denied that opportunity. Why should we go so far out of our way to support the will of certain dead people but not all of them?
We need generational wealth in the country. For people who are in top .01% they should have a wealth tax but for those in the top 1% and below they should be able to make sure future generations can have a chance to be successful.
Taxing those ill-gotten gains and improving the welfare state would probably be a more just outcome, no?
All this is to say that the broader public seems to be more efficiently entrepreneurially (in terms of creating new wealth) than what is achieved by hereditary wealth. Hereditary wealth transfer already has a huge leg up through social and educational networks and educational “legacy” that backstopping through actual wealth transfer on top of that doesn’t seem great for society as a whole.
On the other hand, if you have some data to indicate that children of entrepreneurs are better capable at starting new businesses than the general public I’m certainly interested to see that. My understanding above is a synthesis from studies I’ve come across and the general concept of reversion to the mean (eg the most unique individuals in any field/specialty you could name generally pop up spontaneously in the general population rather than consistently being overrepresented in a lineage). This makes sense for the survival of the species too- you want diversity so that you don’t overfit a given ecosystem and become hypersensitive to those conditions remaining true.
I wonder if the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has the same criticisms?
I mean, the arts are something I support, because it is something I can afford. If I had more money, Id probably want to try harder to make a difference.
That's just my opinion, though. I'm happy they are doing something rather than nothing.