Comment by keiferski | Hacker News Reader

Comment by keiferski | Hacker News Reader

This article misses the underlying philosophy that Carnegie used to fund libraries. He didn’t just give the money away to anyone that asked.

From Wikipedia:

Nearly all of Carnegie's libraries were built according to "the Carnegie formula," which required financial commitments for maintenance and operation from the town that received the donation. Carnegie required public support rather than making endowments because, as he wrote:

“an endowed institution is liable to become the prey of a clique. The public ceases to take interest in it, or, rather, never acquires interest in it. The rule has been violated which requires the recipients to help themselves. Everything has been done for the community instead of its being only helped to help itself.”

Carnegie required the elected officials—the local government—to:

- demonstrate the need for a public library; - provide the building site; pay staff and maintain the library; - draw from public funds to run the library—not use only private donations; - annually provide ten percent of the cost of the library's construction to support its operation; and, - provide free service to all.

I think this was really the key to Carnegie libraries being as successful as they have been. Funds were only given when the recipients could be expected to fund continued maintenance.

Thinking out loud here. On the one hand, I find this a persuasive argument. It is similar to the argument against NGOs operating in other countries that don't involve the local population in their assistance.

On the other hand, it also sounds like the arguments used during welfare reform and an argument against direct cash assistance.

So... I don't know how I feel about it. One could argue that Carnegie's wealth was itself a failure of good governance and that these rules he made about giving away that wealth are paternalistic.

Paternalism is a good thing. One of the things that makes human beings successful as a species is learning successful behaviors. Carnegie was doing those towns a favor by ensuring that they thought through the logistics of operating a library—in the process learning how to operate a public institution.

People rail against paternalism out of a misguided egalitarianism. You see this all the time in the context of the World Bank and IMF telling developing countries how to run their economies. You know what? That’s a good thing. Singapore became one of the wealthiest countries in the world by studiously copying the aspects of the British financial and legal system that worked. NGOs that just give money without helping countries learn how to use it effectively aren’t doing anyone any favors.

Singapore became one of the wealthiest countries in the world by studiously copying the aspects of the British financial and legal system that worked

Did Singapore copy those aspects because they chose to do so, or were those aspects imposed on them? (sincere question, since if they chose of their own free will, that would seem to argue against "paternalism is good")

Choosing what the keep and what to innovate is still choice. The beginning was imposed but they took it from there and made it work.

They (Singapore, or the PAP) have freely amended their judicial system as they see fit.

I completely agree Re: NGOs, but at least Carnegie put up resources for libraries without getting anything back specifically (possibly political good will, but not equity in anything).

Does World Bank and IMF want to help developing countries to help others prosper or to grab resources and power from those building it?

> One could argue that Carnegie's wealth was itself a failure of good governance

I'm not sure there's a specifically compelling argument here. The man brought the Bessemer process to the US and basically invented the idea of vertical integration. That all made steel cheap enough for the US to rapidly industrialize. It seems like a set of accomplishments worth financial reward.

> and that these rules he made about giving away that wealth are paternalistic.

The culture of the wealthy at the turn of the last century was such that they believed their good fortune obligated them to help society and the poor. This was part and parcel with the late 19th century and early 20th century progressive movement.

Moreover Carnegie actively worked against some pretty nasty things the federal government was doing. At the time when Woodrow Wilson was re-segregating the federal government and showing Birth of a Nation in the White House, Carnegie was funding the Tuskegee Institute. At the end of the Spanish-American war, Carnegie butted heads with president McKinley and tried to secure the independence of the Philippines and joined the American Anti-Imperialist League.

Regarding your claim of a "policy failure", to what end would the government of 1900 have used Carnegie's money had they seized it? It likely would have fueled the occupation of the Philippines, Wilson's racist and messianic madness, or some other horrific endeavor. Yet, Carnegie used it to fight imperialism, build libraries, and aid the poor.

And ultimately the public got a valuable resource.

And this is great for the ultra-wealthy, but it would be even greater to allow John or Jane Q. Public to allocate a larger portion of their taxes to specific areas of interest. How many people would like to see more resources for community resources (parks, recreation, often simple maintenance). Assuming tax rates stayed unchanged, guaranteeing X% of incomes are specifically directed by the people would mean X% has little to no lobby influence.

> How many people would like to see more resources for community resources (parks, recreation, often simple maintenance)

Every taxpayer would. Which is why this idea is entirely untenable. Hmmm, would you like your taxes to go to a community park, or to the janitorial supplies budget for a municipal building annex?

As I pointed out, the democratic process at the time was giving us anti-immigrant legislation, the Spanish-American war, literal imperialism, and (edit for typo here)entrenchment of Jim Crow. So factually turning those funds over to the government of 1900 would have been worse than Carnegie building libraries, funding the Tuskegee Institute, and opposing the establishment of oversees colonies.

Not to pick a nit, but "retrenchment" means reduction. I think the word you meant was "entrenchment". Otherwise, I agree with your statement entirely.

You are correct, I was typing that from my phone. Corrected.

Really appreciate the reply and I realize just now it reminds me of the points made by Michael Young in "Down with meritocracy":

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment

It's short enough that I'm not going to try to except any of it here.

I'm familiar with Young's book and "Down with meritocracy", but I'm not making a meritocratic argument. Specifically I noted that "hey believed their good fortune obligated them to help society and the poor", which is decidedly an acknowledgment that there is an element of luck in amassing a great fortune that comes with some sort of obligation. Carnegie and his contemporaries would have viewed this through a religious lens.

I'm making two points in general, it is not a policy failure to allow the market incentivize big bets on innovation and that the gilded age culture of philanthropy gave us lasting institutions that in many ways outshine the accomplishments of the progressive era government. I'm making something of a consequentialist claim here, merit is orthogonal.

I realized you weren't making a meritocratic argument and I should have been clearer. Young (I think) laments the loss of Noblesse oblige and I think blames that loss on meritocracy, and I was reminded of his argument when you wrote "they [the wealthy] believed their good fortune obligated them to help society and the poor."

Ahh! Well, it's an interesting argument and notion, though I'm not totally sure how to feel about it. I think the loss of a more generalized sense of civic engagement is very real and lamentable.

> This article misses the underlying philosophy that Carnegie used to fund libraries. He didn’t just give the money away to anyone that asked.

The article did not "miss" what you mentioned, nor did it imply that Carnegie gave the money away to anyone who asked. From the article:

Andrew Carnegie gave $7,500 to Woodbine. That paid for the 1908 building itself. The towns had to raise money for books, salaries and maintenance.

Sometimes you should trust that the reader does not need paragraphs of context to get the point.

Carnegie spent a lot of time thinking and writing about philanthropy, so yes, his philosophy on the subject is relevant. It wasn’t something that can be summarized in an offhand paragraph.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com