The things Dolly does seem to lend themselves to legacy, and what could a rich man/woman want more than their name immortalized in a social program that helps people.
Their website explains how you can become a partner for your area and the costs involved.
In some places it is government funded. The program in Baltimore City for example appears to be largely funded by Maryland State government via a yearly grant to a nonprofit.
https://imaginationlibrary.com/usa/
https://goccp.maryland.gov/the-governors-young-readers-progr...
Or is the claim not that one approach is more effective than other in terms of positive impact, but that the wealthy, for their own sake, would be better off founding their own organizations?
Lots of these orgs often seem like they exist to maintain the organization than benefit their cause.
Organizations and causes require people who work full time to help organize the charitable work. It is very difficult to find people to volunteer at this level and typically if you do, they are independently wealthy. Retired people can do more but typically they do not want to give that much time and have other things they want to do.
4 hrs a week which is a typical volunteer shift at our hospital does not lend itself to pulling all the details together.
Good people deserve to get paid to do good work. Just like in tech, you get what you pay for. And typically a nonprofit worker puts extra hours and time in as does their family members in support of the cause.
I often hear, well, if you don't pay them top salary you are not going to attract people from private enterprise. I don't think you want people whose main motivation to contribute is money.
It's probably easier to get that guy you know who is high-up at Kroger to get involved in your charity in a mutually-beneficial way.
Or maybe I'm just really really over the edge jaded and cynical. It's probably that.
I wonder why so many people want the wealthy to do more things to make the world a better place when the United States has a GDP of $23 trillion dollars.
Everyone wants to pay little taxes, have a cheap gallon of gas, and tax the rich to solve our problems, while kicking the can as far down the road as possible.
How many problems could have been solved with $32 trillion
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2023/04/25/the-natio...
It's not clear to me what connection you are making between America's GDP and wanting the wealthy to do more. The wealthy capture the largest portion of the GDP, so America's high GDP would seem to support the idea that the wealthy can do more.
It seems like you are criticizing tax rates but then you talk about how much can be done with the money that makes up the national debt. Are you advocating more or less government spending? Are you advocating more or less taxes?
US consumer spending is 70% of GDP.
> How many problems could have been solved with $32 trillion
How many problems were solved with that $32 trillion?
To nitpick, the current US GDP estimate is $26.49 trillion. https://www.bea.gov/news/2023/gross-domestic-product-second-...
In general, I agree with your gist. Hagiographies turn me off, particularly in a republic of citizens (not Great Men).