I would be very interested in seeing what percentage of the "social" donations are going to "Religious" organizations, per country.
Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad
21–30 of 225 posts
Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad
#22> I find the US initiative highly problematic. You can write donations off in your taxes to a large degree in the USA. So the rich make a choice: Would I rather donate or pay taxes? The donors are taking the place of the state. That's unacceptable. Or flip that around - is Krämer's implied solution not a case of the state taking the place of the individual? Put another way, if you founded a company, created thousands…
Because the structure that enabled you to amass that amount of wealth is flawed, and disproportionately rewards "you" over the network that actually did much of the heavy lifting. Nobody is saying they shouldn't be richly rewarded, just that it's gotten fucking ridiculous.
Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad
#23This guy takes it as a given that the Government is well-run and wise. But what's the practical alternative for someone who instead thinks that the current political environment is toxic and insane?
You take it as a given that the private sector is well-run and wise. Nobody is saying either solution is great. All it's saying is that: wouldn't it be better to have all this power be in the hands of the democratically chosen, versus billionaires who may or may not be making relevant investments? edit: Just downvotes, no response?
I take it as a given that, when a private individual uses their money, at least one person probably thought the way it was used was a good idea.
I do not take it as a given that, when the government spends money, anyone thought how it was spent was a good idea (like spending 8 billion dollars to design a tank... yes, that's billions, with a "b" (also, I love that movie))
Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad
#24Perhaps the German government can make good decisions about where to spend money, since I know they put lots of money into science and culture, but I wouldn't trust the US Congress to do the same.
The US federal government is far more likely blow it all on the military weapons systems or funding tax cuts that benefit the wealthy rather than funding guinea worm eradication or anti-malaria initiatives in Africa. The typical US congressman is unwilling to spend money altruistically on things that aren't perceived as directly benefiting the United States.
Sure, billionaires aren't saints either, but I think it's far more likely that they'll donate to causes that are geared toward having a positive long-term impact on humanity as a whole.
Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad
#25There is no real explanation for why the pledge is "bad" except for the tired argument that the state is good and private foundations imitating the state are bad . There is no further clarification or explanation; We are supposed to accept this as some sort of given, without pretext or afterthought. Articles like this are bad .
Private charities have on average been terribly inefficient in the US. However, in terms of Conspicuous consumption (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption) they are better than building ever larger boats.
Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad
#26This guy takes it as a given that the Government is well-run and wise. But what's the practical alternative for someone who instead thinks that the current political environment is toxic and insane?
You take it as a given that the private sector is well-run and wise. Nobody is saying either solution is great. All it's saying is that: wouldn't it be better to have all this power be in the hands of the democratically chosen, versus billionaires who may or may not be making relevant investments? edit: Just downvotes, no response?
"wouldn't it be better to have all this power be in the hands of the democratically chosen"
This assumes the money in question belongs to the state to begin with, and we're merely deciding how it is to be allocated. That is not the case. This is not the rich deciding what to do with the public money, it's the rich deciding what to do with their own money.
I think we would all agree, regardless of level of income, we would rather our own money be allocated to the causes that we support, rather than the causes that 51% of people support.
Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it really doesn't. Here is the meat of it: > Krämer: In this case, 40 superwealthy people want to decide what their money will be used for. That runs counter to the democratically legitimate state. In the end the billionaires are indulging in hobbies that might be in the common good, but are very personal. Literally, that is all the article has in terms of direct quotes and support. The rest of the article is a d…
What are you talking about? It has much more than that?
Pretty sure it doesn't. Feel free to provide quotes / evidence if you disagree.
Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad
#28This guy takes it as a given that the Government is well-run and wise. But what's the practical alternative for someone who instead thinks that the current political environment is toxic and insane?
You mean like the US government which is pouring money and weapons into failed states and the fascists dictatorships that have resulted, might not be the most responsible entity for deciding where your charity goes? It really comes down to a philosophical decision. Do you believe the government will make better use of your neighbors money than they will?
EDIT: I picked the US government, but I doubt many other countries have to look for to see ludicrously immoral and unethical expenditures of their own.
Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
No I mean if you read all of it, it talks about the nuance in a lot of detail.
No, it really doesn't. Here is the meat of it: > Krämer: In this case, 40 superwealthy people want to decide what their money will be used for. That runs counter to the democratically legitimate state. In the end the billionaires are indulging in hobbies that might be in the common good, but are very personal. Literally, that is all the article has in terms of direct quotes and support. The rest of the article is a d…
"The pair do not have a sterling track record when it comes to effective charity. One of their previous efforts, a high-profile $100 million donation to fix the schools in Newark, N.J., has been widely criticized as a failure."
Asking for a quote misses the point. Look into it yourself and the first link is Where Zuckerberg's $100 million gift went wrong http://www.cnbc.com/2014/05/23/where-zuckerbergs-100-million...
Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad
#30I would be very interested in seeing what percentage of the "social" donations are going to "Religious" organizations, per country.
Just because an organization is religious doesn't mean it can't provide social benefit. The air quotes seem unnecessary.