Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 265 posts

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#241

Post by 8note »

throw__away7391 wrote: post #132
krageon wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what organisations, pray tell, actually need the money and would be visible to a normal human being in a country that isn't shattered by war? Most of the large charities have disgustingly paid CEO's and I can't be the only one that gets a sour taste in their mouth when I give an amount of money to them and realise this CEO receives 100k-1m in compensation while actual human beings starve in the streets or freeze…

I worked for several different charities for a few years. Supposedly "good ones", a couple of big names. After what I have seen I don't think I'd ever donate to a charity. The CEO's pay is almost the least concern, everything runs according to the whims of people who wouldn't last 5 minutes in a for-profit business. The people donating just want to feel good about themselves or get some positive press for donating. T…

Something. like partners in health makes a pretty clear impact, with the Paul Farmer aims to treat people directly, and not as statistics.

Now that he's died, it might not be the same though

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#243

Post by ZeroGravitas »

coastflow wrote: post #195
WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why Switzerland is such a poor country and disappeared from the face of the Earth. The people who want you to believe other people are dumb and direct democracy is a bad thing are the ones benefiting the most from the current inbalanced form of government. I mean if you think the people as a collective entiry are extremely dumb, why would you want any form of democracy or even society at all? Also, I have bad…

Assume everyone in a population governed by direct democracy is not "dumb." Then, there is still a need for checks against what political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville called the "tyranny of the majority." From the United States National Endowment of the Humanities [0]: "In America, [Tocqueville] saw and praised a people who enjoyed an unprecedented equality of conditions and political and civil liberty without end…

So Alexis Charles Henri Clérel, comte de Tocquevill, touring the US at a time (1831) when Women, Black people, Jews, White men without property etc. were regularly unable to vote concludes that the big issue of concern is that the democratic majority might pass laws affecting a minority? That seems almost perverse.

Yes, but what if we freed the hostages and then they all went out and kidnapped someone? Then we (we being the previous kidnappers) would be no better off! Probably best not to rush into this new fangled democracy thing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_voting_rights_in...

He's literally and openly writing a book on how with his guidance a democracy can run a society as 'well' as an aristocracy does.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#244

Post by exdsq »

anonymous_sorry wrote: post #159
exdsq wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My issue with EA is similar to the posts point - it seems to be a lot of money being moved around between EA organizations finding their own blue sky philosophy research. For example the Future of Humanities Institute is funded by Giving What We Can, which passes funds to some AI orgs in SF, that the guys at FHI collaborate with, etc… I agree with their points but the actual funding of EA infrastructure appears to be…

I've found that the funds are generally quite clear where the money goes. Givewell have a separate fund for EA infrastructure.

Yes, they are, but the issue is it’s so intertwined between the people in EA funds and their supported charities its hard to not be skeptical.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#245

Post by ZeroGravitas »

gruez wrote: post #165
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #131

Another only mildly disguised attack on democracy. > If you’re used to thinking that our democratic system is in bad shape, that can sound jarring. But she’s working in the tradition of what philosophers call “ideal theory”; the aim is to sketch out what a good system would be, assuming that everyone fully complied with its rules. I'm used to thinking that democracy is in poor shape because rich and powerful people p…

>this author seems to take as a fairly key element of their argument that people getting stupid rich and then doing government type stuff without democratic oversight is good [...] Which part is bad? The "government type stuff" or the "without democratic oversight"? I agree that billionaires fielding their own armies/police forces would be pretty bad, but what's wrong with funding homeless shelters or schools? If I d…

Interesting you mention those two topics:

Erik Prince: founder of Blackwater, private mercenary army.

Betsy Devos: former education secretary and champion of charter schools

Both children of Edgar and Elsa Prince, Erik runs their charity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Foundation

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#246

Post by ZeroGravitas »

ouid wrote: post #190
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #131

Another only mildly disguised attack on democracy. > If you’re used to thinking that our democratic system is in bad shape, that can sound jarring. But she’s working in the tradition of what philosophers call “ideal theory”; the aim is to sketch out what a good system would be, assuming that everyone fully complied with its rules. I'm used to thinking that democracy is in poor shape because rich and powerful people p…

There's a LOT of money to be made telling poor people that rich people are good. Given how much we have collectively been paid to find a good argument for enriching the rich, I don't find any of the arguments to be anywhere close to commensurately convincing, do you?

No, but it doesn't have to be convincing if you're a kid and all your stories are about the daughters of authoritarian warlords aka princesses, or genetically superior Ubermensch aka Superheros.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#247

Post by ZeroGravitas »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #188
ryandrake wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, the key downside of philanthropy is the "without democratic oversight" part. It's all fine when the billionaires are funding homeless shelters or schools: things everyone can agree are a public good. We are extremely lucky that guys like Bill Gates suddenly got a soft spot for fighting malaria after amassing their fortunes. But nothing exists to stop these billionaires from donating to causes against the publi…

But that's not true. The people and the democratically-elected government are the ones that Define what qualifies as a charity. We have said through our Democratic process that these are good things. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...

You could make the same argument for tax loopholes, in fact they may actually just be the same thing in many cases.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#248

Post by WastingMyTime89 »

Bubble_Pop_22 wrote: post #200
WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why Switzerland is such a poor country and disappeared from the face of the Earth. The people who want you to believe other people are dumb and direct democracy is a bad thing are the ones benefiting the most from the current inbalanced form of government. I mean if you think the people as a collective entiry are extremely dumb, why would you want any form of democracy or even society at all? Also, I have bad…

> That's why Switzerland Switzerland has the population of NYC, the city, not the metro area... and attracts the crème de la crème of a continent made of 740m people. By the same token we should all swear by autocracy given how well are Singapore, UAE, Macao and Monaco faring.

> Switzerland has the population of NYC, the city, not the metro area... and attracts the crème de la crème of a continent made of 740m people.

Switzerland has a native population with the traditional flaws and usual repartition of a normal population. Your rebuke is the usual one. People like to pretend direct democracy wouldn’t work for their usual pet peeve which generally boils down to them thinking they are much better than their neighbours and when you point to them that their argument is completely disproved by the fact that it already works in an actual rich country they just declare it doesn’t count out of intellectual laziness.

Also yes autocracy can work if you are fine with its main flaws: unequal treatment of the population. China is a better exemple than the countries you suggested looking at.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#249

Post by s1artibartfast »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #247
s1artibartfast wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's not true. The people and the democratically-elected government are the ones that Define what qualifies as a charity. We have said through our Democratic process that these are good things. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...

You could make the same argument for tax loopholes, in fact they may actually just be the same thing in many cases.

How do you define loophole. Is is the code that explicitly gives a tax credit for children and dependence a tax loophole?

I don't think that you can make a coherent argument that a law operating as intended is considered a loophole.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#250

Post by s1artibartfast »

therealdrag0 wrote: post #237
s1artibartfast wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moral and economic arguments are pretty simple. From the economic perspective, If someone gives $100 to charity, and a gets a $20 tax deduction, this is a net positive. Ostensibly, the point of government is to help people, and the point of charities are to help people. In reality, Half of that $20 tax would have gone to building bombs, so it is more like $10 vs $100. From the moral perspective, charitable donati…

FYI: 50% of tax doesn’t go to bombs, or defense. Like 20% does and most of that isn’t bombs :)

I was being hyperbolic so this is a valid correction. Understanding military spending is tricky through because it often doesnt come out of the military budget, as retirement and medical support are counted elsewhere.
Post reply on HN