Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad
1–10 of 225 posts
Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad
#2There 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.
Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad
#3This 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?
Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad
#4Krämer: So it's not the state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich want to decide. That's a development that I find really bad. What legitimacy do these people have to decide where massive sums of money will flow?
SPIEGEL: It is their money at the end of the day.
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.
...
"There’s nothing necessarily wrong with the American system of tax-subsidized charity, of course."
"The critique is that this system affords too much power to the rich, whose decisions may not align with what’s best for society. This is not to say that the government is a paragon of efficacy either, but it risks a lot to depend on a handful of mega-billionaires to be prudent, effective philanthropists."
"What genre of philanthropy will Chan and Zuckerberg invest in? Possibly anything. Their letter Tuesday set two missions, both ambitiously vague: “advancing human potential” and “promoting equality." They mention curing diseases, improving clean energy, promoting entrepreneurship, fighting poverty and hunger, empowering women and minorities, and so on.
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.
Chan and Zuckerberg write in their announcement that they have learned from their past experiences with philanthropy. For now, they will start with their own community in San Francisco, focusing on education, health and “connecting people.”
Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad
#5There 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 .
No I mean if you read all of it, it talks about the nuance in a lot of detail.
Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad
#6[deleted]
Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad
#7Article suggests the Chan Zuckerberg initiative is non-profit, but I'm reading from multiple other sources that is definitely not the case.
Not sure who's right, but if it's not WaPo, then that's some terrible fact checking and kinda invalidates the whole article.
Edit - Chan Zuckerberg is a for profit, that will fund non profits, so WaPo is actually incorrect.
Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad
#8There 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 .
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 discussion and re-hash of other notable charities and comparison of charitable contributions per country, which is a side-tangent.
Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad
#9This 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?
Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad
#10There 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 .
The explanation is that it's the government (or rather the people) that's subsidizing the charitable work of the billionaires via tax breaks, but giving up any say in how the money is used.