Hostility toward philanthropy is nothing new; when John D. Rockefeller established his eponymous foundation, he was attacked for reasserting “the old reign of aristocracy under the new names of philanthropy and science.” And Zuckerberg’s move comes at a time of anxiety about the rise of so-called philanthrocapitalism. Foundations have great influence over social policy but are independent of democratic control. Why should unelected billionaires get to exercise their neo-missionary impulses across the globe?....ADDED: I don't think Surowiecki confronts the problem of "pour[ing] money into controversial causes" like education reform. One man's flaky or utopian notions can supplant democratic choice.
Philanthropies... have far-reaching time horizons and almost no one they have to please. This can lead them to pour money into controversial causes, as Zuckerberg has with education reform. But it also enables them to make big bets on global public goods. There is a long history of this: the Rockefeller Foundation funded the research that produced a vaccine for yellow fever. The Gates Foundation, since its founding, in 2000, has put billions of dollars into global health programs, and now spends more on health issues than the W.H.O.
It’s been suggested that if we just taxed billionaires more there’d be more money for promoting social projects globally. But it’s far likelier that those projects would just go underfunded....
१५ डिसेंबर, २०१५
James Surowiecki defends the "philanthrocapitalism" of Mark Zuckerberg.
I have to link to this New Yorker piece, since I've been skeptical about whether Zuckerberg is really doing good.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३४ टिप्पण्या:
He earned the money. It should be possible to try things without having to get them past all of the interest groups who not only weigh down effective government like so many chains, but who are indisputably part of the problem.
This can lead them to pour money into controversial causes, as Zuckerberg has with education reform.
WTF? "Education reform" is controversial? Que?
====================================
Listen, the guy made a boat load of money selling something lots of people want. He can spend it however he wants. But all the virtue signaling lets you know IT'S ALL ABOUT HIM. ME ME ME ME ME LOOK AT WHAT ME IS DOING !!!!
You want to do something charitable with your $$$$, just friggin do it and shut up. No one need ever know.
I'm far more impressed by Zuckerburg's "I'm giving it all away now" than I am about opportunistic "philanthropists" like Warren Buffet who blow their horn about how much they're going to give away in their will. They reap the benefits now of a gift that will cost them nothing and may not be made anyway. At least Zuckerburg is proving his pledge.
"It’s been suggested that if we just taxed billionaires more there’d be more money for promoting social projects globally. But it’s far likelier that those projects would just go underfunded..."Why so little faith in government? For shame. Or do Progs not believe their own BS?
Of course, "philanthrocapitalism" does double duty for Progs. They get to attack it in the abstract, as wages of exploitation and evidence of plutocratic power, but defend it concretely, confident that any institution or pot of money not explicitly dedicated to conservative purposes will turn Prog.
But Zuck isn't giving it away. He's giving it to his LLC which MAY use it for charitable purposes.
It's his cash so it's none of my business, but bullshit is bullshit.
Philanthropies are solid vehicles for avoiding taxes and the reach of the government. They provide sinecures for relatives and their staffs.
My biggest problem is that the IRS threshold their charitable works (5%) is way too low. I think it should be 15%. This should apply to university endowments just as well. There also should be a requirement that university endowments go primarily to tuition support for "needy" bright students on solid career paths.
Philanthropies are Utopian in nature. Hence, my suggestions might be Utopian too.
p.s. Zuckerberg is not giving it all away now. Don't read just the headline. He's doing very much what Buffett and Gates are doing.
The REAL news is that Mark is selling ALL of his FB stock (over time ) and buying new assets. The charity aspect of the LLC is a cover story. What duty or legal obligation does he have to do charitable things in the future?
I had to laugh about his "I love Muslims" post. There would be no Facebook if Mark attended the Harvard of Egypt.
Is there a Harvard of Egypt? A Georgetown?
Zuckerberg needs to wise up regarding Islam. Facebook's community will never reform the Religion of Peace. Unfixable.
Zuckerberg looks at human beings as commodities.
Come to think of it, most billionaires look at human beings as commodities.
Come to think of it again, so do politicians.
Just remember people, the pain liberals go through when somebody else has power over something and not them. It is said that controlling behavior is rooted in anxiety, if that is the case, liberals are swimming in anxiety.
...announced that he would be donating ninety-nine per cent of his Facebook stock to a new nonprofit organization...
Fact check: New Yorker got it wrong in the first sentence. It's an LLC, not a nonprofit organization. Three Pinocchios.
'there is, “no mechanism by which global citizens can make binding collective decisions.”'
Then just as we suspected that thing in Paris was just an excuse for bureaucrats to party while we all picked up the tab.
'All public-goods spending is precarious, especially foreign aid, and never more so than with Republicans in charge of Congress.'
Feature, not bug.
But they have that power precisely because they are spending so much of their money to solve global problems. We, as a country, are not.
Governments are notoriously slow inefficient wasteful problem solvers. Billionaires know this and react accordingly. The social problems these billionaires are trying to address are capital intensive and come with a high risk of failure. Something they know about. Let them do it rather than impose those burdens on ordinary citizens.
Zuckerberg used an historically successful method of accumulating great wealth: He turned people into commodities and used them as the product he was selling.
"You can do anything you set your mind to when you have vision, determination, and an endless supply of expendable labor."
- from a Demotivator poster about Achievement at www.Despair.com
I hold no brief for Zuckerberg, but I chuckle at the notion that letting the government have the money is somehow better than private individuals disposing of their fortunes themselves. Zuckerberg will probably give money to a lot of people and causes that I hate, but it's his to dispose of as he pleases. And he might actually do some good with at least some of the dough. I have no confidence that government will do anything with the money that is not destructive.
When the 501C3 exemption was created there was a 25 year automatic cancellation. The Fords and the Rockefellers pushed out a lot of loot to allow them to become secular religious orders. We need to reestablish the 25 year limit and put them out of business. I speak as a person who directly benefitted from this for more than a decade.
When the 501C3 exemption was created to allow the Ford Foundation to be created there was a 25 year limit imposed. This was quickly revoked with the use of lucre. These secular religious orders have spread across the country, many have become tax shelters for rich families. The 25 year rule should be reestablished to limit the entrenchment of political and special interests.
Regardless about Zuckerberg specifically, the issue can be summarized as follows:
Many don't like or are skeptical of philanthropy because the philanthropist gets to decide where his/her money goes as opposed to federal bureaucrats. It's all about control of the money. Progressives want a progressive government to tax wealth and to decide how to spend it.
Progressives hate rich people spending their money the way they want.
Zuckerberg might be a bad example, but I'm going with the overall theory that the rich people who created the wealth are smarter than politicians and government employees on how best to spend the money.
I think he should give all his money to Big Govt. which he supports to take away ours. He has no right to pretend to do good while taking a $1 pay to avoid paying income taxes, Medicare and Soc. Security that the rest of us have to pay.
He is a creepy phony, just like Buffett.
Foundations have great influence over social policy but are independent of democratic control. Why should unelected billionaires get to exercise their neo-missionary impulses across the globe?....
Shorter NY: Aaaaah save us from this scary freedom!
I find their concern greatly amusing. First they have to misstate reality to justify their fear, spending your own money doesn't effect social "policy" at all. It may or may not be wasted but it isn't policy. The expressed concern that everything must be "controlled" is authoritarian, the "democratic" modifier is a misnomer. Government and charity spending is controlled bureaucratically by left wing activists not democratically.
But further since when does the left care about waste? They don't subject their preferred social and charitable efforts to this type of scrutiny. Instead they judge "success" on how much is given or spent. Accomplishment only becomes the standard when they don't control the spending.
They know the power of the purse gives them tremendous political leverage so they want to bring all spending under their control. There isn't anything high-minded about this.
How Zuckerberg's altruism helps himself -
"An L.L.C. can invest in for-profit companies (perhaps these will be characterized as societally responsible companies, but lots of companies claim the mantle of societal responsibility). An L.L.C. can make political donations. It can lobby for changes in the law. He remains completely free to do as he wishes with his money. That’s what America is all about. But as a society, we don’t generally call these types of activities “charity.”
What’s more, a charitable foundation is subject to rules and oversight. It has to allocate a certain percentage of its assets every year. The new Zuckerberg L.L.C. won’t be subject to those rules and won’t have any transparency requirements."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/business/dealbook/how-mark-zuckerbergs-altruism-helps-himself.html
It's his money, he can do what he wants. But we all see where it is heading. You can buy a lot of politicians with money in your LLC. Look at the politicians Soros and his Open Society Foundation has in his back pocket, doing his bidding.
Rockefeller, Zuckerberg, who's next, the Koch brothers? You just can't give money away without suspicion.
So Zuckerburg gave $100 million to the Newark Public Schools that just ended up being flushed down the toilet. But the taxpayers in Newark are compelled to keep funding failure.
Chances are both the government and philanthropists are just wasting money. But only one of them is wasting taxpayer money
Blogger Sebastian said...
"Of course, "philanthrocapitalism" does double duty for Progs. They get to attack it in the abstract, as wages of exploitation and evidence of plutocratic power, but defend it concretely, confident that any institution or pot of money not explicitly dedicated to conservative purposes will turn Prog."
O'Sullivan's Law. Any organization that is not explicitly right wing will, over time, become left wing. Not that Zuckerberg cares, but I bet Ford and Rockefeller are spinning in their graves over the way the Commies are spending their loot. As is anyone who ever gave a dime to a god-damned university.
So he is dodging taxes. And advocates for higher taxes on the little people.
Money i need to buy food and pay rent is taxed. Money he wants to use for social signaling isn't. Sounds legit.
We need a flat tax. No deductions.
mccullough said...
So Zuckerburg gave $100 million to the Newark Public Schools that just ended up being flushed down the toilet. But the taxpayers in Newark are compelled to keep funding failure.
Aside from the corporations and law firms in Newark, the taxpayers of Newark couldn't fund jack sh*t.
An LLC can be a charity according to the IRS depending on the laws of the state in which it files.
Why wouldn't a rich liberal operate a charitable foundation, especially after witnessing Grifter Inc., er I mean the Clinton Foundation.
Ann wrote:
ADDED: I don't think Surowiecki confronts the problem of "pour[ing] money into controversial causes" like education reform. One man's flaky or utopian notions can supplant democratic choice.
Yes, he did: Governments do better at providing public goods (defense, say, or education), but private agendas often derail the public interest
The fact that the NEA has bought off the Democrat Party, and thus is able to sabotage education choice, is the failure of democracy. If Zuckerburg can get around them, and fund something to the point where it proves successful, that's a great success.
mccullough said...
So Zuckerburg gave $100 million to the Newark Public Schools that just ended up being flushed down the toilet. But the taxpayers in Newark are compelled to keep funding failure.
Details, with links?
Blogger Achilles said...
"So he is dodging taxes. And advocates for higher taxes on the little people.
Money i need to buy food and pay rent is taxed. Money he wants to use for social signaling isn't. Sounds legit.
We need a flat tax. No deductions."
Since you bring it up, what you really want is a flat *property* tax. It is kind of ridiculous to suppose that income is a valid measure of your wealth, or of the value you receive from government. Especially when only that portion of income produced by labor is counted. Local governments tax the value of property. This has the salutary effect that people who don't really have a use for a piece of property, tend to sell it to someone who does, so as to avoid the taxes. It tends to drive resources into the hands of those who can make productive use of them. Also, it is inherently progressive, since those who own the most, pay the most. Arguably, they have most to gain from the services government provides, as those services secure their property.
This works because what is taxed is immobile. When governments try to apply a wealth tax, wealth flees.
So Zuckerburg gave $100 million to the Newark Public Schools that just ended up being flushed down the toilet. But the taxpayers in Newark are compelled to keep funding failure.
Details, with links?
Try this, from The New Yorker: Schooled: Cory Booker,Chris Christie,and Mark Zuckerberg had a plan to reform Newark’s schools.They got an education.
"One man's flaky or utopian notions can supplant democratic choice."
Only if he keeps the strings tight (which he probably will.)
For quite a while our flaky utopian notions in education have been herd driven. With one man we would at least be able to see what the target is if we want to resist.
O'Sullivan's Law. Any organization that is not explicitly right wing will, over time, become left wing.
The Left is big on one man, one vote, one time.
Once they win, there isn't a need to ever revisit things. Time for massive change quick to lock in their wins.
""Yes, he did: Governments do better at providing public goods (defense, say, or education), but private agendas often derail the public interest.""
No, "the public interest" is not equated to the democratic process with people debating in the political arena, expressing their desires through voting, and having representatives hashing out the policies and accountable in the next election.
The public interest is just what's good for the public and it can be served in many ways, including by private organizations or officials who are insulated from the democratic process.
Ann Althouse said...
No, "the public interest" is not equated to the democratic process with people debating in the political arena, expressing their desires through voting, and having representatives hashing out the policies and accountable in the next election.
How does a rich guy6 giving money short circuit any of that?
If he's giving money to the government to do something, all that debate can still happen, over whether to accept the money given the conditions. And people can get voted out of office if they take the money against the desire of the voters.
If he's giving money to private individuals, then the "democratic process" is not entitled to a "vote", any more than you get to tell me what clothes to buy, what books to buy, or what private school to send my kids to.
If your complaint is that there were these people who were trapped into doing what others wanted, and Zuck came along and gave them money so they could do what they wanted?
I hope that's not what you're complaining about, because that would be very shameful on your part.
Yes, he did: Governments do better at providing public goods (defense, say, or education),
That's just funny right there.
You left a word out 'inefficiently'. Governments do better at providing public goods ( defense, say, or education), inefficiently. Governments are really good at wasting resources. Some of that is built in because so much oversight must be worked around or ignored in order to provide the required graft.
Unless what Zuckerberg does with his wealth somehow improves someone else's life I and a lot of other people could give a rats ass what he does with it. It's his to with what he likes and if it subverts the progressive agenda so much the better.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा