March 7, 2020

"Roswell finally outed himself as rich when he volunteered to front the travel costs for a group of Oberlin students who wanted to attend a climate-change conference."

"That’s when two housemates told him about an organization called Resource Generation (RG). A nonprofit group based in New York, Resource Generation focuses on organizing wealthy young people to recognize their unearned privilege, make peace with it — and then relinquish much of it by giving away a large percentage of their money.... At conferences, in webinars and in local working groups, and through RG books and peer-to-peer mentorship, members learn how to shed entitled assumptions. One bedrock Resource Generation practice is educating members to work closely with community organizations in what it calls 'right relationship' — not dictating how donated funds should be used, but supporting local leaders, who are often poor or working class and are closest to the problems they seek to address.... According to Roswell, his mother, for one, worries that he is moving too quickly, making reckless decisions about enormous sums.... 'I think the mirror I’ve been holding up has been helpful, and that my family is changing how they’re approaching their own giving.' Ultimately, however, philanthropy’s real goal, he says, should be 'to make itself not exist anymore.'"

From "The Millennials Who Want to Get Rid of Their Class Privilege/Their families built fortunes. These young people joined a group that coaches them on how to give the money away" (WaPo).

Photographs at the link include one with the caption "Resource Generation member David Roswell and girlfriend Maggie Heraty at his kiln in Durham, N.C." But there was nothing in the article about his kiln. Nothing other than the note that "in addition to his political organizing [he] spends his days working as a ceramist." Is "ceramist" (i.e, potter) his career or is it some pastime or affectation? I think it would be nice to have secure independent wealth and to "spend one's days" doing pottery but difficult to rid yourself of all your wealth and depend on pottery for a living.

107 comments:

rhhardin said...

Pottery: somebody has to replace the priceless artifacts lost in the Iraq war.

rhhardin said...

Giving your money to a good cause usually lowers everybody's standard of living, unless you know better than the market does where to direct the economy's current production.

Which is to say, you don't. It's a personal conceit and indulgence. But it's your money, as they say.

Michael K said...

My son-in-law is a sculptor and potter and making a fairly good living at it. He has to keep raising his prices to help keep up with demand. A nice lesson in Economics.

Ice Nine said...

These idiots are prey.

tim in vermont said...

This is why they invented trust funds. People can always think of ways to use your money for their purposes. Young people often make bad decisions.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...


“"That’s when two housemates told him about an organization called Resource Generation (RG). A nonprofit group based in New York, Resource Generation focuses on organizing wealthy young people to recognize their unearned privilege, make peace with it — and then relinquish much of it by giving away a large percentage of their money....”

Scamming the zeitgeist. I applaud their enterprise while deploring their morals.

JAORE said...

"...organizing wealthy young people to recognize their unearned privilege, make peace with it — and then relinquish much of it... to me, Me MEEEEE!

I promise I'll spend it oh so wisely like that nude sketch class. Or on Vegas probability lessons. Or....

pacwest said...

A fool and his money...

rehajm said...

A fool and his money...

That's pretty much it. Only the latest fad to get rich people to give it up. While your wealth will find its way to community organizers and other assorted hucksters it will not find auditors who will evaluate your return on investment...

When you get really wealthy Warren Buffett calls to convince you to join The Giving Pledge.

Yancey Ward said...

A sucker born every minute, and two to take him.

Yancey Ward said...

I am going to start my own charity- The Human Fund, Money for People.

Danno said...

Clearly a Trustafarian. Daddy prolly tops off his account if the balance diminishes too much.

Danno said...

Maybe they should create a village named Potterville.

Hagar said...

Santa Fe has a lot of young lawyers (some not so young anymore) eking out a living conning wealthy fools into wasting their money in good "causes."

rhhardin is right; the money would do more social good in diversified investment funds.

Tomcc said...

A very interesting idea and not necessarily bad. There are many worthwhile causes deserving of support. I'd like to think that the parents of these young adults would help them develop some sense of altruism and to steer clear of grifters. The latter being the most difficult. Billy McFarland as a recent example.

Achilles said...

I 100% endorse this NGO's mission.

These people need to give their money away before they start funding Bernie Sanders campaigns and donating to colleges.

YoungHegelian said...

One bedrock Resource Generation practice is educating members to work closely with community organizations in what it calls 'right relationship' — not dictating how donated funds should be used, but supporting local leaders, who are often poor or working class and are closest to the problems they seek to address.

In other words, make capital fund the Revolution. Above all, don't ask any embarrassing questions of these Lefty grifters as to "how the funds are being used".

Notice how what's missing from this description is a notion that philanthropy should fund hospitals, the high arts, scholarship, or communities of faith.

A little knowledge of history would let these trust fund babies in a little secret -- when the Revolution comes, their donations will not wipe away the stain of their upper class origins, and they and theirs will be sent to the Gulags. But, if they knew any history, they wouldn't be hanging with these people in the first place.

Jess said...

It's good work, when you can convince ignorant wealthy youngster they need to give their money away, after they give you enough to get rich. To those ignorant youngsters, a few million is not much. To those willing to manipulate their ignorance, it's a guarantee they'll never have to work again.

Maillard Reactionary said...

With any luck, he can be buried in the local Potters Field.

Guildofcannonballs said...

https://cuppacafe.com/fawn-liebowitz-dies/20160

I recommend everyone just forget all about the kiln, iffin' you know what's good for ya. Just leave it alone.

Mark said...

Typical progressive millennial thinking.

The wealthy have been encouraged to detach and give to others for 3-4,000 years. And that ethic got a really big boost about 2,000 years ago.

And the millennial and post-millennial progressives think that they invented the idea.

Ambrose said...

Listen to your mother.

Stephen said...

This stuff has been going on for a long time, it's as much boomer as millenial.

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

Mark said...

Further typical progressive millennial thinking -- they take a sublime concept like charitable giving for the good of others and politicize it to advance merely their own power/privilege interests.

Hagar said...

It just struck me that Bloomberg took ~$2 per U.S. citizen out of whatever the money was invested in and put it out on the streets in general circulation.
This has to have a noticeable effect on the economy, right?

Big Mike said...

Oberlin. Of course. Where else?

Ken B said...

So, he's increasing the group’s carbon output immensely, right?

tim in vermont said...

“You say you want a revolution, oh ho ohh, we’d all love to see the plan"

Ken B said...

Mark
“That library has Carnegie's name on it! White privilege! Billionaire! Tear it down!”

Sebastian said...

"not dictating how donated funds should be used, but supporting local leaders, who are often poor or working class and are closest to the problems they seek to address"

IOW, wasting money as quickly as possible, with the maximum amount of graft and corruption, in exchange for a slight bump in self-regard.

Mark said...

I don't get your point, Ken.

Eleanor said...

Like joining a cult

Bilwick said...

I don't have much of a problem with the Dumbest Generation giving away whatever wealth they have or will inherit (hey, guys and gals wanting to help the poor--over here, over here!) My problem is that they support State-shtuppers who want to give everyone's money away.

Also, the article seems symbolic of today's Bernie Bros and other battalions of the Dumbest Generation Left. To me the most precious inheritance they're going to get is living in a free society; or at least, thanks to "liberals" and other statists, a semi-free society. But they're like some jackass who inherits a million dollars and then pisses it away.

Bilwick said...

Yancey Ward wrote: "I am going to start my own charity- The Human Fund, Money for People." I've often used that joke to tell "liberals," "progressives" and other State-fellators (particularly the upper-middle-class and rich ones) that they could have socialism now. All they'd have to do is put all their money in some kind of fund that could be used to help poor people: buy their medicine, food, housing, etc. You could all it the Human Fund: Money for People. And then--and this is the beauty part--LEAVE THE REST OF US THE HELL ALONE!

Tomcc said...

By the way, I hope those Oberlin students used some combination of peddling and/or paddling to attend that conference.
Who am I kidding...

Fernandinande said...

Telling the truth about wealth and our class backgrounds helps expose how deeply unjust and racist the U.S. economic system is and makes our movements for economic and racial justice stronger."

At their website which published that lie, I don't see any mention of dollar amounts, or what any money has been spent on. The site does seem to mention plenty of social events.

NYC JournoList said...

Althouse must have a meeting with her estate lawyer to update the will on Monday and is doing homework. Give it to the kid, or adopt a responsible person to give it to rather than a charity.

Krumhorn said...

It's important to keep clear that as soon as they have exhausted the resources of their rich wealthy marks, they will presume the moral high ground to come after our wealth.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. - Winston Churchill

- Krumhorn

Ken B said...

Mark
I was imagining an illustration of your comment “
Further typical progressive millennial thinking -- they take a sublime concept like charitable giving for the good of others and politicize it to advance merely their own power/privilege interests”

Quaestor said...

Give away all the money somebody else earned? But, of course...

Temujin said...

This is pretty basic socialist clap-trap. Give away your money, you evil rich person. We'll help you get to be a better person. We'll show you where to give your money. But you have to put it through us, and we'll make sure it gets to where it should go. You'll feel better about yourself and we'll stop wanting to kill you for now.

However, later, when your money is all gone, you'll be of no use to us and we'll point to you as an anti-revolutionary and we'll have no choice but to kill you. And your wife. And kids. And relatives. Because that's what socialists do and have always done. Those to tell you otherwise are just trying to get you to give them your money. And the cycle continues.

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Two-eyed Jack said...

Potter or personal mascot?

Mark said...

Yes, that is an illustration of the politicization of charity.

Wince said...

I do believe this leftist grift was called purchasing indulgences, if not the Brooklyn Bridge, at various points in history.

RobinGoodfellow said...

“Blogger Achilles said...
I 100% endorse this NGO's mission.

These people need to give their money away before they start funding Bernie Sanders campaigns and donating to colleges.”

Unfortunately, Bernie and his ilk will be the first in line for the free cash.

Michael K said...

Yancey Ward said...
I am going to start my own charity- The Human Fund, Money for People.


From what I hear, Bloomberg started it already. Those people were scamming him so bad it sounds like global warming or something.

D 2 said...

Give the coffee shop server an extra $20 when they serve 7 customers in quick time and without complaint.
Give the taxi driver an extra $20 for being friendly
Give the barber an extra $50 for making you look great
Give a kid selling lemonade a $10 and say keep on keeping on
Write the restaurant that you had a really great time at last month, tell the owner you appreciate the whole staffs efforts, here’s $1000 hope it keeps everybody happy there.

I imagine You can go through a lot of money showing a little added grace for being more generous (than would ever be expected) to people who are working hard for their kids and you don’t need to make a big deal of what you are doing.

Or if you don’t want to be random in your charity .......... Go out Sunday morning and give ten church groups $500 to go to this years summer camps for kids who maybe can’t afford it. Buy a hospital a ventilator thing for infants, drop it by the door.

Stop thinking most of the world cares one whit about your virtue or your so called leadership. That’s for you to work out. The rest of us are scratching and moving here.

If you have through fate gathered more resources than the vast majority, and you want to spread the wealth for whatever reason, it’s pretty arrogant to wake up in 2020 and not think there isn’t 9999 options out there already that will take your help from homelessness to micro lending to health care to disaster relief to buying goats to kids recreation to just helping working people by giving them a tip that will make their workweek.

Anonymous said...

Someone in his family was apparently exceptional; intelligent, skilled or hardworking and able to accumulate wealth. He is an example of deviation to the mean.

Phil 314 said...

Why not give to Oberlin, the college that taught him so well.

john said...

"in addition to his political organizing [he] spends his days working as a ceramist."

Reminds me of this wellknown paintist.

ALP said...

Open daycare centers with that money. There is a severe shortage of daycare in most major cities - in Seattle pregnant couples are advised to get on waiting lists asap. I can't think of a better project - creates jobs and takes care of the shortage. Will give the donors a good lesson in pointless bureacracy too.

ALP said...

I love D 2's ideas too - multiple cash 'random acts'.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

Easy come, easy go.

I hope those climate activists aren't burning any fossil fuels to get to their climate-change hootenannies.

I wish Roswell all the worst -- it's what he's asking for. He's LITERALLY spitting in the face of all the poor, or simply not rich, who strive and struggle to survive, and to garner some security for themselves and their families, and to be able to help others.

tim maguire said...

This is why most trusts dole out the money over a period of time, with most of it held until the little tyke is safely out of his 20’s.

But hey, without programs like Resource Generation, grifters would have to think of some other con.

Amadeus 48 said...

That young man was poorly raised. But I have seen it before.

People need incentives. Althouse is right. If the money gives you the freedom to develop your art, great. But you also need to understand the effort it takes to accumulate substantial wealth. Three generations worked hard; the fourth should too. By all means be generous with others, but don’t outsource your benevolence.

bleh said...

This is one of the major reason why rich families create elaborate webs of entities and trusts to protect multigenerational wealth, including protecting it from people who marry into the family.

Josephbleau said...

The two housemates are pretty stupid for telling him about the big scam organization. They could have slurped up a lot more for themselves and gotten more wild climate change vacations if they had kept it closer.

wayworn wanderer said...

You can't make this stuff up.

Automatic_Wing said...

"Climate Change Protesters Gone Wild" - Now available on VHS!

Unknown said...

I believe it is safe to assume the people behind this effort are getting fabulously wealthy.

Maillard Reactionary said...

Another upvote for D 2's strategy.

Not a member of the People here, but my recollection is that in Judiaic teaching, there is a hierarchy of charity: Help another who does not know who helped him and no one else knows about it either--best; help another who knows who helped him, but no one else does--not quite so good; and the Oberlin way where the giver makes a bloody public show of his virtue. (If I've gotten this wrong, please correct.)

Not anticipated by the ancient Hebrews is the Liberal way, making a public show of your virtue by using other people's money.

Human nature is unchanging, but humans are creative and are constantly innovating with what they have to work with.

effinayright said...

Roswell is obviously an alien.

Kevin said...

Resource Generation

What a leftist name.

If you want to be a person rather than a resource for someone else’s agenda, you must leave the political left.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Well Well, Buying indulgences are we now?

stevew said...

Giving away his money is dumb. Taking the income it generates and giving that to another person or cause that he wants to help is best. Giving it all to a charitable organization that leverages it to help others is pretty good too. But just giving it away, might as well burn it.

Spiros Pappas said...

The parents deserve it. These brats shouldn't have access to any unearned money until their 30s or 40s.

Laughing Fox said...

Here are Moses Maimonidies' (Jewish medieval thinker)levels of charity:
1.Give directly to the poor person, but unwillingly.
2.Give directly to the poor person, inadequately, but gladly.
3.Give directly to the poor person, after being asked
4.Give directly to the poor person before being asked.
5.Give in such a way that the giver does not know the recipient, though the recipient knows the giver.
6.Give in such a way that the giver knows the recipient and the recipient does not know the giver.
7.Give in such a way that the giver does not know the recipient and the recipient does not know the giver (giving purely “for the sake of Heaven).
8.Provide the recipient with the means of earning his or her own living.
Julius Rosenwald, late 19th C philanthropist, said that it was easier to earn a fortune than to give away a fortune in a useful way.

Maillard Reactionary said...

Thank you, Laughing Fox. As I might have expected, those guys gave it a lot more thought than I did!

Amadeus 48 said...

I support D2’s ideas about randomly helping people who are working hard and making your life more pleasant—waiters, hotel housekeeping staff, taxi drivers, barbers, etc. Also give to organizations that are supporting things you like and believe in—in my case, classical music, opera, ballet, libraries, art museums, the Salvation Army, theater groups, etc. We also support Christmas and holiday bonus poos for membership organizations.

In the US we have taken the burden off the taxpayers to keep cultural institutions going. Those who enjoy those institutions should support them.

These kids apparently think the way forward is to give their money to Caligula. That didn’t work in Rome and it won’t work today. The emperor will find ways to get the dosh sooner.

Lately I have seen institutional donors (foundations) taking up the cudgels for “diversity”. Those of us who perceive the value of Western Culture are going to have to srep up our support, because the foundations are going another direction.

Amadeus 48 said...

Yipes! Pools not poos. The ultimate Freudian slip.

Lincolntf said...

Just another rich kid staying at home and smoking pots...

daskol said...

Estate planning attorneys should keep this article in their waiting room. It will help them drive a business of structuring inheritances to prevent this separation of fools and their parents' funds. You can't be too cynical about a group like this, which is driving a wedge not just between foolish youth and their trusts, but more sinisterly attempting to drive wedges into affluent families. This is a not stealth attack on the affluent. Rather ingenious and good at getting press, but their objective is not helping the unfortunate, it's kneecapping the affluent.

daskol said...

Straight up cult.

daskol said...

A cult that recruits at overpriced private liberal arts colleges. It would be fun to feature this group in a story, where the inner cadre are actually terrorists who murder the family members to speed along the inheritance. It's only a slight exaggeration of the malice at the heart of this group. Guilt does terrible things to people.

daskol said...

For people with multigenerational wealth, they may not be able to control their own children's inheritance, as the wealth creating forebears have likely set up trusts, etc. But people who've made their own money should do whatever they can not to destroy their children's motivation to make their own way in life, including what someone up above mentioned re withholding large sums until later in life or triggered by certain events. If you don't control your kids with the money you're gifting them, others will exploit it. Usually it's just a greedy prospective spouse, but there are sharks in the water like "Resource Generation."

John Fritz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Fritz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Fritz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Fritz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...

Virtue costs you all you have unless it is pre-paid by an eternal sacrifice of God’s son. Wonder where these marks could find one of those.

SeanF said...

rhhardin: Giving your money to a good cause usually lowers everybody's standard of living, unless you know better than the market does where to direct the economy's current production.

Why would that be any more true of "a good cause" than it is of anything else an individual chooses to spend their money on?

daskol said...

virtue signalling may maximize your own individual utility, but giving money to people who don't particularly know how to spend it wisely is less efficient than, say, investing it. or buying ghee. you can't have too much ghee on the shelves.

LYNNDH said...

A fool and his money are soon parted.
A sucker born every minute.

Narr said...

This has been running for hours and nobody has made the obvious Fawn Leibovitz reference?

Kiln explosion? Emily Dickenson College?

Narr
Loo-zers

Tomcc said...

Guildofcannonballs @ noon

Ken B said...

SeanF
You have put your finger on the hole in Hardin’s argument. If I compel you to spend your money a certain way then I am probably lessening overall welfare, and certainly so if my compulsion becomes widespread and extensive. Imagine a law forcing everyone to buy Rush CDs. But when you give to charity voluntarily then you are making an economic decision just as if you were buying bubble bath or hand sanitizer. You are buying something, at a particular price.

Ken B said...

Hardin:” Why would that be any more true of "a good cause" than it is of anything else an individual chooses to spend their money on?”

The answer is the same with any other spending choice he makes. Because it is his first choice to spend that money. Any other use, such as buying roses, has an opportunity cost. Today I bought milk. Buying milk was what I thought the best use of money today. Tomorrow I will buy bread. Neither choice is a mistake.

daskol said...

the selling of indulgences was great for the church, but it's hard to argue it improved overall economic output or the general welfare. not impossible, but hard.

daskol said...

I bet Piketty could do it.

daskol said...

Milk sellers and bread sellers pay milk and bread distributors who pay dairies and commercial bakeries who pay farmers. And in the end, you have a pencil!

daskol said...

OTOH, giving your money to Resource Generation is just funding a group of assassins who will go around killing old rich people.

daskol said...

I, Pencil. Is it really hard to imagine that feeding money into that kind of pipeline generates broader benefits than paying Al Sharpton's National Action Now the same funds?

Narr said...

My apple-polly-loggies to Guildofcannonballs, who beat me by hours (but then I was giving a talk about the ACWABAWS so there). (HT:Tomcc)

Narr
That's the trouble with being in a hurry

Scott said...

Trust fund babies of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your... hell, you won't risk losing anything.

Ken B said...

“ the selling of indulgences was great for the church, but it's hard to argue it improved overall economic output or the general welfare. not impossible, but hard.”
‘Overall economic output’ is a straw man, the issue is total utility. That includes the utility of the indulgence purchaser. Taking a day off does not increase output obviously but it can increase utility — my utility in the day off.
So to be technical, hardin errs by leaving out the utility of the donor. If you want to argue that the world minus the donor would be better off with a different choice by the donor that might well be true in cases. But the theorems lurking behind the scene include the donor's utility.

Ken B said...

Daskol
If you are arguing that a world where we all see through Al Sharpton and therefore do not give him money is better than this world, ceteris paribus then I agree. That does not mean that in our current world some people benefit by giving to Sharpton. Markets are efficient not omniscient. They deal with the facts on the ground.

Ken B said...

I meant to say do not benefit.

daskol said...

Nobody is talking about mandating that the donor do anything else with his money. I think the point is, the one I agree with, is that typically donating money rather than spending it directs money to a less productive sector of the economy. That's probably not always true, but buying stuff--whether it's a pencil or milk or bread or stocks or bonds--leads to the creation of more stuff more than donating money to, say, Al Sharpton does. Nobody is discounting the utility of the virtue signaler who derives utility from his signaling of virtue. Just saying it's kind of ironic to laud these "well-intentioned types" for helping others when in fact their choice of economic activity is suboptimal if that were their objective, and just buying something would actually make people better off. Not 100% true in all cases all the time, but broadly speaking, the more you understand about the manufacture of pencils and the more you understand about the manufacture of scams, which sadly describes a lot of nonprofit activity, the more this makes sense intuitively.

daskol said...

For example, both D2 and Maimonedes demonstrate an intuitive grasp of this: D2 says give a little extra to the people working hard for you, and Maimonedes says the highest form of charity is giving someone the means to make their own living. These are not merely morally astute comments, but reflect an intuitive grasp of the underlying economics.

Birkel said...

Just give it to me.
What a bunch of dumb shits.

daskol said...

Incidentally, you sorta took the challenge on arguing that the selling of indulgences increases the general welfare (aka total utility). The point is not that there is no bump in welfare, the purchaser indeed feels good about his purchase. The Church has a bit more in the bank. But if the purchaser instead bought a cow and therefore had more milk, or lent the money (with our without interest) to a tradesman starting out on his own, and this tradesman saw some success and took a wife and had kids, and built lots of widgets where such widgets were harder to come by before he set up shop, isn't that likely a greater increase in the general welfare (and also economic output), aka overall utility in the system? I think that's likely so. Piketty thinks the Church, aka the government, is better positioned to increase the general welfare, and has a lot of dense prose and some math behind it, mostly because inequality is demonic in his view, but I doubt it.

daskol said...

In the redistribution of funds, every step of the way there's a vig, for one thing. Not always the kind of vig Sharpton takes, but a vig nonetheless. Trade is different.

traditionalguy said...

The Mormon Temple guys have a $200,000,000,000 fund accumulated from tithes for charity, but have given nothing from it to charity because they are too smart.

It takes all kinds to feel secure.

Joanne Jacobs said...

At the age of 7, Roswell was angry family members sold the farm he loved to developers who built a subdivision. In other words, he wanted it for his own pleasure rather than to build housing for others. Now he's giving away $1.6 million, but will have $6 million left to support his work as a potter and buy plane tickets to send Oberlin students to climate change conferences.

Chris N said...

Maybe build a kiln inside the existing kiln?

Narr said...

We're kiln it this morning.

Narr
Leaving quietly