In April 1952, the Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations.. began an investigation of the "educational and philanthropic foundations and other comparable organizations which are exempt from federal taxes to determine whether they were using their resources for the purposes for which they were established..
In April 1954, the House authorized the Reece Committee. Unlike its predecessor, which limited its attention to generalities, the Reece Committee mounted a comprehensive inquiry into both the motives for establishing foundations and their influence on public life.
The book the article is based on, seems well researched.
One has to wonder, is the term 'philanthropy' a misnomer.. is it really 'misanthropy', with the very powerful determined to torment everyone else without end to accept their values?
Do the very rich and powerful have the right to use their wealth, in a tax wheeze, to determine the nature of health, education, or whatever for everyone else?
If you have managed to rise to the top, is it your morality and care that got you there, or is it the absence? Is "philanthropy" even a kindness, or is it a form of social engineering to create potential new markets for their investments?
I personally find the whole world of philanthropy rather revolting. Some unscrupulous rich folk, now want to be lauded and perceived as "kind", only that kindness comes with lots of very specific strings attached. Its not kind or helpful to manipulate others as you have access to levers of power that they don't, to them determine what is taught in schools, or what is acceptable medicine, etc. I'd rather they built a pyramid or monument to themselves, and keep out of micro-managing the world and everyone in it.
The secret is that you don't need money to "enjoy" life once your primary needs are met. More than that is chasing a high via materialistic consumption and pollution.
If you want to save money for yourself in case something bad happens, go for it. Then you've got to decide who gets the leftover wealth when you die.
>More than that is chasing a high via materialistic consumption and pollution.
Yeah that is what we are told by the people who control the information you receive. Live a minimalist life because that's all you need.
There are two sides of philosophy(IMO), those that believe in idealism, and those that believe in realism. I can flip back to Stoic idealism, but there is something real about Humans wanting More.
I don’t think it’s as much that consuming less is important from a philosophical standpoint as it is a practical one. Buy a new phone and you’ll spend time on the transaction and transferring information etc.
There’s a huge influence to always consume more pushed by anyone selling stuff and ever nicer stuff to buy. However, every transaction has a non monetary costs and staying ahead of the curve costs time even if you don’t need to worry about money.
It even extends to exotic vacations and other life experiences people promote. Sure you can got to Antarctica but the going itself means airports etc. Not a big deal once but if you had unlimited money would you really want to spend 5% of your waking hours in an airplane? The point of maximum happiness is far from such extremes.
And? Just about anything can get you a dopamine hit, but they become less effective over time which is why you can get out of bed in the morning.
Net result you can’t really win the dopamine game. Long term an ascetic monk gets just as much of that high as a billionaire playboy, the playboy just works harder for it.
Humans wants "More" but you can point that desire. More enlightenment, more friendship, more power, not more expensive things that aren't better than cheap things. Kids and cats know that the box is more fun than the boxed.
I'm not saying to be happy earning less. I'm saying to be happy consuming less.
I've experienced a similar situation. I spent 20 years giving a lot more than what I received, but I've started questioning the impact of what I gave and if it was all worth it. I'm currently on the side of - it wasn't.
I'm in a similar situation. But I decided its anyway silly how disproportionate wealth distributes. I buy properties now and allow a zero-sum rent for my tenants.
I find it somewhat baffling that the ultra-wealthy are finding it challenging to hit their Giving Pledge goals as described in the article. There are several multi-hundred-billion dollar initiatives that are desperate for money that could save millions of lives per year.
For example, the number of people who die from TB annually is way in excess of 1 million, with 10million+ falling ill with the disease. This is a disease for which we have the cure - and have had the cure for 80 years. TB could be ended within 6 years with a $250bn commitment.
While these millions upon millions are dying, a couple of thousand billionaires donate miserly single-digit-percentages of their wealth per year, and complain that they can't find a philanthropic outlet, while reaping the publicity benefits of saying they'll give away 50% "eventually, maybe before they die".
Outlets for this wealth exist, and it's not as if it's particularly challenging to pick one "save literally tens of millions of people" project over another "save literally tens of millions of people" project.
This specific issue of Lapham (focused on philanthropy) that this article came from fundamentally changed how I think about philanthropy. Can anyone recommend books that critically examine philanthropy (and articles/books with counter claims)?
I'd like to think that there is a cap how much $$ one individual can control, say one billion USD. But alas those foundations make things so complicated.
Because with that money you have command of many resources in the Capitalism world. That level of command should always go to public, not private. Public is the lesser evil of the two.
How does the public make decisions about what to do with this much capital? Or are you make the less radical suggestion that it ought to be capped and taxed?
That would be a most temporary ownership I should think.
Inherently unstable countries tend to get rid of the rulers
at a high frequency than stable ones.
Unless you have the military power to maintain dictatorship and
money to buy the protection of a superpower.
But even then it is tenuous.
Taking over a stable country would be far easier in the long term.
Yet when stable countries undergo major change, they tend to gravitate
towards unstableness.
This is quite reductionist, inaccurate, and unhelpful.
Certainly there are conservatives who aren't fascists, philanthropists who aren't conservatives, philanthropists who aren't pure evil, etc.
If you want to take a complex, nuanced subject and paint it all one ugly color for yourself, have at it, but please don't attempt to do it for the rest of us
"Fascist" began as a neutral description of political-financial relationships and was later made into a household slur by the Soviets to take the heat off after people started likening them to Nazis thanks to their short-lived military alliance, their shared "-ism word", and their common interest in techniques of political oppression (search term: "Gestapo–NKVD conferences"). In this context, there is no logical connection to philanthropy much less to "white supremacy", a term that's almost always used monomaniacally.
