Urvi Bhuwania 11: Billionaire Philanthropy
Billionaire Philanthropy
"No amount of charities in spending such fortunes can compensate in any way for the misconduct in acquiring them" - Teddy Roosevelt
When John D. Rockefeller, an inordinately wealthy businessman in oil, proposed the establishment of the philanthropic Rockefeller foundation, he was hit with harsh criticisms and scrutinies that no amount of philanthropy would reimburse Rockefeller's previous wrongdoings in his rise to power. Other figures of that time, including John Haynes Holmes and Frank Walsh, claimed that foundations of the type that Rockefeller was suggesting was "repugnant to the whole idea of a democratic society" and "a menace to the welfare to society," a rather odd and initially conflicting statement considering that the purpose of philanthropy was to give back to the public and increase societal welfare.
A common critique that Rob Reich brings up in his book Just Giving: Why Philanthropy Is Failing Democracy and How It Can Do Better, is that philanthropy prompts a "deferential" position of the general public to these billionaires. Similarly, he points out that "big philanthropy . . . is an exercise of power," directing "private assets for some public influence, often with a naked aspiration to change public policy" (qtd. in Matthews). Consequently, if the country wants to uphold the democratic values it so prizes, the more subtle philanthropy "deserves our scrutiny," even in the face of its sizable, direct benefit to the society. In totality then, Reich encourages citizens to be more than "merely grateful to donors" but also "direct [their] skepticism . . . at their activities" (qtd. in Matthews).
In today's society, there is an ongoing controversy regarding this issue. For instance, Gates "donating billions to his foundation" was regarded as a "stunning gesture," Buffet "giv[ing] his fortune to Gates to disperse" was admired as "breaking the mold of how extremely rich people donate money," and Michael Bloomberg enjoyed "rapturous praise" for donating $1.8 billion towards implementing "need-blind admissions at . . . John Hopkins University" (Matthews). On the other side, author of American Foundations Mark Dowie claims that the shared motivations of these philanthropists is "guilt, narcissism, paternalism, [and a] wish for immortality" (qtd. in The Week Staff).
The situation appears almost analogous to the witch hunts that we previously studied. While the elite of America have the capability of being more conscientious and ethical in their attaining of wealth, it is a lose lose situation regardless when they finally get that money. If billionaires don't engage in philanthropy, they are considered selfish for instead spending that money on extravagant mansions and luxurious yachts. If they do invest in philanthropic work, they are profoundly scrutinized for their manipulative intentions.
Regardless of whether these intentions are valid though, it's clear that it's not truly about billionaire philanthropy though. The true issue lies in a select few of the country having amassed such extraordinary power. The discussion debating whether forgiveness should be allotted to those big philanthropists is ultimately ineffectual then as there will inevitably always be a feeling of dissatisfaction and resentment towards those with more power than ninety nine percent of the country.
Sources:
Matthews, Dylan. “The Case against Billionaire Philanthropy.” Vox, Vox, 17 Dec. 2018, https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/12/17/18141181/foundation-charity-deduction-democracy-rob-reich.
The Week Staff. “A Brief History of Billionaire Philanthropists and the People Who Hate Them.” The Week, The Week, 9 Jan. 2016, https://theweek.com/articles/597963/brief-history-billionaire-philanthropists-people-who-hate.
I really like your takes on power. It's really interesting to read and think about the variety of situations you can connect to power. The fact that you brought that to correlate with witch hunt opened my eyes. From the beginning, there's been serious ongoing controversy about this topic. It's really interesting how Rockfeller's foundation was said to be something that was a menace to the welfare of society by individuals. It's interesting to try to connect their thought processes together as philanthropy as a whole is giving back, and it's frankly helps increase society's welfare. Getting feedback that it not just doesn't help but ruins society is an interesting controversy we see to this day that has so many sides to.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not believe that criticizing billionaires for their philanthropy is the best option. If you think about it, taking their pity money so that they can get a tax break is better than getting no money at all. While I do understand the whole dilemma with how philanthropy and billionaires in general are selfish, I am not a very jealous person, so I do not really care if these billionaires are exploiting their power. In fact, I think it is inevitable in the capitalist society we live in, and it would not be a capitalist society if billionaires were not there to begin with. However, whether capitalism is really the best form of economy is a topic for another day.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who has amassed success of any kind will be subjected to praise and harsh criticism. Billionaires at the end of the day are still humans—they have an expiry date and cannot spend the majority of their assets before they die. Similarly, there is also a moral obligation in society that those who are wealthy or in power should help the less fortunate. There are plenty of people in the world who need assistance and I feel these large donations can improve their lives. Thus, whether it is for tax breaks, image, or the will to do good, I think it’s a good idea for billionaires to donate to causes they believe in.
ReplyDeleteHello Urvi,
ReplyDeleteJealousy will always make the grass look greener on the other side. I do not understand what people get out of trying to make it look less green. Are they trying to discourage the rich from being rich? If someone wants to buy a mansion with their exorbitant amount of money or donate a portion of their wealth, then they should be able to. When we start overanalyzing the intentions behind such powerful decisions, we simply waste time and overcomplicate what it means to be socially acceptable. Spending money benefits the economy and, in turn, benefits the people in that economy. Economics can only exist with the human desire for wealth and security. The extremely disproportionate distribution of wealth will not suddenly resolve when a couple billionaires are forced to give back their wealth. Our economic system is structured to funnel wealth and power to the top of the management chain. Unless that money is reciprocated through the advancement of businesses, technology, working conditions, etc., it simply piles up behind corporations and distracts people from the actual systemic issue.
In our current economic system, criticism should not be the way that society keeps very rich people in check. Instead, policy, like higher taxation, should be key to make sure they are contributing the right share to the same society that benefits them so much. A large amount of billionaires do philanthropy to ease their tax rate and escape some hefty taxes, but others pledge to donate most if not all their wealth. Taxes are meant to make sure everyone contributes to the society's benefit. Billionaires are generally industry-leaders and employ thousands while building local infrastructure. The companies they build benefit society, so are high taxes even justified? I'd leave it to the policymakers, but they've shown that they prefer lower taxes (maybe due to the lobbyists).
ReplyDeleteHi Urvi! I recently learned about Billionaire Philanthropy through my history class or a video (can’t remember). They said that billionaires donate because it makes them look good. You say a similar point, and I think that the true intentions of billionaires isn’t always down-to-earth. Billionaires could write these charitable works off as a work expense, and actually gain money from their “good” intentions. Furthermore, by donating, they’ll receive praise that could override the criticisms they receive for their wealth and doings. But regardless, the criticisms towards this action always have a small root of jealousy. On its own, a genuine charity receiving money is a great thing. This discussion has so many facets, but for now, billionaire philanthropy is not doing any bad; we’ll see what happens in the future.
ReplyDeleteHi Urvi! The existence alone of billionaires is undoubtedly unethical. Of course, individuals should have the liberty of doing what they want with their own money, but in the case of these individuals being billionaires, not donating money for a charitable cause would be morally questionable. What else could someone do with such massive wealth; money that is enough to feed the world?
ReplyDeleteHi Urvi! I loved reading this, it really enlightened me about the underlying issues that are often overlooked or in this case, even thought of as a work of charity! There has been a lot of talk about billionaires and their questionable actions; however, I never thought of them as manipulative. Now that you mention it, I have been ignorant to all the manipulation taking place, blinded by the power they hold due to their wealth. Such a thought is quite frightening. Which prominent figures in power are also being blinded by wealth?
ReplyDeleteHi Urvi, I definitely think the system needs to change if the current one is, in fact, flawed and it may well be. Until that happens, though, billionaires still do provide help for many people, no matter their intentions or ulterior motives. Whether or not billionaires are truly trying to help people should not overshadow the fact that money is money, and it makes sense to at least accept the monetary support out of practical need for it.
ReplyDelete