I'd love to be happy about this, but it's kinda difficult. She apparently donated another $6 billion in 2020, bringing the recent total to $8.6 billion given, but... well... ...she's also worth...
I'd love to be happy about this, but it's kinda difficult. She apparently donated another $6 billion in 2020, bringing the recent total to $8.6 billion given, but...
well...
...she's also worth sixty billion dollars. Nearly ten times as much as she's given.
I wouldn't normally make this complaint regarding most folks, but for billionaires, what gives? I can't think of any earthly reason anyone would need even one billion, let alone that much, so while it's wonderful they're donating what they are, surely they could easily and readily being doing so much more without impacting themselves virtually at all. Yet, still, they don't. Why?
If your goal is to be humanitarian and not just dissolve your personal fortune, it's surprisingly difficult to give away staggering amounts of money. Money invites corruption, and if you don't...
If your goal is to be humanitarian and not just dissolve your personal fortune, it's surprisingly difficult to give away staggering amounts of money. Money invites corruption, and if you don't want large amounts of yours to end up in the pockets of e.g. grifters or organized crime, you have to pay fairly close attention to where it goes.
(There's also the fact that it's not like she has a savings account with her local bank with a ten-digit sum of US dollars in it. I don't know the makeup of her wealth, but I assume the vast majority of it is in Amazon stock, the price of which would fluctuate significantly if she tried to liquidate all of it at once.)
Indeed. I think it's wise that she's built a team to help maximize her impact. If she donates her money wisely, she can create immense impact for millions of people. But that entails doing careful...
Indeed. I think it's wise that she's built a team to help maximize her impact.
If she donates her money wisely, she can create immense impact for millions of people. But that entails doing careful research, vetting, and following up by analyzing impact and results.
But the opposite can be true. Giving away money senselessly can actually create harm. As mentioned, money has a corrupting effect. It corrupts even good people. It can disrupt organizations and local communities for the worse. For example, excessive western aid to poor communities can displace local farmers and merchants and corrupt officials — the short-term relief gets outweighed by long-term damage.
I thought about this too, but I feel like this kind of money could also be used to help fund oversight over donations by e.g. paying people to keep track of what's being done and such. That, and...
I thought about this too, but I feel like this kind of money could also be used to help fund oversight over donations by e.g. paying people to keep track of what's being done and such. That, and it still seems to me these donations could be moving a lot faster than they actually are. Obviously, I don't expect them to spontaneously throw it all out in the span of a month, or even a year, but it still feels frustrating and token sometimes. That, and I don't feel like billionaires have a good track record when it comes to honesty.
I'm at least willing to give MacKenzie a bit more leeway here since it hasn't been long since she signed the Giving Pledge and her annual contributions since seem to be making good headway so far, but I still can't shake the concern that she's not donating nearly as much as she could be.
Aw, come on, this response seems needlessly hostile. I'm just trying to explain how I feel about this, not make any claim that I know how things work and should be done. The 'why' in my initial...
Aw, come on, this response seems needlessly hostile. I'm just trying to explain how I feel about this, not make any claim that I know how things work and should be done. The 'why' in my initial post was genuine, not a snark.
The reason I feel frustrated is because I keep seeing so much lying and cheating when it comes to wealth that it's hard to take these things seriously. I can't shake the feeling that it's being done for clout and nothing more, and that the charity will dry up as soon as it becomes convenient. I would love nothing more than to eat my words!
Besides, like I said before, I recognize that MacKenzie is doing more than a lot of other rich folks have, so I'm plenty open to the idea that maybe this case is genuine. I'm not saying this all to be a douche — I've just been burned enough at this point that cynicism is my default.
I honestly think it's probably worth reiterating again that the main thing I've had in mind posting in this thread has been genuinely seeking answers to the question of "Why not more?" I'm not...
I honestly think it's probably worth reiterating again that the main thing I've had in mind posting in this thread has been genuinely seeking answers to the question of "Why not more?" I'm not saying any of this to rail against MacKenzie, I'm saying it because this is how I've felt about billionaire philanthropists for a long time and I want to address it to see if the feelings were warranted or if I was just ignorant.
It's become abundantly clear to me that this gut reaction to this particular person's donations was unwarranted and that she's clearly doing enough to deserve sincere praise, and I fully intend to reflect on this further. That said, I'm starting to worry I'm getting lumped in with folks' mental images of people that raise concerns similar to mine, leading to people assuming that my idea of good charity would involve vomiting as much cash as possible as fast as possible, consequences be damned. The reality is that I'm well aware that a) this net worth is not all liquid and indeed that the great majority of it is likely tied up in stocks and other assets and b) that money corrupts and it takes time to ensure these donations aren't wasted.
This is partly my fault as I could've been much clearer in my initial comment and the aforementioned gut reaction lead me to writing an unnecessarily terse comment that probably came off as highly dismissive. But I'm still trying to resolve the initial question posed here — some replies have given good suggestions such as @DrStone's reply here, but I still find myself wondering about the details of some of these factors. Namely, are we sure that the charity selection and amounts donated are actually as optimized as is suggested? For MacKenzie at least, I've come to think the answer is "probably, yes." I just wish I could know more about how it all works to get a better idea of what's going on & why.
There are reasons why it might cause problems for her to donate more. Most of her net worth is in stocks, and she has to liquidate those stocks in order to give these organizations funds. If she...
There are reasons why it might cause problems for her to donate more. Most of her net worth is in stocks, and she has to liquidate those stocks in order to give these organizations funds. If she were to sell too many stocks at once, it could cause waves in the stock market. Yes, that would probably affect rich people the most, but keep in mind that regular working people tend to have their retirement funds put into the stock market as well.
Honestly, I totally get where you're coming from; it wasn't too long ago that I was talking about my distaste for billionare philanthropy on this very website. And while my kneejerk reaction was...
Honestly, I totally get where you're coming from; it wasn't too long ago that I was talking about my distaste for billionare philanthropy on this very website. And while my kneejerk reaction was also disdain and mistrust, I'm actually fairly happy with how she chose to make her donations.
Don't get me wrong, I still think that it's bad that we allow people to even collect this much money when society is doing as poorly as it is, but the fact that she is doing this very optional action without asking for control over how it's spent. Unlike most billionaires, it seems like she's not trying to change the world as much as she's just trying to make it a better place. Beyond that, she took the time to vet these 200+ charities and figure out how much to spend between all of them, and then take the time to liquefy her assets to be able to make these donations. They may not seem like much, but I think they're markers of good character when you add them together.
Could be any number of reasons. Just a few off the top of my head The calculations may work out in favor of keeping a large sum of money earning/investing while donating periodically vs donating...
Could be any number of reasons. Just a few off the top of my head
The calculations may work out in favor of keeping a large sum of money earning/investing while donating periodically vs donating (almost) everything once up front.
A lot of "worth" is not just cash in the bank that's easy to move, the remainder tied up in various things that have various degrees of difficulty to liquidate.
Safer to donate some, see how organization(s) make use of it, and donate more later once they've proven they can manage well.
Donating portions over time allow you to shift targets as your, and the world's, priorities evolve
I was aware of your second bullet, but the rest of the reasons you listed are very good points that I didn't think of and – for once – feel like I can trust might actually be going on. Thanks for...
I was aware of your second bullet, but the rest of the reasons you listed are very good points that I didn't think of and – for once – feel like I can trust might actually be going on. Thanks for that.
My completely uneducated guess would be conserving ammo so they can continue to give a percentage while having enough in the warchest to discourage major gifts to competing causes through a sort...
My completely uneducated guess would be conserving ammo so they can continue to give a percentage while having enough in the warchest to discourage major gifts to competing causes through a sort of moneybags version of mutually-assured destruction. But that is admittedly painting it in the most positive and naive light possible, I'm sure.
I'm not going to dispute the logic of it, but the fact that "yeah this is good, but it should be better because X" is always the top comment whenever something positive happens is honestly kinda...
I'm not going to dispute the logic of it, but the fact that "yeah this is good, but it should be better because X" is always the top comment whenever something positive happens is honestly kinda tiresome.
I know this is the law of the internet and everything, but it bothers me still.
Very understandable. For what it's worth, I'd much rather not feel this way myself, and only posted this because shaking the doubt on these things has become very hard for me. It's to the point...
Very understandable. For what it's worth, I'd much rather not feel this way myself, and only posted this because shaking the doubt on these things has become very hard for me. It's to the point where when I hear about a corporation or rich person donating, my first thought isn't that it's good, but rather that it's some scheme to deceive people or evade taxes.
It's become clear to me now that this situation was different, but it was very hard not to feel this way at first.
I see. No worries. Maybe some introspection is advisable in order to understand the roots of this mental atitude, and whether or not it is conducive to a healthy outlook on life. I've written on...
I see. No worries. Maybe some introspection is advisable in order to understand the roots of this mental atitude, and whether or not it is conducive to a healthy outlook on life. I've written on that before.
Disclaimer: This isn't meant to be an attack on Mackenzie Scott, but rather the class as a whole that she is part of. That money didn't come from their "hard work," it came from the workers. This...
Disclaimer: This isn't meant to be an attack on Mackenzie Scott, but rather the class as a whole that she is part of.
That money didn't come from their "hard work," it came from the workers. This is taking 60 billion dollars from all the employees that work at amazon, then giving 8 billion to a charity. Just like all philanthropy, it's done to 'legitimize' the wealth they appropriate in the first place. Their endless need for expansion on a planet with finite resources is the main drive of climate change, so giving a little of the gains from that expansion to combatting climate change isn't addressing the cause, but rather the symptom. We can't just get rid of wealth inequality without getting rid of the root cause of that inequality in the first place
On this part, I have a different perspective that’s mixed capitalist-socialist: It doesn’t matter if they did the commensurate hard work or not. They acquired the money by producing outsized...
That money didn't come from their "hard work," it came from the workers. This is taking 60 billion dollars from all the employees that work at amazon, then giving 8 billion to a charity.
On this part, I have a different perspective that’s mixed capitalist-socialist:
It doesn’t matter if they did the commensurate hard work or not.
They acquired the money by producing outsized economic value. (I hesitate to say “earn” because there’s a cultural assignment of exertion to economic output <-> money therefore deserved, and I think that assignment is irrelevant.)
But they shouldn’t get to keep vast majority of the money, which should be redistributed in a fair manner.
On (1), exertion is not a measure of output/value. I think it’s very possible for one human being to create 200,000 times more economic value than another human being, while the two be equal in human dignity. More on this in point 3.
On (2), I think not enough cultural credit is given to the astronomical value in conceiving and implementing enterprises and tooks that produce opportunities for others to create value or orchestrating people to create value effectively. The vast majority of people do not create significant innovations. This is fine. Economic value is important, but there are other equally important things in life, like culture, family, and society.
We do not produce in value in a vacuum. We rely not only on technological and social infrastructure but also on political, financial, and organizational/business infrastructure.
That being said, (3) Mackenzie Scott and her class should not get to keep most of their wealth. Even if we ever to reach a state where we had universal healthcare and education and housing. Extreme wealth inequality is inherently bad for society. It splits it into a dual society. It harms social cohesion by creating insurmountable social distance from the top of society to the bottom of society. Without social cohesion, how can we have a healthy culture and democracy that isn’t all consumed by deprivation and feelings of envy, inadequacy, pity, and superiority? It deprives oxygen to feelings of fraternity, sorority, kinship, equanimity, empathy, and solidarity — which I believe are the bases of human dignity in a society.
I'd love to be happy about this, but it's kinda difficult. She apparently donated another $6 billion in 2020, bringing the recent total to $8.6 billion given, but...
well...
...she's also worth sixty billion dollars. Nearly ten times as much as she's given.
I wouldn't normally make this complaint regarding most folks, but for billionaires, what gives? I can't think of any earthly reason anyone would need even one billion, let alone that much, so while it's wonderful they're donating what they are, surely they could easily and readily being doing so much more without impacting themselves virtually at all. Yet, still, they don't. Why?
If your goal is to be humanitarian and not just dissolve your personal fortune, it's surprisingly difficult to give away staggering amounts of money. Money invites corruption, and if you don't want large amounts of yours to end up in the pockets of e.g. grifters or organized crime, you have to pay fairly close attention to where it goes.
(There's also the fact that it's not like she has a savings account with her local bank with a ten-digit sum of US dollars in it. I don't know the makeup of her wealth, but I assume the vast majority of it is in Amazon stock, the price of which would fluctuate significantly if she tried to liquidate all of it at once.)
Indeed. I think it's wise that she's built a team to help maximize her impact.
If she donates her money wisely, she can create immense impact for millions of people. But that entails doing careful research, vetting, and following up by analyzing impact and results.
But the opposite can be true. Giving away money senselessly can actually create harm. As mentioned, money has a corrupting effect. It corrupts even good people. It can disrupt organizations and local communities for the worse. For example, excessive western aid to poor communities can displace local farmers and merchants and corrupt officials — the short-term relief gets outweighed by long-term damage.
I thought about this too, but I feel like this kind of money could also be used to help fund oversight over donations by e.g. paying people to keep track of what's being done and such. That, and it still seems to me these donations could be moving a lot faster than they actually are. Obviously, I don't expect them to spontaneously throw it all out in the span of a month, or even a year, but it still feels frustrating and token sometimes. That, and I don't feel like billionaires have a good track record when it comes to honesty.
I'm at least willing to give MacKenzie a bit more leeway here since it hasn't been long since she signed the Giving Pledge and her annual contributions since seem to be making good headway so far, but I still can't shake the concern that she's not donating nearly as much as she could be.
Aw, come on, this response seems needlessly hostile. I'm just trying to explain how I feel about this, not make any claim that I know how things work and should be done. The 'why' in my initial post was genuine, not a snark.
The reason I feel frustrated is because I keep seeing so much lying and cheating when it comes to wealth that it's hard to take these things seriously. I can't shake the feeling that it's being done for clout and nothing more, and that the charity will dry up as soon as it becomes convenient. I would love nothing more than to eat my words!
Besides, like I said before, I recognize that MacKenzie is doing more than a lot of other rich folks have, so I'm plenty open to the idea that maybe this case is genuine. I'm not saying this all to be a douche — I've just been burned enough at this point that cynicism is my default.
I honestly think it's probably worth reiterating again that the main thing I've had in mind posting in this thread has been genuinely seeking answers to the question of "Why not more?" I'm not saying any of this to rail against MacKenzie, I'm saying it because this is how I've felt about billionaire philanthropists for a long time and I want to address it to see if the feelings were warranted or if I was just ignorant.
It's become abundantly clear to me that this gut reaction to this particular person's donations was unwarranted and that she's clearly doing enough to deserve sincere praise, and I fully intend to reflect on this further. That said, I'm starting to worry I'm getting lumped in with folks' mental images of people that raise concerns similar to mine, leading to people assuming that my idea of good charity would involve vomiting as much cash as possible as fast as possible, consequences be damned. The reality is that I'm well aware that a) this net worth is not all liquid and indeed that the great majority of it is likely tied up in stocks and other assets and b) that money corrupts and it takes time to ensure these donations aren't wasted.
This is partly my fault as I could've been much clearer in my initial comment and the aforementioned gut reaction lead me to writing an unnecessarily terse comment that probably came off as highly dismissive. But I'm still trying to resolve the initial question posed here — some replies have given good suggestions such as @DrStone's reply here, but I still find myself wondering about the details of some of these factors. Namely, are we sure that the charity selection and amounts donated are actually as optimized as is suggested? For MacKenzie at least, I've come to think the answer is "probably, yes." I just wish I could know more about how it all works to get a better idea of what's going on & why.
There are reasons why it might cause problems for her to donate more. Most of her net worth is in stocks, and she has to liquidate those stocks in order to give these organizations funds. If she were to sell too many stocks at once, it could cause waves in the stock market. Yes, that would probably affect rich people the most, but keep in mind that regular working people tend to have their retirement funds put into the stock market as well.
Honestly, I totally get where you're coming from; it wasn't too long ago that I was talking about my distaste for billionare philanthropy on this very website. And while my kneejerk reaction was also disdain and mistrust, I'm actually fairly happy with how she chose to make her donations.
Don't get me wrong, I still think that it's bad that we allow people to even collect this much money when society is doing as poorly as it is, but the fact that she is doing this very optional action without asking for control over how it's spent. Unlike most billionaires, it seems like she's not trying to change the world as much as she's just trying to make it a better place. Beyond that, she took the time to vet these 200+ charities and figure out how much to spend between all of them, and then take the time to liquefy her assets to be able to make these donations. They may not seem like much, but I think they're markers of good character when you add them together.
Could be any number of reasons. Just a few off the top of my head
I was aware of your second bullet, but the rest of the reasons you listed are very good points that I didn't think of and – for once – feel like I can trust might actually be going on. Thanks for that.
My completely uneducated guess would be conserving ammo so they can continue to give a percentage while having enough in the warchest to discourage major gifts to competing causes through a sort of moneybags version of mutually-assured destruction. But that is admittedly painting it in the most positive and naive light possible, I'm sure.
I'm not going to dispute the logic of it, but the fact that "yeah this is good, but it should be better because X" is always the top comment whenever something positive happens is honestly kinda tiresome.
I know this is the law of the internet and everything, but it bothers me still.
Very understandable. For what it's worth, I'd much rather not feel this way myself, and only posted this because shaking the doubt on these things has become very hard for me. It's to the point where when I hear about a corporation or rich person donating, my first thought isn't that it's good, but rather that it's some scheme to deceive people or evade taxes.
It's become clear to me now that this situation was different, but it was very hard not to feel this way at first.
I see. No worries. Maybe some introspection is advisable in order to understand the roots of this mental atitude, and whether or not it is conducive to a healthy outlook on life. I've written on that before.
Disclaimer: This isn't meant to be an attack on Mackenzie Scott, but rather the class as a whole that she is part of.
That money didn't come from their "hard work," it came from the workers. This is taking 60 billion dollars from all the employees that work at amazon, then giving 8 billion to a charity. Just like all philanthropy, it's done to 'legitimize' the wealth they appropriate in the first place. Their endless need for expansion on a planet with finite resources is the main drive of climate change, so giving a little of the gains from that expansion to combatting climate change isn't addressing the cause, but rather the symptom. We can't just get rid of wealth inequality without getting rid of the root cause of that inequality in the first place
On this part, I have a different perspective that’s mixed capitalist-socialist:
On (1), exertion is not a measure of output/value. I think it’s very possible for one human being to create 200,000 times more economic value than another human being, while the two be equal in human dignity. More on this in point 3.
On (2), I think not enough cultural credit is given to the astronomical value in conceiving and implementing enterprises and tooks that produce opportunities for others to create value or orchestrating people to create value effectively. The vast majority of people do not create significant innovations. This is fine. Economic value is important, but there are other equally important things in life, like culture, family, and society.
We do not produce in value in a vacuum. We rely not only on technological and social infrastructure but also on political, financial, and organizational/business infrastructure.
That being said, (3) Mackenzie Scott and her class should not get to keep most of their wealth. Even if we ever to reach a state where we had universal healthcare and education and housing. Extreme wealth inequality is inherently bad for society. It splits it into a dual society. It harms social cohesion by creating insurmountable social distance from the top of society to the bottom of society. Without social cohesion, how can we have a healthy culture and democracy that isn’t all consumed by deprivation and feelings of envy, inadequacy, pity, and superiority? It deprives oxygen to feelings of fraternity, sorority, kinship, equanimity, empathy, and solidarity — which I believe are the bases of human dignity in a society.
This is awesome.