So ... in addition to green-washing and art-washing (among others) contrived to convince the general public that individual/corporate greed is actually benefitting society at large, we now have greed-washing? Bezos, Musk, SBF (really, who does that to his own name?!), et. al. are good, not bad. Their riches are for us, not them. They do it for the common good, not for their own. Wow. And I thought they were just a bunch of wankers when they're actually on my side. How did I miss that?
We’ve seen the same behavior from the their-infamy-precedes-them Koch brothers, who for decades have thrown around tons of money, mainly at cultural institutions ranging from museums to PBS programming, for only one reason:
To buy respectability.
Like so many things, respectability is largely, if not entirely, in the eye of the beholder, and the clear-eyed see it for what it is. Rapacious billionaires like the Kochs can buy the Vatican for all the good it will do them. Appearances are one thing, a deep-seated stink is quite another.
i've been reading about macaskill's "ethics" daily for a month or so, and have found that the more i read, the more my concerns grow about this false philanthropy/philosophy. another feature of this false philanthrophy is that the filthy-rich (white) man is the ultimate arbiter of who should receive his monetary gifts, and how much. rich men are the group of people who are least connected to ordinary people, least likely to know what would be truly helpful to them, and who are LEAST invested in helping society. instead, they are only concerned with exploiting everyone they possibly can to extract even just a measly $8 per month from (along with access to their bank accounts!), so they can do what they wish with it -- usually, this means exploiting even more people and extracting their money from them. in the end, they want to "greenwash" (with cash, of course) their images as evil grifting sociopaths by donating staggering sums of money to particular charities that they see eye-to-eye with -- all to great public fanfare, of course.
How 'bout the philanthropy of supporting and regularly paying a fully progressive income tax, without buying politicians that will build in loopholes to slither through? How 'bout using the millions they pay in political contributions and tax lawyers to help feed and build livable housing for the needy? How 'bout the philanthropy of taking 2 times the top wage they pay their workers instead of 400 times the top wage they pay them? That's just to get started.
I don't care two whoops in hell what those who are paid to say nice things about these revered philanthropists say about them - much less a "charitable philosophy of the obscenely rich." Cram your complimentary biographies of them and their philanthropic ideology up the darkest, smelliest recess of your "book shelf." Machiavelli >himself< advises the tyrant to be charitable in the service of appearing righteous! Half a lifetime ago it became clear to me that philanthropy is and always has been a shabby little PR stunt calculated to have names appear on monuments and buildings, that did incidental good to distract from the overall damaged caused in the acquisition of such obscene wealth. And don't get me started on church-sponsored charity!
This "EA" nonsense puts me in mind of a quip I used to hear on the workroom floor. When someone complained "the least you could do is ..." about some lack of cooperation, the response "never let it be said I didn't do >the least I could do<" is >exactly< my view of EA! Simply stated, the greedy and avaricious - I distinguish between the two terms - need some way to assuage feelings of guilt in whatever residual conscience they have remaining. They even frequently like to ponce as christians, while >their christ himself< already tells them they have a snowballs chance in hell of getting into their mythical heaven.
True charity is humble and anonymous, where "no good deed goes unpunished." That is, true charity - like true righteousness - expects no reward.
I appreciate the valid critique of Effective Altruism yet there are other problematic dynamics at work with the concept and practice. First, why should a relatively small proportion of the population dictate social priorities... ie who/what is provided support, under what conditions? Second, does not EA undermine democracy if the relatively few wealthy are making decisions that are more appropriately suited for civil governance, ie a democratic process that includes regulation and equitable administration of tax collection? Third, the gender and racial implications of who defines priorities of EA are pretty obvious.
What a delightful coincidence! Thanks, Robert, for the skewering of FTX and the seductive glamor of vast wealth. The day before Giving Tuesday, I read on the op-ed page of my newspaper an essay by Marc A. Thiessen, who said "Climate reparations are insanity" because poor nations will do better building general well-being through the use of fossil fuels than with green energy. Mr. Thiessen is a libertarian who appears to wish better lives for the world's poor, but in his essay he argues that fossil fuels are essential to prosperity, resilience and longevity. I say that fossil fuels have made many rich but have impoverished countless more and have destroyed and sickened much of our world.
I used to give creativity workshops to large corporations. One of our team members always began the sessions by asking the participants three questions:
1. What is your main goal in life? They would usually respond, “To make as much money for my company as I can.”
2. What is your main goal for yourself? They would usually respond, “To make as much money for myself as I can.”
3. What will you contribute to society? They were completely silent since they had never thought about that.
So let's say MacAskill makes his billions and donates it to healthcare. Fine, but unless some other young person foregoes the temptation of hedge fund management and becomes a doctor instead, who's going to save those 140 lives in that poor country - and all the others that MacAskill's billions are supposed to be saving? In other words, it doesn't work if everyone does it.
If you take $100 from someone's pocket and give them back $5; have you 'enriched' their pocket? If profits are derived from environmentally unhealthy practices like pollution or pesticide use there are costs that will impact the common good. Harms must be remedied. It really is not charitable behavior in the long run.
I strongly advise interested people to read the story of Andrew Carnegie, possibly the greatest original American philanthropist tycoon. His story has all the elements: genius, political influence, union-busting, anti-imperialism, peace advocacy, generosity, etc...
Instead of encouraging anyone to make gobs of money so they can contribute large sums to charities, why don’t we create a system where money is spread out in such a way that all of us can live in decent conditions. Why is it equitable for Jeff Bezos to live in luxury while someone else lives in slum housing? Even if Bezos decides to donate for upgrading that slum housing, it occurs to me that he’s going to use it to feel smug. Why not pay his employees a living wage so they can enjoy the self-esteem and independence of providing decent housing for themselves?
I am currently working on a strategic narrative for a business school to radically reimagine the way businesses can make a net positive impact on our society. I have cast my inspiration net far and wide to help inform my point-of-view, including two of Mr. Reich's books (The Common Good + Aftershock), a host of books on Effective Altruism and Equality/Inequality. I so appreciate this take of recognizing the negative side of Ends justifying the Means when that blind rush to make obscene sums of money "to do good" backfires and has the exact opposite impact on a whole lot of regular people. My research has also led to some very positive and promising perspectives that I feel moved to share with this crowd. I highly recommend Reich's "The Common Good" if you want a straightforward understanding of how the (mostly) Republican-led U.S. legislation has gutted the middle class over the last 40 years, rigging wealth accumulation to remain (and grow) at the top of the hierarchy), by stealing all the benefits that used to accrue to the middle class (wages, pensions, benefits) and claiming the theft as "profits" for shareholders. I also recommend "Less is More" by Jason Hickel--but be prepared to be angry beyond measure at the extortionist approach to Capitalism we are currently experiencing where "growth for growth's sake" is the central maxim. While the writing is poetic and plain-spoken, it is very difficult reading because the data and path we're on to 2050 is dystopian and maddening and too many of us are asleep while the vocal few dominate the media with the same tropes to protect their status quo. There is hope, though, so I encourage a full read. Finally, for this capsule reading list, the hope: "Manifesto for a Moral Revolution," by Jacqueline Novogratz. I heard her on the Global Exchange podcast led by the University of Virginia's McIntire School of Commerce (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/global-commerce-exchange/id1535478469?i=1000520279645), and just started reading this most intelligent, most hopeful, most practical + "liveable" treatise for change in this world. It is just the palate cleanser my intellect needed. It is the North Star for future generations to revitalize our Planet and our shared Humanity.
I am much more favorably impressed with a wealthy man like Warren Buffett than with Musk, SBF, Bezos and their ilk. He lives in a small home, drives an older car and lives modestly. Earning gobs of money infects the thinking of the aquisitors in many ways, not the least of which is the fixed delusion they are better than others who they can (ab)use to do their bidding both within their empires and outside them. In his apology to America after the massive 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, BP chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg told us how much he cares for "the small people". I hope this was just a malapropism from English being a second language, but I suspect he was fluent in English and just said the quiet part out loud.
I agree with Elizabeth Warren's call for a wealth tax to rebalance the scales. Let those denied a seat at the table get to pick the menu for a change rather than just being on it.
This post is more of an indictment of our capitalist economy, and its tendency to produce and tolerate negative externalities, than it is of EA per se.
As far as I can see, the papier-mâché altruism that MacAskill advocates is just pragmatism with no outcomes to justify the practice -- no demonstrated ends to support the means.
And SB-F's espousing of MacAskill's "effective altruism" has been exposed as simply the cynical selling of a feel-good catchphrase to lure the undiscerning, another part of the glitzy razzle-dazzle today's Ponzi-scheme crypto-scammers cloak themselves in.
To see some actual philanthropy at work, have a look at what the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does (see https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/foundation-fact-sheet for starters). The foundation has actually granted more than $65 _billion_ to work in various ways around the world. We can agree or disagree about whether it's spending the money in the right ways, whether Bill Gates is a good guy, blah blah blah. But there's no arguing that the foundation is putting its money where its mouth is and is getting measurable, positive results.
And you don't get any chest-thumping and puffery from them about MacAskill and "effective altruism" -- just a lot of hard work that produces results on the ground.
So ... in addition to green-washing and art-washing (among others) contrived to convince the general public that individual/corporate greed is actually benefitting society at large, we now have greed-washing? Bezos, Musk, SBF (really, who does that to his own name?!), et. al. are good, not bad. Their riches are for us, not them. They do it for the common good, not for their own. Wow. And I thought they were just a bunch of wankers when they're actually on my side. How did I miss that?
Great post as usual! Thanks!
We’ve seen the same behavior from the their-infamy-precedes-them Koch brothers, who for decades have thrown around tons of money, mainly at cultural institutions ranging from museums to PBS programming, for only one reason:
To buy respectability.
Like so many things, respectability is largely, if not entirely, in the eye of the beholder, and the clear-eyed see it for what it is. Rapacious billionaires like the Kochs can buy the Vatican for all the good it will do them. Appearances are one thing, a deep-seated stink is quite another.
i've been reading about macaskill's "ethics" daily for a month or so, and have found that the more i read, the more my concerns grow about this false philanthropy/philosophy. another feature of this false philanthrophy is that the filthy-rich (white) man is the ultimate arbiter of who should receive his monetary gifts, and how much. rich men are the group of people who are least connected to ordinary people, least likely to know what would be truly helpful to them, and who are LEAST invested in helping society. instead, they are only concerned with exploiting everyone they possibly can to extract even just a measly $8 per month from (along with access to their bank accounts!), so they can do what they wish with it -- usually, this means exploiting even more people and extracting their money from them. in the end, they want to "greenwash" (with cash, of course) their images as evil grifting sociopaths by donating staggering sums of money to particular charities that they see eye-to-eye with -- all to great public fanfare, of course.
eat the rich.
How 'bout the philanthropy of supporting and regularly paying a fully progressive income tax, without buying politicians that will build in loopholes to slither through? How 'bout using the millions they pay in political contributions and tax lawyers to help feed and build livable housing for the needy? How 'bout the philanthropy of taking 2 times the top wage they pay their workers instead of 400 times the top wage they pay them? That's just to get started.
I don't care two whoops in hell what those who are paid to say nice things about these revered philanthropists say about them - much less a "charitable philosophy of the obscenely rich." Cram your complimentary biographies of them and their philanthropic ideology up the darkest, smelliest recess of your "book shelf." Machiavelli >himself< advises the tyrant to be charitable in the service of appearing righteous! Half a lifetime ago it became clear to me that philanthropy is and always has been a shabby little PR stunt calculated to have names appear on monuments and buildings, that did incidental good to distract from the overall damaged caused in the acquisition of such obscene wealth. And don't get me started on church-sponsored charity!
This "EA" nonsense puts me in mind of a quip I used to hear on the workroom floor. When someone complained "the least you could do is ..." about some lack of cooperation, the response "never let it be said I didn't do >the least I could do<" is >exactly< my view of EA! Simply stated, the greedy and avaricious - I distinguish between the two terms - need some way to assuage feelings of guilt in whatever residual conscience they have remaining. They even frequently like to ponce as christians, while >their christ himself< already tells them they have a snowballs chance in hell of getting into their mythical heaven.
True charity is humble and anonymous, where "no good deed goes unpunished." That is, true charity - like true righteousness - expects no reward.
I appreciate the valid critique of Effective Altruism yet there are other problematic dynamics at work with the concept and practice. First, why should a relatively small proportion of the population dictate social priorities... ie who/what is provided support, under what conditions? Second, does not EA undermine democracy if the relatively few wealthy are making decisions that are more appropriately suited for civil governance, ie a democratic process that includes regulation and equitable administration of tax collection? Third, the gender and racial implications of who defines priorities of EA are pretty obvious.
What a delightful coincidence! Thanks, Robert, for the skewering of FTX and the seductive glamor of vast wealth. The day before Giving Tuesday, I read on the op-ed page of my newspaper an essay by Marc A. Thiessen, who said "Climate reparations are insanity" because poor nations will do better building general well-being through the use of fossil fuels than with green energy. Mr. Thiessen is a libertarian who appears to wish better lives for the world's poor, but in his essay he argues that fossil fuels are essential to prosperity, resilience and longevity. I say that fossil fuels have made many rich but have impoverished countless more and have destroyed and sickened much of our world.
I used to give creativity workshops to large corporations. One of our team members always began the sessions by asking the participants three questions:
1. What is your main goal in life? They would usually respond, “To make as much money for my company as I can.”
2. What is your main goal for yourself? They would usually respond, “To make as much money for myself as I can.”
3. What will you contribute to society? They were completely silent since they had never thought about that.
So let's say MacAskill makes his billions and donates it to healthcare. Fine, but unless some other young person foregoes the temptation of hedge fund management and becomes a doctor instead, who's going to save those 140 lives in that poor country - and all the others that MacAskill's billions are supposed to be saving? In other words, it doesn't work if everyone does it.
If you take $100 from someone's pocket and give them back $5; have you 'enriched' their pocket? If profits are derived from environmentally unhealthy practices like pollution or pesticide use there are costs that will impact the common good. Harms must be remedied. It really is not charitable behavior in the long run.
I strongly advise interested people to read the story of Andrew Carnegie, possibly the greatest original American philanthropist tycoon. His story has all the elements: genius, political influence, union-busting, anti-imperialism, peace advocacy, generosity, etc...
Instead of encouraging anyone to make gobs of money so they can contribute large sums to charities, why don’t we create a system where money is spread out in such a way that all of us can live in decent conditions. Why is it equitable for Jeff Bezos to live in luxury while someone else lives in slum housing? Even if Bezos decides to donate for upgrading that slum housing, it occurs to me that he’s going to use it to feel smug. Why not pay his employees a living wage so they can enjoy the self-esteem and independence of providing decent housing for themselves?
I am currently working on a strategic narrative for a business school to radically reimagine the way businesses can make a net positive impact on our society. I have cast my inspiration net far and wide to help inform my point-of-view, including two of Mr. Reich's books (The Common Good + Aftershock), a host of books on Effective Altruism and Equality/Inequality. I so appreciate this take of recognizing the negative side of Ends justifying the Means when that blind rush to make obscene sums of money "to do good" backfires and has the exact opposite impact on a whole lot of regular people. My research has also led to some very positive and promising perspectives that I feel moved to share with this crowd. I highly recommend Reich's "The Common Good" if you want a straightforward understanding of how the (mostly) Republican-led U.S. legislation has gutted the middle class over the last 40 years, rigging wealth accumulation to remain (and grow) at the top of the hierarchy), by stealing all the benefits that used to accrue to the middle class (wages, pensions, benefits) and claiming the theft as "profits" for shareholders. I also recommend "Less is More" by Jason Hickel--but be prepared to be angry beyond measure at the extortionist approach to Capitalism we are currently experiencing where "growth for growth's sake" is the central maxim. While the writing is poetic and plain-spoken, it is very difficult reading because the data and path we're on to 2050 is dystopian and maddening and too many of us are asleep while the vocal few dominate the media with the same tropes to protect their status quo. There is hope, though, so I encourage a full read. Finally, for this capsule reading list, the hope: "Manifesto for a Moral Revolution," by Jacqueline Novogratz. I heard her on the Global Exchange podcast led by the University of Virginia's McIntire School of Commerce (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/global-commerce-exchange/id1535478469?i=1000520279645), and just started reading this most intelligent, most hopeful, most practical + "liveable" treatise for change in this world. It is just the palate cleanser my intellect needed. It is the North Star for future generations to revitalize our Planet and our shared Humanity.
###
I am much more favorably impressed with a wealthy man like Warren Buffett than with Musk, SBF, Bezos and their ilk. He lives in a small home, drives an older car and lives modestly. Earning gobs of money infects the thinking of the aquisitors in many ways, not the least of which is the fixed delusion they are better than others who they can (ab)use to do their bidding both within their empires and outside them. In his apology to America after the massive 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, BP chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg told us how much he cares for "the small people". I hope this was just a malapropism from English being a second language, but I suspect he was fluent in English and just said the quiet part out loud.
I agree with Elizabeth Warren's call for a wealth tax to rebalance the scales. Let those denied a seat at the table get to pick the menu for a change rather than just being on it.
"Jesus looked at him with love and said, 'Sell all you have and give to the poor. Then come follow me.'"
Mark 10:21
Wealth is the absolute corruptor of humanity.
This post is more of an indictment of our capitalist economy, and its tendency to produce and tolerate negative externalities, than it is of EA per se.
To tag on to Prof. Reich's essay, also see WaPo's report a few days ago about SB-F's slippery dealings and extravagant lifestyle:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/11/24/ftx-bahamas-albany-fried/?commentID=3c53271f-6dbb-452b-be35-cdbd04525287
As far as I can see, the papier-mâché altruism that MacAskill advocates is just pragmatism with no outcomes to justify the practice -- no demonstrated ends to support the means.
And SB-F's espousing of MacAskill's "effective altruism" has been exposed as simply the cynical selling of a feel-good catchphrase to lure the undiscerning, another part of the glitzy razzle-dazzle today's Ponzi-scheme crypto-scammers cloak themselves in.
To see some actual philanthropy at work, have a look at what the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does (see https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/foundation-fact-sheet for starters). The foundation has actually granted more than $65 _billion_ to work in various ways around the world. We can agree or disagree about whether it's spending the money in the right ways, whether Bill Gates is a good guy, blah blah blah. But there's no arguing that the foundation is putting its money where its mouth is and is getting measurable, positive results.
And you don't get any chest-thumping and puffery from them about MacAskill and "effective altruism" -- just a lot of hard work that produces results on the ground.