The alternative is to keep funding more and more bureaucrats. Until you get to this [0]

[0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/S-F-pays-61-000-a-...

This insufferable screed fails to point out the one and only reason why a super-wealthy person would ‘donate’ their fortune.

Not that the alternatives are better for society. To some extent, celebration of these foundations is an admission by lawmakers that their spending choices are so corrupt and incompetent to be actually worse for society than if the money had just disappeared from the system.

> Andrew Carnegie, the pioneer of entrepreneurial philanthropy, who argued in the late 19th century that ‘the problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth, so that the ties of brotherhood may still bind together the rich and poor in harmonious relationship’

Has this ever happened? I don’t see these circles mixing much unless it is a wealthy donor donating to a charity, or a wealthy person marrying someone of a lower class.

Why not start companies that make money and do good. Entrepreneurs can eat their cake and it’s not a non profit so it’ll stand on its own two feet. If you build a successful business money will come - it’s not your fault if there is a lot of it. But how you build that business and how it impacts society - that you can control. Not saying it’s a model for everyone, but an example is Bcorp

Am I missing some new revelation here?

It seems the main point boils down to people with money influencing things through philanthropy and that one's influence is skewed towards their own communities, interests, and experiences (which can create cycles).

I'm inclined to believe the premise. Tax is just better at equalising. But, I do respect the Gates for their philanthropy towards health, especially, women's reproductive health during a time US political toxicity removed a huge amount of aid due to the anti abortionists power in domestic politics.

Out of all forms of institutional inequality, philanthropy is among the ones that I would target last.

Very informative paper, but very left-wing in its base assumptions. Another problem with the paper is that in many instances, it passes off speculation, that conforms with the left-wing world view, as established fact, which is quite disingenuous/propagandistic.