Gift economies

Embedded in the idea that nobody “elected” Bono to campaign for debt forgiveness is the notion that he somehow lacks legitimacy to try to do good. Who elected the banks and corporations who have done so much damage in developing nations (and who often have greater power than international institutions or local school boards)? I reject the idea that if I give $10 away that’s fine, but if I win the lottery (or found Microsoft or release The Joshua Tree) and want to give $100 million suddenly I’m taking away responsibility from a democratic institution or power from the people.

Many on the right like to point out the weaknesses of giving, or of all sorts of other non-gov’t efforts to promote the common good. Who elected them?! is something you hear all the time.

They almost never go on to support policies that promote the common good.

It’s not an either or situation, though the market worship in the 90’s did tend to make it seem like business and philanthropy were supplanting government to the naive. Giving can be done in a way that supports just government, or that reinforces the moral intuitions that will lead people to support just gov’t, etc.

I don’t know if Christopher Caldwell ever wrote a government is withering away piece, but I’ve got to go cook out and so won’t be googling.

You see that shift from collective to individual responsibility also in the way climate change is treated in the mainstream media and politics. It’s accepted that it’s taken place, but presented as the outcome of our own individual wish to travel abroad, or have a big SUV, or eat non-local food and if only we changed what we consume it can be solved, rather than as something that is an inherent byproduct of our industrialised, capitalist cultures.

I contribute to a local shelter for the homeless. At one of its periodic fundraisers, a neighbor of mine lamented that the well-to-do are always happy to shell out for the arts and their alma maters but reluctant to support less glamorous social causes.

It wasn’t until New Orleans flooded, and ex-presidents Bush and Clinton were named to head an effort to raise money for relief and rebuilding, that it struck me how utterly backwards it was. Caring for the destitute ought to be our collective responsibility. Charity is plainly inadequate to the task of providing disaster relief and rebuilding a drowned city, not to mention caring for the homeless or providing public education, but in the U.S. it’s expected to make up the public shortfall.

I wish I could devote all my charitable contributions to the arts, or to the destitute of all species abroad, secure in the knowledge that everyone in my country was housed and fed and their children educated, but I don’t live in that sort of country.

“The increased emphasis on gift-giving reflects how collective political choice over worthy social choices is increasingly giving way to individual choice….”

I really liked this point, which seems to me utterly true everywhere now. It’s probably an vast topic, but can someone recommend something written on this general (recent?) phenomenon?

If some rich or famous people are collecting the tribute of popular approval for “good works”, this can only happen if most of them do not engage in the practice at all or very little. The widening spread in the distribution of income is a big reflection of this, even if it is within a circle of causes.

With less to spend, more ordinary people will crimp the charitable impulse, first of all in contribution to the Church. With more and more of the national income pledged to flow into their coffers, a ruling class that is as cruel, greedy and murderous as the American will hide behind shoals of accountants and lawyers to increase its share while favoring the society it preys upon with the stony glare of a pitiless predator. And so the occasional bouquet of funds will be tossed out by the occasional big spender, often with a private self enriching motive, and the rest of us are supposed to be impressed with the act, and the values of such people.

At first a neighbor would provide help for the family in trouble, then the Church, then the social “safety net” of a civilized society. The development we now see of publicized gift giving
attracting special attention with the givers even claiming to be entitled to claim knowledge of what the facts are and the direction society should be moving in is not just offensive. It is a sure sign our civilization is deteriorating very quickly. What we are seeing is like the crowds of well wishers who appeared in front of the home of a big gangster in New York right after his conviction, boisterously putting up the standard slogans that he was a good family man, gave to charity, helped improve the neighborhood, and was known to throw coins to beggars.

We cannot safely accept social advice from gangsters, singers, or people who have made fortunes by cheating, lying, and stealing from the public.

aaron:

“It’s not that Bono has changed his message, it’s that the ‘world’ is suddenly interested, so now he is flying around the world to do ‘earth’ concerts.”

Bullcrap. The “world” has no say over whom Bono gives his money to. The world may influence him, but ultimately it’s his choice whether to give his money to Africa, or environmentalists, or his dog.

“That’s just the way things are” isn’t the explanation. (In fact, it’s not even _any_ explanation. Think about it.)

It serves at best as a weak and inefficient means of redistribution…

The enormous assumption buried in this post is that the wealth generation would have been the same if the government engaged in a ‘powerful and efficient means of redistribution’. But real world examples of ‘powerful and efficient’ redistribution systems do not inspire confidence (to say the least) that such systems generate wealth to the same degree at all.

And then — would anyone seriously argue that, say, the U.N. would be a more efficient means of redistributing the Gates’s and Buffett’s billions than the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? I mean really?

Without context, it’s a bit hard to make sense of Clinton “cracking the code” in the first quoted paragraph. Did he crack the code so that he’s revealing the secrets hidden by that code in his book? That would be the normal use of ‘cracked the code.’ The rest of the review seems to suggest otherwise, that he’s blind to the hidden nature of philanthropy.

Slocum (currently #16),

There is a vast body of scholarly literature on the relative efficiency of a dollar donated and redistibuted through various channels (government programs, NGO with a focus on urgency, NGO with a focus on development and long-term programs, confessional organizations…). I second Henry in the recommendation that you read a bit of that, you will find interesting answers about the question you asked (“Would anyone seriously argue…”). That said, the studies I have read never mentionned the Gates foundation, probably because it is relatively new and american (for obvious geographic reasons, I read mostly european literature); so it can be that it is highly effective.

I’d recommend you read a bit about the world of private charities, and the many inefficiencies thereof before you wheel out this comparison, and also about the relationship between wealth generation and redistribution too.

And which societies do you suggest one study that are such powerful and efficient redistributors of wealth that not even a Bono (let alone a Bill Gates) can emerge — but are still prodigious generators of wealth?

And bear in mind that in Bono’s case, it’s not even wealth per se that is at issue — it’s fame and status. So if you want to prevent a person like Bono from having an outsized influence on the public debate, you’ll need not just a powerful and efficient wealth redistribution system, but a powerful system of ‘fame’ and ‘acclaim’ redistribution. Either that or powerful restrictions on what activities are permitted to famous people.

“Philanthropy is a route through which celebrity can be laundered into political power.”

Noblesse oblige is one thing, but the purchase of political power by the super-rich, and their insistence on our gratitude for same is rather galling.

Apples and oranges again. Bono and Angelia Jolie aren’t ‘purchasing’ political power with their personal fortunes (which are nowhere near large enough to do that). Their political impact comes from their celebrity not their wealth. The same is true of Al Gore, BTW, who is now acting in an unelected capacity. How did Al Gore’s role in ‘Live Earth’ really differ from Bono’s in ‘Live 8’?

Note, too, that Bono’s calls for debt relief were not demanding charity from billionaires but rather government action. And the various ‘live’ celebrity charity concerts have been trying to raise money through large numbers of small donations not acts of noblesse oblige from undeserving billionaires benefiting from ‘a skewed system of economic transfers to the already wealthy’ (which travesty, I can’t help noting in passing, can often be described as ‘founding, building, and running a successful business’ — and then those bastards often compound their sins by giving money away).

It appears that very few have read, let alone absorbed from “A Theory of Moral Sentiments” by Adam Smith.

Redistributing money to needy people is morally the same as religious persecution. It’s an even more unthinkable crime than failing to run a successful business! Oh, the treason!