[0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/S-F-pays-61-000-a-...
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.
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
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 think having got to a certain place with a big caveat, what he and Melinda Gates are choosing to do with the pile of money, is better than what other people (Bezos, Musk) are doing with the money. Even Bezos' ex-wife is doing better things with her share of the money.
The caveat is that I am told, the Gates often require you to use Microsoft IT to do whatever thing you're doing.
