Philanthropy and Traditional Charity Are Mutually Exclusive
ronfriedhaber.substack.com> A “Global Progressive Payments Charity“ can’t have much of an effect as PayPal, if any effect at all. “Save American Spaceflight Charity“ can’t rival SpaceX, “Cars For Climate Change Charity“ and Tesla, and I can’t even think of an example for Palantir.
Feels like a misunderstanding.
Charities (by which I understand non-profit organizations that are also not grifts) are by typically anticapitalist: by which I mean, not concerned with accumulating capital beyond the means necessary to operate and fulfill their charitable goals.
Therefore they’re not optimized to produce commodities or extract surplus value. Therefore they tend to be bad at capital-intensive industries. That’s not their competitive advantage.
On the gripping hand, a company is not going to be as successful at feeding the poor, providing legal defense to the destitute, or sheltering the homeless. There’s no profit in any of these categories (in a free market—companies are capable of exploiting government funding through bureaucratic capture, but I digress). A well-run charitable org can.
Author asserts a lot of inefficiency in charities broadly speaking, e.g.:
> Most charities are a quagmire of conflicted interests. In fact, many charities realized intent is opposing their stated intent.
What data is there that shows this, hmm? Feels like an ideology is showing.
i have a stereotype of charities just handing out resources to stated needs, short term relief.
philanthropy, provides a vector, attempting to direct a state of persistent improvement, avoiding the perpetuation of distress.
the adage of give a fish vs teach how to fish.
Huh? This didn't come across clearly to me.