Highlights From The Comments On Billionaire Philanthropy
Read the original on Slate Star Codex →
Follows up on
↳ Against Against Billionaire Philanthropy — Essay · Jul 2019
Summary
An unusually substantive Highlights companion to 'Against Against Billionaire Philanthropy,' where Scott's replies amount to essay-grade original work. He rebuts Yglesias's 'billionaires mostly fund right-wing causes' by estimating the numbers (~$1B/yr right-wing politics vs ~$11B/yr billionaire philanthropy; Gates alone $2.5B/yr > all billionaire right-wing spending combined); defends via hits-based giving (one Gates saving 10M lives isn't graded on a curve; cutting tax-deductibility 37% 'kills 3.7M people'); tours the top-10 foundations to show non-Gates giving is mostly good; addresses the Koch climate-denial worry (hits-based cuts both ways, but ~$10M/yr is trivial -> separate good from bad in the tax code); and works through the Zuckerberg/Newark 'anti-democratic' debate (a democratically-elected mayor accepting help isn't 'commandeering'; 'anti-democratic' != 'outside government power'; coordination power vs Moloch). Engages the strongest leftist steelmen (philanthropy-as-Lord-Haw-Haw/Potemkin propaganda; the accelerationist bandaid argument; 'against-the-state' sentiment).
Why this score
Quality 74 · Strong. A Highlights companion lifted well above the format by genuinely essay-grade original analysis (the quantitative billionaire-spending estimate; hits-based giving applied to good AND bad; the coordination-power-vs-Moloch framing). Upper-Strong -- substantive, but reactive/companion in form.
Claude’s paradigm shift 48 · Moderate. Moderate. Scott's quantitative analysis and coordination-power framing are fresh additions atop the parent essay's argument.
Real-world impact 3 · Moderate. A Highlights companion lifted to essay-grade by genuinely original analysis defending billionaire philanthropy (the quantitative ~$1B-right-wing-politics-vs-$11B-philanthropy estimate; hits-based giving applied to good and bad; the coordination-power-vs-Moloch framing; 'cutting tax-deductibility kills 3.7M people'). Conceptual influence within EA/philanthropy discourse on a materially-consequential topic, but reactive/companion in form — modest RWI.