
Beware Rich People Who Say They Want to Change the World - gnicholas
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/24/opinion/sunday/wealth-philanthropy-fake-change.html
======
gnicholas
> _Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook says, “The best thing to do now, if you want to
> change the world, is to start a company.”_

This anecdote, in a list of others related to rich people who think they’re
changing the world, is misplaced. Marc isn’t just talking to rich people —
he’s saying that starting a company is a powerful way to potentially change
the world.

Is that not true? Perhaps his view is skewed by survivor bias. But what would
we have him say? “If you want to change the world, go be a politician”?

> _It’s that one awesome charter school — not equally funded public schools
> for all._

Does he not realize that charter schools are open to all (though sometimes
lotteried)? And that it’s much more practical to do the former than the
latter?

This essay (and the book it’s promoting) seem well-timed to ride a wave of
populist discontent. But I don’t personally find it very convincing. It seems
like the author just wants to complain that some rich people and companies
protect their self-interest, and therefore all of the good they might do is
tainted. This strikes me as naive (yes, people protect their self-interest,
and always have) and impractical. As the saying goes: don’t let the perfect be
the enemy of the good-enough.

There are people out there trying to accomplish the perfect. Don’t demonize
the people who are trying to make incremental changes.

~~~
citizenkeen
One note: charter schools are almost never open to all.

They're not open to those with learning disabilities. Or those with physical
disabilities. Or emotional problems at home.

Which means they take a school's worth of finding out of the pool but leave
the most expensive students behind.

~~~
whatshisface
Setting the rest of the discussion aside, I think there is an argument for
specializing care. People with learning disabilities would benefit from
attention from experts, people with at-home problems would benefit from
school-based childcare (for them, school lunches and afterschool programs
would be disproportionately helpful), and while people with physical
disabilities need the same good teachers they benefit from specialized access
mechanisms as well (for example there are schools for the blind, where
knowledge about blindness is concentrated in the staff to an extent not
present elsewhere.) Children with physical disabilities have no need for
dyslexia experts, children with lots of support at home have no need for
elaborate all-day childcare, and so on.

So, there are clear efficiency and quality gains to be had if the system is
specialized. Physical disabilities are one of the most stand-out cases, where
you can invest in special access mechanisms and make special testing
conditions _normal_ if you concentrate enough people with the same needs in
one place. See: Schools for the deaf, schools for the blind.

~~~
del82
> So, there are clear efficiency and quality gains to be had if the system is
> specialized.

I'd agree that "specialization" is a good thing when it means that educators
have the training needed to most effectively deal with other-than-typical
circumstances. But it may be less of a good thing when it means segregating
those students into their own classes or their own schools, which I think is
what GP is saying effectively happens with charter schools. Setting aside the
cost argument, giving students a chance to interact with and befriend those
with different backgrounds, circumstances, and abilities benefits the students
and society, though it may not be reflected in standardized test scores.

------
mirimir
> Beside a paragraph about how cutthroat business practices had earned the
> heirs of the Walton family at least $150 billion in wealth, Mr. Tovar wrote:
> “Possible addition: Largest corporate foundation in America. Gives more than
> $1 billion in cash and in kind donations each year.”

After accounting for interest on that stolen wealth, that's a damn small
return.

------
gojomo
Also beware journalists with same mission?

------
modells
_Promise hope and change but deliver it slowly or not at all._

Not to pick on any one partisan side, but isn't that what Obama promised
before nearly passing TPP/TTIP which would've sold-out America's autonomy and
rule of law to a higher ruling international body also run by corporations? By
sheer chance, buffoon 45 killed it.. and then he saved a few hundred jobs
while losing tens of thousands more with poorly-designed tariffs.

~~~
18pfsmt
Treaties have to be ratified by the US Congress, and I doubt relinquishing
sovereignty was ever in the cards (no matter who is president).

------
TearsInTheRain
> Aggressive policies to protect workers, redistribute income, and make
> education and health affordable would bring real change.

Yeah those are not self-evidently desirable

------
seibelj
I would rather a rich person use their own money to change the world than the
government seize wealth to change the world.

~~~
arcticbull
And this is why we can't have nice things. People trust those who've amassed
huge quantities of money for themselves and want to do more of that, instead
of a body of the people specifically selected to improve the lives of
everyone. Maybe the wrong people are doing it now, you can change that.
America has lost so much faith in its government; it's sad.

~~~
seibelj
The worst that can happen to the rich person is they go broke. The worst that
can happen with the government is they turn the country into Venezuela, or
devolve into mass killings like Mao’s China and the Soviet Union.

The sad thing about today’s society is that all the lessons of last century
are being forgotten.

~~~
arcticbull
Yes, the worst that can happen to a rich person is they go broke, that doesn't
mean they can't harm others along the way with little to no oversight. Union
Carbide [1], Coca Cola killing union organizers [2], Nestle's use of child
slaves [3] and of course, that time the Chiquita banana company started a 30
year long civil war in Guatemala [4] - then their CEO walked out of his 40th
floor window in New York which almost seems worse than going broke ;) These
are just recent.

Speaking of lessons we haven't learned, there's the British and Dutch East
India Companies, deputized by their governments to run their own territories -
and the slave trade. [5] And boy did the VOC do it well, returning a 20%
annual dividend for over 200 years, the single most valuable company in the
history of the world ($7T in todays money). And that's just some flagship
examples.

Both are people or groups of people; companies don't have checks and balances
- good government does.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster)

[2]
[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jul/24/marketingandpr...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jul/24/marketingandpr.colombia)

[3]
[https://www.confectionerynews.com/Article/2018/02/13/Nestle-...](https://www.confectionerynews.com/Article/2018/02/13/Nestle-
sued-again-over-child-labor-in-cocoa-supply-chain)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27état](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27état)

[5] [http://theconversation.com/taboo-the-east-india-company-
and-...](http://theconversation.com/taboo-the-east-india-company-and-the-true-
horrors-of-empire-73616)

~~~
bassman9000
All of those examples pale in comparison to the atrocities by socialist
governments, brought by, I assume, the best intentions.

OP point stands IMHO.

------
mchahn
Wow. So Carter and Gates are selfish pigs?

------
cptaj
I live in Venezuela and I would say definitely beware of populist rhetoric and
communists trying to change the world.

I don't have a country anymore because people believed in that.

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
Agreed, but this is a false dichotomy. Google "happiest countries in the
world" \- the leaders are all countries with high taxes, universal healthcare,
universal education and a strong social safety net.

------
dominotw
> President Trump is what we get when we trust the rich to fix what they are
> complicit in breaking.

I am really tired of "We got trump because of X" , when is it
speculation/theorisation going to stop :\\.

~~~
ams6110
We got Trump because he won under the rules by which we choose presidents. If
you aren't happy with him, put up a better competitor next time.

------
api
What about politicians and gurus?

~~~
WalterSear
They never seem to get very far without other people's money.

------
RickJWagner
Some of what's here is agreeable.

Virtue signalling is very popular among the rich now. I suppose they might be
trying to appease the jealous lower classes.

The same holds true for Hollywood. Every heart bleeds for any altruistic
cause. Sadly, the place is rife with hypocrites from Weinstein to Damon,
preying on sexual victims and raising conspicuous consumerism to previously
unseen levels.

I'm glad to see this article. I hope we see more like it.

