The lifestyles of the rich and the famous

In my early days of writing newspaper commentaries, rejections were in plenty.  One of the pieces that never was published was about the Rhodes Scholarship.

Yep, about some obscure scholarship that perhaps even 99% of regular newspaper readers don't know about.  It certainly failed the "will it play in Peoria?" test that editors often employ.

But, to me this was, and continues to be, an important issue that we don't talk about much.  The commentary that I wrote was not merely about the scholarship.  But, the Rhodes Scholarship was the launching point for me to question the value of ill-gotten gains.

Cecil Rhodes did not make his fortunes in any laudable manner.  And, even more worryingly, the guy was a staunch imperialist and a racist, who believed that his people were the greatest race on earth.  His dream was to bring the entire world under British rule.  World domination by his people was his ultimate goal, for which he even devoted money that he had made from other people's misfortunes.

Yet, there is Rhodes Scholarship.  And we celebrate Rhodes Scholars?

I used that launching pad in order to question the value of philanthropy.  (Much later, and in a different context, I wrote this commentary about--pecunia non olet--the stink of money.)

Anand Giridharadas has written a bestseller on this topic, and the recent news reports add more evidence for him:

We have crossed the point beyond which anyone in philanthropy can wiggle out of this problem by talking about some good examples or invoking Bill Gates. Yes. Yes. Yes. There is much good being done. But your tool has become the implement of choice for scoundrels. Face it.

— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) September 10, 2019

I continue to worry about philanthropy.  Not only because of how the "philanthropists" made their fortunes but for a reason beyond that.  In a democracy, philanthropy tends to terribly undercut the ability of government to address the public interest.  As this review notes, Robert Reich--a Rhodes Scholar himself!--argues in his book that in a democracy, "philanthropy amplifies the power of the few at the expense of the many."

The rich avoid paying taxes, which makes it difficult for government to address real public policy issues like homelessness.  And meanwhile, the rich get tax deductions for their "philanthropy" that is used to pursue their favorite agendas.

The income tax deduction for charitable donations, Reich argues, is effectively a state subsidy for philanthropy. And since tax rates increase progressively on the basis of income, the rich are, in effect, being paid by the government to exert power by giving their money away.

To use Shakespeare's words, "So are they all, all honourable men."

Government is for losers. Exactly!

In this post from October 2010, I wrote about a golden rule from India: the "dharma" of a rich person is to create a lot of wealth, and to donate wealth to charity.

The old Indian wisdom recognized that creating wealth is not only ok, but is the duty for some.  But, what comes after that wealth .... something like the "noblesse oblige" in the Western contexts.  Here is one:

संपदो जलतरंगविलोल
   यौवनं त्रिचतुराणि दिनानि ।
शारदाभ्रपरिपेलवमायुः
   किं धनैः परहितानि कुरुध्वम् ॥

- सुभाषितसुधानिधि

Wealth is as temporary as a wave on still water. Youth is just a matter of few years. Our life it self is as uncertain as a cloud of Sharat month (where clouds could get formed and dispersed in a matter of minutes. No rain.) What is the use of all the wealth that you accumulate? Spend them in a way that is helpful to others.

That golden rule is from way back in time, well before the modern concept of countries and governments.  In those bad old days, with wealth and power concentrated with a few, while the overwhelming majority toiled away, charity helped, and helped a lot.  Perhaps charity also helped in the small geographic areas within which the rich and powerful lived.

Now, the rich and the powerful have international reach.  But, our collective problems are way beyond the neighborhood.  Take climate change, for instance.  No amount of philanthropy can tackle that kind of a challenge. Or public health in these times when infectious diseases can easily spread not merely within a country but also across countries.

Philanthropy is no match against the machinery of the government.  However, for the government to address these challenging collective issues, well, the rich and the powerful need to pay up.  And for them to pay their share Republicans need to first acknowledge that our collective challenges, like climate change, are for real and are not some elaborate hoaxes!

If they acknowledged these collective challenges, then they would automatically realize that individuals and charities cannot fight carbon, for instance, and that a well-funded government will be needed for such huge campaigns.

For now, the head in the sand racist party can only keep chanting "tax cuts".

Writing in the NY Times, gazillionaire Eli Broad argues:

I’ve come to realize that no amount of philanthropic commitment will compensate for the deep inequities preventing most Americans — the factory workers and farmers, entrepreneurs and electricians, teachers, nurses and small-business owners — from the basic prosperity we call the American dream.

He continues:

I invite fellow members of the 1 percent to join me in demanding that they engage in a robust discussion of how we can strengthen a post-Trump America by reforming our tax code.

But, the racist party and their Dear Leader that 63 million voted for, which loves to associate with the far-right, will perhaps merely associate Broad, who is Jewish, with their favorite target, who is also a big time philanthropist--George Soros.

Let's see what happens in November 2020.

Elections have consequences

It does not really surprise nor shock me that neither my adopted country nor the old country is really doing anything about climate change.  Both are DINOs--democracies in name only.  But, at least they are DINOs and not anything worse!

I have no say in what India does or does not do; that's up to Indians to worry.  I am pissed off at the US that apparently cannot be bothered about climate change.

Bill and Melinda Gates write about the challenge of climate change in their annual letter.  And they refer to a summary by IPCC:

Source

I am not a big fan of all this "philanthropy" work that rich people do.  They hire an army of accountants and lawyers to figure out how to avoid paying taxes.  They also hire lobbyists to advocate to lower taxes for the filthy rich.  These taxes are what society needs in order to address our collective problems--from homelessness to higher education to ... yes, climate change too.

After such immoral but legal tax avoidance, these rich dudes then prioritize whatever they want to prioritize--over which society has no influence whatsoever.  I mean, for instance, when was the last time you heard about billionaires donating big money to struggling public universities that serve the underprivileged, and how many times have you heard about billionaires donating to elite universities that serve the privileged? On the other hand, had they paid their fair share of taxes, public universities and colleges won't be in such shit streets.  The tragic irony is that after subjecting public universities to such a financial crunch, they point their fingers at those same public institutions as failures!

I digressed.  At least I got that out of my system!

Now that there is Democratic control over the people's chamber of the Congress, there is at least a little of reason, logic, science, and evidence, that is being brought into climate change discussions.

The Science Committee hosted its first climate hearing of 2019 on Wednesday, after two other House committees had already held theirs. In sharp contrast to recent past Science Committee climate hearings, there was bipartisan agreement that climate change is real, human-caused, and harmful. The hearing brought up a number of possible policies to help America reduce and prepare for global warming, and participants aired their differences regarding the best way forward.

"bipartisan agreement that climate change is real, human-caused, and harmful."  "participants aired their differences regarding the best way forward."

Elections have consequences.

The 63 million who voted for climate change denialism--after all, this is a hoax, according to their deal leader--are unhappy with Democrats, especially the young and the fearless women, going after these pressing problems, I guess.  I wish we could make them even more unhappy, and real soon.

ps: More than six hours later, I read this commentary by Joseph Stiglitz, in which he writes:

Apple, Google, Starbucks, and companies like them all claim to be socially responsible, but the first element of social responsibility should be paying your fair share of tax. If everyone avoided and evaded taxes like these companies, society could not function, much less make the public investments that led to the Internet, on which Apple and Google depend.

Amen!

Microsoft Ebola

I know, after reading the subject line, you are thinking that I have indeed gone completely insane.  But, there is a method to my madness, if you pardon the atrocious pun here ;)

Recall the names of the dudes who founded Microsoft?

Source

Sure, you know that guy on the right as Bill Gates.  The co-founder?  Ok, ok, you know it is Paul Allen.  (Do you know the names of the two dudes who started Google?  Aha, I got you there!)

So, what about Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and Ebola?  I told you that there is always a method to my madness.

In the NY Times, Gates had authored an op-ed:

The Ebola epidemic in West Africa has killed more than 10,000 people. If anything good can come from this continuing tragedy, it is that Ebola can awaken the world to a sobering fact: We are simply not prepared to deal with a global epidemic.

More than 10,000 dead.  From a disease. Caused by a virus. Yet, we--in the US and the rest of the world as well--pretty much don't care.  Which is all the more why Gates reminds us even if we care not about the 10,000 dead, and the epidemic that continues to infect people, well, perhaps we will at least take notice if we think that we too might get affected by some global epidemic.

Of all the things that could kill more than 10 million people around the world in the coming years, by far the most likely is an epidemic. But it almost certainly won’t be Ebola. As awful as it is, Ebola spreads only through physical contact, and by the time patients can infect other people, they are already showing symptoms of the disease, which makes them relatively easy to identify.
Other diseases — flu, for example — spread through the air, and people can be infectious before they feel sick, which means that one person can infect many strangers just by going to a public place.

Are you listening now?

I believe that we can solve this problem, just as we’ve solved many others — with ingenuity and innovation.

As committed as he is to the cause, it requires more than well-funded nonprofit organizations and foundations.

Meanwhile, the other co-founder, Allen, has been spending on Ebola, according to this piece that the friend passed along to me:

Paul Allen reportedly began tracking the current Ebola outbreak before a lot of governments saw it as a serious threat because of his work on wildlife conservation in Africa. As well, Allen’s philanthropic focus has been shifting and expanding over the last few years to include new issues, which makes sense for a guy who has $17 billion, has signed the Giving Pledge, and isn't getting any younger. So, all in all, it wasn't so bizarre that Allen jumped into the Ebola crisis with a boatload of cash for frontline work to contain epidemic. 

Yep, the same Paul Allen who makes the road-tripping sports maniac all pumped up ;)

By late October, Allen had upped his commitment to $100 million, making it the largest private contribution to combat the Ebola crisis. Allen’s big give was surprising and a bit shocking because his previous philanthropy had never touched humanitarian or global health issues before.

Allen and Gates understand all too well that to fight Ebola means more than merely fighting the virus alone.  So,

Paul Allen is not going to pocket the unspent Ebola money now that people aren't dying anymore and move on to something else. On the contrary, he may dive deeper into the troubled healthcare systems of West Africa, spending even more money. 

Aren't you now happy that these two nerds founded a small little company called Microsoft?

If only the local business billionaire, who has more money than Allen, funded worthwhile causes like this instead of this!

I did not take up the Ice Bucket Challenge. No, I am not heartless!

A friend, who sat a row behind me in the final two years of school back in that wonderfully magical town in the old country, challenged me in Facebook and gave me twenty-four hours to follow up with my own ice-bucket video.

The deadline has passed.

In case anybody else has plans to challenge me, I will make it easier for you: I will not take it up.

The reason is simple. I am far from convinced that ALS ranks way high among the gazillion problems that humans experience on this planet and, therefore, it is more important for me to spend whatever that I can on issues that are of much higher priority.

Let us begin at step 1, which is to find out how many people in the US suffer from ALS.  Why not check in with the philanthropic organization where the ice-bucket-challenge money will end up--the ALS Association, which "is the only national non-profit organization fighting Lou Gehrig’s Disease on every front":

• It is estimated that ALS is responsible for nearly two deaths per hundred thousand population annually.

• Approximately 5,600 people in the U.S. are diagnosed with ALS each year. The incidence of ALS is two per 100,000 people, and it is estimated that as many as 30,000 Americans may have the disease at any given time.

Right this very minute, about 30,000 Americans have this awful disease.  That is 30,000 more than what we would prefer, certainly.  But then we also have to ask ourselves a question, however uncomfortable that might be: why is raising funds and awareness for the 30,000 more urgent than the money and awareness for any number of other diseases, or conflicts, or other ways in which humans around the world suffer and die?

Consider, for instance, malaria.  It is a disease that is not only curable but even preventable.

An estimated 207 million people suffered from the disease in 2012, and about 627,000 died. About 90 percent of the deaths were in Sub-Saharan Africa, and 77 percent were among children under age 5.

More than 200 million suffered from it, and kids less than five years old accounted for nearly half-a-million deaths.

Or consider Ebola, which in this latest iteration has the world quite alarmed.  We have known about Ebola for some time now, but have not really committed resources to developing drugs to cure patients and methods to eradicate it.  Why?

When pharmaceutical companies are deciding where to direct their R. & D. money, they naturally assess the potential market for a drug candidate. That means that they have an incentive to target diseases that affect wealthier people (above all, people in the developed world), who can afford to pay a lot. They have an incentive to make drugs that many people will take. And they have an incentive to make drugs that people will take regularly for a long time—drugs like statins.
This system does a reasonable job of getting Westerners the drugs they want (albeit often at high prices). But it also leads to enormous underinvestment in certain kinds of diseases and certain categories of drugs. Diseases that mostly affect poor people in poor countries aren’t a research priority, because it’s unlikely that those markets will ever provide a decent return. So diseases like malaria and tuberculosis, which together kill two million people a year, have received less attention from pharmaceutical companies than high cholesterol. Then, there’s what the World Health Organization calls “neglected tropical diseases,” such as Chagas disease and dengue; they affect more than a billion people and kill as many as half a million a year. One study found that of the more than fifteen hundred drugs that came to market between 1975 and 2004 just ten were targeted at these maladies. And when a disease’s victims are both poor and not very numerous that’s a double whammy. On both scores, a drug for Ebola looks like a bad investment: so far, the disease has appeared only in poor countries and has affected a relatively small number of people.

How would I justify contributing to ALS as a higher priority compared to a contribution to fight any one of those neglected diseases that affect millions and kills millions?

Felix Salmon writes that the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge is a bad idea:

William MacAskill has an informed estimate that a good 50 percent of the money being given to ALS is ultimately coming out of the pockets of other charities. So it’s reasonable to ask: Are we better off in a world where the ALS Association has an extra $100 million and other charities have roughly $50 million less?

Salmon adds:

there are thousands of charitable organizations out there that could really use the money going to ALS—could use it to make the world a better place today. Some are medicine-based, treating the sick around the world; others might be in areas such as education, or clean water, or animal rescue, or the arts, or simply just giving money to poor people. In virtually all these cases, there’s an obvious positive effect to any donation. Not all philanthropic activity should be obvious, of course, or require immediate positive effects. But the less good you’re going to do in the short term, the more good you should expect to achieve in the long term. And I don’t think the ALS Association quite gets there.

Asking such tough questions is never the way to win friends.  But then a long time ago I decided that my career would be about engaging in difficult questions, even if it means I will be friendless and waiting for that cup of hemlock!

I do wish that the ill--whether the disease is ALS, or malaria, or depression, or ...--don't have to suffer at all, and that science and technology and philanthropy will make this world a much better place for all of us. I hope I am doing my part towards making the world a better place, even when I decline the Ice Bucket Challenge.

Academics thrive because of generosity

A couple of weeks before the academic year ended, an e-mail from the university's advancement office informed me that an alumnus had made a $100 donation with a specification that it was "for geography." This alone made the academic year a fantastic one for me.

The donation reminds me of the idea of "guru dakshana."

Centuries ago, when learning was restricted to a very few in India, the student left home to go live with the teacher — the guru — and his family. This system was referred to as "gurukula," where the student learned from the guru, and the guru's wife took care of the student with the same care and affection that she had for her own children.

After years of learning, upon graduation, the student would then make a "guru dakshana" — an offering to the guru. The offering did not have to be only gold or jewels and could also have taken the form of a scholarly treatise.

Of course, the gurukula concept does not exist anymore. Yet because of the specification that the donation was "for geography," I suppose I am tempted to interpret the contribution as a variation on the idea of guru dakshana.

On a larger picture, this donation is consistent with the giving nature of Americans. We often overlook the phenomenal amounts that are being contributed every year to organizations ranging from the United Way to churches to universities and hospitals. Charitable contributions made in 2007 amounted to a record high of $306.39 billion, according to the Association of Fundraising Professionals — a huge sum, indeed.

Sometimes donations to universities do indeed take the form of a guru dakshana, such as an endowment honoring a former professor. Other times, they might be for naming rights; a library or a medical school gets named after the donor.

When it comes to such donations, an argument can easily be made that donors do not have to give money at all, and yet they do. If the natural state of humans and societies is to be "nasty, brutish and short," as Thomas Hobbes described way back in 1651, then the generosity, sparked for whatever reasons, is an amazing contrast and is something to applaud.

It is not that I am looking at the world through any special rose-colored lenses, and neither am I in denial when it comes to the gross inequality in this country and in the world. But the unequal distribution of wealth is all the more reason why I find donations so special; after all, donors can easily continue to hold on to their wealth and widen the inequality.

I am immensely thankful to the anonymous $100 donor and to all those who donate. Without that generosity, academe and academics will not be what we have today. And without donations that provide for scholarships, quite a few students might not be able to attend college at all.

I hope that the class of 2008, all across Oregon, will take a moment to thank the donors over the generations, who have made their higher education possible. And then, perhaps a guru dakshana as well.

(published in the Statesman Journal, August 14, 2008)