Read on Twitter
Well, this is a big & interesting philanthropy announcement...
Lots to unpick, but 2 things that struck me:
-it's all unrestricted (more indication of new norm?)
-it's not a pledge; the money (>$1bn) has actually been given (unlike many recent big phil announcements). https://twitter.com/mackenziebezos/status/1288167477705203712
Lots to unpick, but 2 things that struck me:
-it's all unrestricted (more indication of new norm?)
-it's not a pledge; the money (>$1bn) has actually been given (unlike many recent big phil announcements). https://twitter.com/mackenziebezos/status/1288167477705203712
The opening framing is also interesting: the categorical rejection of the myth of "self-created wealth" in favour of recognition that luck, privilege & reliance on wider society are always factors in wealth creation.
Taking the latter view (as some other notable donors have done historically) tends to imply a view of philanthropy that emphasises "paying back" as part of a social contract (& is to be expected), rather than positioning it as voluntary largesse (for which we shld be grateful).
One can only assume there is an implied (or maybe just entirely explicit) contrast intended with the approach of another wealthy donor whose name sounds not entirely dissimilar to "Jiff Beeshouse"...
Does fact Mackenzie Scott managed to give $1.7bn in 6 months suggest too much weight given to Carnegian idea that "it's harder to give money away intelligently than earn it", and that if you're willing to cede power & give unrestricted grants it's actually eminently possible? 
