Billionaires need a giving philosophy

Jun 02, 2011

From world hunger to global warming and the arts, there are numerous causes that individuals, foundations and NGOs choose to support. And even in an economy that has been slow to recover, billionaires are continuing to pledge significant portions of their wealth to philanthropy. But when considering what philanthropies to support, a Northeastern professor says the wealthy need to address some moral and ethical questions. In her new book, “Giving Well: The Ethics of Philanthropy,” Patricia Illingworth, assistant professor of philosophy in the College of Social Sciences and Humanities, explores these issues as they relate to giving.



What considerations should individuals make when donating money?



In making decisions about giving, people ought to consider how great the need is and the likelihood that the money donated will actually address that need. People should undertake a kind of moral due diligence in which they look at the charity to see how much of the money donated will actually be spent on addressing the need, and how much on other kinds of costs. Sometimes charitable money can actually make things worse for beneficiaries — for example, making them dependent on donor agencies.   Because of this, charities are interested in sustainability.


People should also consider what kinds of “causes” deserve their support. Should they give to the people most in need, such as the global poor? Or, should they give to environmental organizations, and the interests of future generations? Some people believe that their obligations to help are owed most strongly to those close by, such as family and community groups, while others believe that those with greatest need worldwide deserve their help. Ethics are often key in resolving many of these questions. There are even organizations that specialize in evaluating charities for donors.

What do you think are the most significant moral questions in the practice of philanthropy today? 

Who should give?

Should everyone give, or are only the rich under an obligation to give? Poor people living in wealthy OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries are much better off than people living in very poor countries. Do the poor in the United States have an obligation to help the poor in Burundi?


How much money should people give? Is it the same for all people or do billionaires have an obligation to give a greater percentage of their wealth than people with incomes in the middle range?


Are there any moral priorities among charities? Is poverty, for example, morally more important than the arts? Is giving a purely private question to be left to the individual, or should ethics provide guidance on priorities based on moral principles and the demands of global justice?

How do NGOs navigate the moral priorities that inform their decisions regarding their projects?



NGO’s use a variety of criteria for determining what projects to support. They have obligations to both the donors who support them, and to those they are organized around serving. Whatever criteria NGOs use, they need to be transparent about them, and ensure that donors understand the terms of their gifts.  In a world in which there is so much need, it is important that charitable monies not be wasted, nor that they cause more harm than good. Therefore, NGOs need to use some kind of cost-benefit analysis in determining what projects and to support.

Explore further: Revealing political partisanship a bad idea on resumes

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Value of exercise combination shown in diabetes study

Dec 06, 2010

Performing a combination of aerobic exercise and resistance training has been found to improve glycemic levels among patients 
with type 2 diabetes, compared to patients who did not exercise,
 according to a study ...

More migraines for no apparent reason

Mar 21, 2011

Migraine rates in a comprehensive Norwegian health study have climbed by 1% in a decade, researchers from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology report.

Heavy metals and moose

Nov 09, 2010

Moose in southern Norway are in significantly worse health than those further north and in eastern Norway. An analysis of roughly 600 moose livers, combined with information such as carcass weights and ages, ...

Arctic home to mysterious mercury deposits

Feb 01, 2011

More mercury is deposited in the Arctic than anywhere else on the planet. Norwegian NTNU researchers think one explanation for this may lie in the meteorological conditions in the Arctic spring and summer.

Men, women give to charity differently, says new research

Dec 18, 2008

To whom would you rather give money: a needy person in your neighborhood or a needy person in a foreign country? According to new research by Texas A&M University marketing professor Karen Winterich and colleagues, if you're ...

Recommended for you

Revealing political partisanship a bad idea on resumes

3 hours ago

Displaced political aides looking for a new, nonpartisan job in the wake of the midterm power shuffle may fare better if they tone down any political references on their resumes, finds a new study from Duke University.

Is dark money dimming the light of democracy?

6 hours ago

The week before the general election, UNM Political Science Associate Professor Mike Rocca presented a primer on campaign financing and a troubling change in the way political campaigns are being financed ...

Scholar traces cultural history of obsession with youth

9 hours ago

How old are you? There's the biological answer, of course, but a cultural perspective gives us another way to respond. If we believe Robert Harrison, a professor of Italian literature at Stanford, people ...

User comments : 57

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

FrankHerbert
0.9 / 5 (55) Jun 02, 2011
Billionaires shouldn't exist. No one can 'earn' that much wealth. Billionaires are a symptom of hyper-capitalism.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 02, 2011
Socialists hate billionaires for many reasons, but they are the ones who buy US t-bills to keep up govt spending and two they set up their own philanthropic foundations that are more effective than govt welfare programs.

The most important question for any charity is are they perpetuating dependency or not?
Socialists want to increase dependency upon the state.
FrankHerbert
1.2 / 5 (56) Jun 02, 2011
Capitalists hate the poor for many reasons, but they are the ones who ship jobs overseas and put their money in offshore accounts to avoid taxes.

The most important question for any charity is are they helping people?
Capitalists only seek to help others in an attempt to obfuscate their real goals.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 02, 2011
It's amusing to watch all the 'liberals' begging for donations for animal welfare: PETA, ASPCA, Sierra Club, etc.

In a free market, a capitalist must persuade people to buy his product. He can't use force like a govt can. Therefore the capitalist must make his product better and cheaper than his competition to persuade a customer to buy.
If you complain that companies like GE avoid taxes or that companies lobby govts, that is the fault of the socaialist govt for wanting to control those business. The anti-trust suit against Microsoft by Clinton is a classic example of a govt shakedown/protection racket.
And we now have a Chicago politician as president. Obaman is now twisting arms for campaign contributions from Wall Street. Why would a 'capitalist' contribute money to socialist if not for protection from govt regulations and tax breaks?
FrankHerbert
1.1 / 5 (55) Jun 02, 2011
Obama isn't a socialist in any meaningful fashion. He's about as socialist as Dwight Eisenhower. Learn some history you shit-heap.
pauljpease
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2011
I think more could be accomplished if we work together, this bitterness between liberals and conservatives isn't getting us anywhere.
ArtflDgr
2 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2011
and libraries came from where?
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2011
and libraries came from where?

Billionaire Andrew Carnegie.
http://andrewcarn...ide.html
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2011
I think more could be accomplished if we work together, this bitterness between liberals and conservatives isn't getting us anywhere.

What principles are you willing to compromise?
'Liberals' don't respect anyone's liberty and property. Not even yours.
Do you compromise with thieves? That is what 'liberals' are.
Bastiat described 'liberals' quite well in The Law. 'Liberals' legalize plunder.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2011
If you are known by the friends you keep, Obama is a socialist.
Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn -- Terrorists And Communists
Frank Marshall Davis -- Communist
Anita Dunn -- Maoist
Van Jones -- Communist And "Rowdy Black Nationalist

Obama is trying to complete the nationalization of health care. They nationalized two car companies. Not a socialist?
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (53) Jun 02, 2011
What about all your murderous sovereign citizen friends Mr. Swenson?
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2011
What about all your murderous sovereign citizen friends Mr. Swenson?

Why do 'progressives' assume liberty, sovereignty would lead to violence? Are they projecting their own violent intentions? That must be it as the 'progressive' agenda requires state violence to administer.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2011
Billionaires giving:
http://www.atlant...-founder
http://www.carneg...dex.html
http://www.hhmi.o...ins.html
http://www.fordfo.../history
"The very, very rich have been very, very generous this year. The following 12 billionaires have pledged gifts totaling $35 billion in just the last 12 months."
"Warren Buffett

Amount Pledged: $31 billion

Cause: Global poverty, health care and education"
http://www.forbes...ide.html
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2011
"With the Foundation incorporated, John D. Rockefeller Sr. makes gifts to the Foundation totaling $35 million, followed a year later by $65 million."
"(1913)Foundation's board makes its first grant: $100,000 to the American Red Cross to purchase property for its headquarters in Washington, DC."
"Medical Education in the United States and Canada, the Foundation makes a grant to Johns Hopkins University to extend its model full-time system of basic medical education to clinical departments of medicine, surgery and pediatrics."
"Aware of the domestic success of the Rockefeller Sanitary Commission for Eradication of Hookworm Disease and desirous of expanding that work overseas, the board of trustees in June appropriates its first funds for work outside the US$25,000 to create the International Health Commission (later called a board), which launches the Foundation into international public health. This pioneering work establishes the pattern of modern public health services."
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2011
"1914

The Foundation establishes the China Medical Board to develop a system of modern medicine in that country. A report on its recommendation notes, The need is great beyond any anticipation.
The Foundation begins a program of international fellowships to train scholars at the worlds leading universities at the post-doctoral level. Trustee Wickliffe Rose characterizes this fundamental commitment to the education of future leaders as backing brains.
"
"Because the Foundations successful hookworm campaign reveals the urgency for trained public health leaders, the Foundation identifies public health education as one of its principal areas of interest, and builds and endows the first school of public health at Johns Hopkins University. Foundation President George E. Vincent calls it the West Point of public health."
http://www.rockef...913-1919
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2011
"1919

The Foundations work in the natural sciences begins with support to the National Research Council to establish fellowships in physics and chemistry. More than $4.5 million is expended over the next 33 years to train more than 1,000 individuals.
2006:Together with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation commits $150 million to African agriculture over the next five years. The goal: to train and support African scientists in developing and delivering improved seed varieties and to help African farmers gain access to modern plant-breeding techniques."
http://www.rockef...-present
kaasinees
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2011
the top 5% of america is richer than the other americans together.
a few billions in a year is pocket change for these guys.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2011
the top 5% of america is richer than the other americans together.
a few billions in a year is pocket change for these guys.

So?
Jealous you don't get any?
Thou shall not covet is a pretty good commandment regardless of who wrote it.
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (54) Jun 03, 2011
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" was also pretty good too.

The ulta-rich only possess their wealth because of quasi-legal theft fought for by 'conservatives'.
Thrasymachus
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2011
I don't particularly care how much money the very wealthy have, and a sharply unequal distribution in income and wealth (the wealthiest 6.37% of Americans, about 1.9 million out of the 300 million total population, captures roughly a third of all income generated) is only important if there are economically significant effects of that inequality.

Unfortunately, there are significant economic effects. In an effort to seek a return on money that would otherwise be earning minimal returns sitting in a bank account or holding bonds, the very wealthy tend to speculate on commodities and asset markets, rather than directly invest in productive industry. This creates market volatility and overall market price inflation as other investors seek to follow the lead of the major players, causing pain for the real consumers of those commodities. Once the investors decide they've milked a market of all procurable value, they leave, causing a price collapse and pain for the real producers.
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2011
The reason why the wealthy seek to speculate in markets rather than directly invest in new productive industry is because it only makes sense invest money to expand productive capacity when demand for real goods and services is rising or is capable of rising.

The consumer class in the US in incapable (on its own) of increasing its spending to generate more demand. It's overleveraged, having borrowed for most of a decade to finance its consumption. Now, it's scaling back spending in an effort to unwind some of that debt. Unless their income is increased, they won't increase their spending.

At the same time, fiscal conservative insist that the government reign in its spending, so now we have the government not spending as much, and the private sector not spending as much, while we remain a net importing country. The result of this is that incomes must go down (spending=income), putting pressure on consumers to further reign in their spending, resulting in a destructive spiral.
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2011
And the situation gets even worse. As demand falls because consumers aren't spending as much and short-sighted politicians insist the government reign in its spending, businesses begin selling off their productive capacity in an effort to maintain profitability. They sell equipment and fire workers, further worsening the income prospects and reducing the output of real goods and services in the economy. In other words, the average member of the economy becomes poorer both in terms of his stock of money and his stock of real goods and services.

If you want to blame the government for this mess, I'm right there with you. Since Reagan, the government idea for an economic stimulus has been to buy back bonds before their due date and lower interest rates on its loans to banks and investment houses. That doesn't increase spending, it increases speculation. Instead of giving money to the wealthy, they should be giving jobs to the unemployed.
J-n
5 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2011
Werent we all told that the bush super-rich tax cuts would increase jobs, because then the super-rich would create new jobs for us wage Earners?

Where are the 2Trillion dollars worth of jobs??
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2011
Of course giving money to the wealthy was never going to create jobs. Jobs are only created in the private sector in response to increased spending. When the wealthy get more money, they don't increase their spending on aggregate, they increase their speculative investment. The tax cuts and outright subsidies to the very wealthy were never supposed to create more jobs, they were supposed to separate the generation and maintenance of the fortunes of the very wealthy from the actual performance of the real economy. They made it so the rich can keep getting richer and hang on to that wealth even while everybody else is getting poorer and losing the capacity to reverse that trend.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2011
Ever hear of venture capitalists? It's a form of 'speculative investment'.
Thousands of new businesses are created by such 'speculative investments'.
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2011
Using money to buy real resources so that you or someone you hire can use to create more valuable real resources that are sold is business investment. Investors will invest in business when there is a good chance the inventory of created resources can be sold at a price level that generates returns at least as good as other investments. This only happens when people are buying more of that created resource, which given the current credit/income situation of consumers, isn't capable of happening.

Investment that buys up a stock of real resources or financial derivatives at a low price, holds them until the price rises, then sells them, or which borrows some stock of real resources or financial derivatives, sells them at a high price, then buys them back at a low price, this is financial speculation. There is some room in a market for financial speculation for liquidity purposes. Too much creates stagflation and eventual economic collapse. Conservative policy encourages the latter.
J-n
5 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2011
This is a DIRECT question for all Republicans.

Where are the 2T dollars worth of jobs that were supposed to be created by the tax cuts to the wealthy?

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2011
Where are all the new jobs from the $2,000,000,000,000 in govt spending by the democrats in the past two years?
J-n
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2011
Most of this spending that you're speaking about was actually to cover the wars started by Bush, the Tax Cut started by bush, and the economic crisis that bush did nothing to halt.

Some of that spending also went to ensuring that those who currently HAVE jobs could keep them.

That 2T dollars that the current leaders spent was not specifically intended to GAIN jobs, unlike the Tax Cuts to the Wealthy, which were pushed through by the republicans.

So again, I ask, Where are the 2T worth of jobs?
FrankHerbert
0.9 / 5 (50) Jun 03, 2011
Lol Mr. Swenson must be going senile if he thinks TARP was Obama's doing. In a few years, he and his ilk will be saying Bush got bin Laden as well.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2011
Wars continued by Obama, against his promise. And he added a 3rd war.
All those jobs 'saved' were union govt jobs, not wealth creating free market, tax revenue producing jobs.

Obama made many claims that have all failed in the past two years, except he is working very hard to complete transformation of the USA into a socialist state.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2011
"In January 2009, the national debt stood at $10.6 trillion. Fueled by the so-called stimulus, this debt grew by $3.6 trillion in just two years. "
http://www.washin...records/
"During the recent recession, the U.S. Congress passed two large economic stimulus programs. President Bushs February 2008 program totaled $152 billion. President Obamas bill, enacted a year later, was considerably larger at $862 billion. Neither worked."
http://www.commen...ulus-go/
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (51) Jun 03, 2011
How many jobs did Obama save in the auto and related industries? We are talking hundreds of thousands of jobs. Also Chrysler is paying it's loan back early and GM is on schedule.

I guess (what you would deem) socialism worked, huh?
J-n
5 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2011
Wars continued by Obama, against his promise.

Oh i see, so the wars STARTED by Bush mean nothing because Obama decided not to pull out of a nation that had their infrastructure destroyed.

All those jobs 'saved' were union govt jobs, not wealth creating free market, tax revenue producing jobs.


So the Banks were union govt jobs?

Unfortunately most of Obama's great ideas that gave the nation hope were stifled and denied to the American public by pig headed obstructionist Republicans.

this debt grew by $3.6 trillion in just two years. "


So you're saying that the growth in debt could have been mostly offset by denying the massive tax breaks we gave to the rich?

You still have offered NO explanation as to where the 2T worth of jobs that were supposed to be created went.
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2011
The biggest reason the stimulus didn't actually stimulate anything, and only at best arrested the crash, is because the bulk of that stimulus came in the form of bond buybacks and low or no-interest rate loans to investment banks, so they could cover their asses due to more people defaulting on their mortgages than they thought and an over-leveraged and badly rated derivatives market. Instead of buying back bonds early and giving easy money to the wealthy, the government could have bailed out the mess by using that money to directly create productive jobs, reducing the default rate and making the derivatives market as sound as the ratings agencies thought it should be, which would have been truly stimulative.

Guess which party opposed direct job creation and insisted the bulk of the money be spend on financial options like bond-buybacks?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2011
"Getting money from Wall Street for next years re-election campaign might be a much harder sell, and Mr. Obamas visit to New York was timed to kick off that effort.

In particular, Democrats are hoping that Mr. Obama can make peace, somewhat at least, with Wall Street, where financiers have expressed increased alienation with the party and the White House after the oratorical pounding they have taken for their part in the financial crisis that began in 2008. Several hedge fund managers who supported Mr. Obama in 2008 now indicate that they will support the Republican Party in 2012. "
http://www.nytime...ate.html
"Our benchmark results suggest that the ARRA created/saved approximately 450 thousand state and local government jobs and destroyed/forestalled roughly one million private sector jobs."
http://gatewaypun...timulus/
J-n
5 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2011
So you are saying that

1. Obama Pissed off the bankers and wall street, because he did not directly serve their interests, and they plan on turning to the republicans who they feel are more likely to be bought off by their campaign dollars?

And

2. That a self titled Right wing group thinks obama is bad?

Do you even read what you post before you post it?

Still wondering about that 2T dollars worth of jobs, found any yet?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2011
Why did Wall Street support Obama in 2008?
Why did Buffet support Obama?
Why did Opra support Obama?
Why did Trump support Obama?

Why does GE's Immelt support Obama?
MarkyMark
4 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2011
Why did Wall Street support Obama in 2008?
Why did Buffet support Obama?
Why did Opra support Obama?
Why did Trump support Obama?

Why does GE's Immelt support Obama?

I see we still get invaded by Republican paid posters like you. I wonder if it pays well?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2011
Why did Wall Street support Obama in 2008?
Why did Buffet support Obama?
Why did Opra support Obama?
Why did Trump support Obama?

Why does GE's Immelt support Obama?

I see we still get invaded by Republican paid posters like you. I wonder if it pays well?

Typical, avoid explaining the origin of 'liberal' billionaires and why they support, or did, support Obama.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2011
Answer:
"another in the long list of crony capitalists who share Obama's belief that government should pick winners and losers in the economy. Success in the Obama-Bryson world doesn't come from profitably providing needed goods and services to consumers at affordable prices. Rather, crony capitalists make it by cultivating the right political connections and manipulating government regulations to guarantee profits and limit competition.
But there is another side to Bryson, one that fits squarely in the tradition of radical Obama appointees like "green jobs" czar Van Jones, a self-proclaimed Marxist; Medicare head Donald Berwick, who swoons over Britain's socialized National Health Service; and National Labor Relations Board member Craig Becker, the former labor lawyer who never met a union power grab he couldn't back. Early in his career, Bryson co-founded the Natural Resources Defense Council, the environmental advocacy group that has relentlessly pushed litigation and regulation to
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2011
"Early in his career, Bryson co-founded the Natural Resources Defense Council, the environmental advocacy group that has relentlessly pushed litigation and regulation to suffocate private enterprise in a thousand ways. More recently, Bryson described Waxman-Markey, the most extreme version of Obama's cap-and-trade proposal, as "moderate." There is, of course, nothing moderate about using politically correct fish, lizards and birds to deprive Americans of desperately needed jobs, infrastructure and energy.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washington...JLw5YX5"
FrankHerbert
0.9 / 5 (51) Jun 04, 2011
Typical, avoid explaining the origin of 'liberal' billionaires and why they support, or did, support Obama.


The origin of liberal billionaires is the same as any other billionaire: poor economic policy. Simply, billionaires shouldn't exist.

I dunno... maybe they supported Obama because they care about the US and didn't want a doddering old fool in office? Maybe they haven't drank the "Koch" and aren't convinced they have to screw everyone around them to maintain their vast fortunes even a small fraction of which would provide them with an enviable lifestyle.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2011
How has Koch Industries screwed anyone?
http://www.kochin...les.aspx
"Successful companies create value by providing products or services their customers value more highly than available alternatives. They do this while consuming fewer resources, leaving more resources available to satisfy other needs in society. Value creation involves making peoples lives better. It is contributing to prosperity in society.:
http://www.kochin...ess.aspx
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2011
Using Frank's 'progressive' 'logic', Rockefeller selling higher quality kerosene at lower cost somehow screws someone.

The reason some billionaires cozy up to govts is to get the govt to destroy their competitors.
If the govt can drive competition out of business, GE doesn't have to provider better products at lower cost.
FrankHerbert
0.9 / 5 (51) Jun 04, 2011
The Kochs fight regulation of cancer causing chemicals in their facilities while David Koch spends hundreds of millions of dollars funding a cure for himself.

You would have supported the Standard Oil monopoly? Please explain to us how monopolies are good for the consumer. And before you go there, the government isn't a business and therefore cannot be a monopoly. Calling the government a monopoly is like calling the number 3 angry. So please don't play semantics games. I'm sure few here are confused by your BS anyway.

If you can't explain to us why monopolies are good for the consumer, please explain to us how a 'free market' will prevent monopolies.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2011
You would have supported the Standard Oil monopoly?

What monopoly?
Customers happily supported being able to purchase quality kerosene at the lowest prices from Standard Oil.
xznofile
5 / 5 (1) Jun 04, 2011
I'm sure there are billionaires that donate anonymously. It's the ones that don't or which attach strings & caveats that stand out as "typical". Obviously we'll never know, but greed & insecurity isn't unique to any group.
FrankHerbert
0.8 / 5 (51) Jun 04, 2011
Actually it was public outcry that caused the breakup of Standard Oil. Nice try though.

I'm sure there are billionaires that donate anonymously.


Sure lots of billionaires donate a lot to charities. However, the way I look at it is: does a billionaire help more people with his donations than the number of people that would have work had his salary been divided by minimum wage and used to pay others. I'd be skeptical that the billionaire is able to help more people through charity than those people would be able to help themselves had they just had jobs.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2011

No, it was a muck raking journalist who had a grudge. And we all know journalists never lie.

"Ida Tarbell, in contrast to Sinclair, concentrated on nonfiction. Her major work, growing out of her own fathers failure in the oil business, was a 1904 two-volume account of John D. Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Company. It was a formative factor in stereotyping him as a ruthless, ice-hearted skinflint who undercut his competitors for the long-range purpose of driving up prices to consumers.

The reality is that Rockefeller was obsessed with efficiency and innovation. He not only squeezed more kerosene out of petroleum than other refiners but ingeniously recycled by-products into salable goods. Prices plummeted. At the peak of Rockefellers market domination in 1899 the price of kerosene had dropped from 1870s 26 cents per gallon to less than 6 cents per gallon. "
http://www.mackinac.oor
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2011
"But markets quickly change. Kerosene gave way to electricity for lighting, and petroleum displayed explosive potential as fuel for the newfangled horseless carriage. Nimble competitors came in and whittled away Rockefellers market share. "
""Standard treated the consumer with deference," he wrote. "Crude and refined oil prices for consumers declined during the period Standard exercised greatest control of the industry." There was no upward spike in prices to take advantage of the absence of competitors because competitors were always present, and they substantially undercut Standard's share of the market long before the company's dissolution by the Supreme Court in an ill-advised 1911 ruling"
http://www.mackinac.org/3884
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2011
"Herbert Henry Dow was jump-starting the Dow Chemical Company in Michigan by turning the predatory price cutting theory on its head. German manufacturers, backed by subsidies from the German government, dumped cheap bromine on the American market in an effort to run Dow out of business in the early 1900s.

Unbeknownst to the Germans, Dow simply employed agents to buy all the cheap bromine they could get their hands on. He then sold it at much higher prices prevailing in other markets in direct competition with the Germans, who eventually threw in the towel when they saw how their attempt to make Dow their prey was actually making him rich. The Dow story is one that predatory price theorists never talk about because it utterly undermines their entire case."
""court records overflow with actual examples of how disgruntled competitors alleging predatory behavior clamor for government to hamstring their more-efficient rivals.""
http://www.mackinac.org/3884
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 05, 2011
"this paper finds new empirical evidence supporting the idea that economic freedom and civil and political liberties are the root causes of why some countries achieve and sustain better economic outcomes."
"In addition to the initial conditions, the expansion of freedom conditions over time (economic, civil, and political) also positively influences long-run economic growth. In contrast, no evidence was found that the initial level of entitlement rights or their change over time had any significant effects on long-term per capita income, except for a negative effect in some specifications of the model. These results tend to support earlier findings that beyond core functions of government responsibilityincluding the protection of liberty itselfthe expansion of the state to provide for various entitlements, including so-called economic, social, and cultural rights, may not make people richer in the long run and may even make them poorer."
http://danieljmit...011/06/0
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2011
World Bank data supports the theory that freedom increase prosperity, socialism makes people poorer.
http://www-wds.wo...5660.pdf
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2011
Correction:
World Bank data supports the theory that freedom increases prosperity and socialism makes people poorer.
http://www-wds.wo...5660.pdf
kaasinees
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2011
Isn't the president supposed to be "powerful"?
All of his actions paint him as a Republican and not a Democrat.
I realy think Obama is worse than Bush.
At least with Bush you knew what you had, not with Obama, what a two-tongued snake.
Ron Paul might not seem to be a bad president. I would like to see a young socialist president though, get those rich taxes going again.
kaasinees
2 / 5 (4) Jun 12, 2011
Correction:
World Bank data supports the theory that freedom increases prosperity and socialism makes people poorer.
http://www-wds.wo...5660.pdf


yeah right... without socialism people that got injured and can no longer do their jobs, because they cant find a job, dont have money for school etc. wouldnt even survive.

freedom my ass, how can you be free when you dont have money todo anything? socialism actually enhances peoples freedom. the idea is that everyone has the right to live and develop so they can have a role in society. how else are these people going to school or live when they get injured if it wasnt for government giving them money.

Hey you got your money what do you care?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.