Why Are Chinese Millionaires So Stingy?(tnr.com)
tnr.com
Why Are Chinese Millionaires So Stingy?
http://www.tnr.com/blog/foreign-policy/78049/chinese-philanthropy-bill-gates-warren-buffett
19 comments
Did you even read the rest of the article? It goes on to explain that one of the largest reasons for an absence of philanthropy in China is because of Government interference with charitable organizations; the necessity for a government sponsor, the inability for a non-sponsored organization to get funding because of the fear of government reprisal.
A lack of Government intervention is apparently only good when it involves the accumulation of wealth by a few, is that right?
A lack of Government intervention is apparently only good when it involves the accumulation of wealth by a few, is that right?
The Chinese gov probably wants to keep the "Tax-Exempt Foundations" from gaining too much influence. The Chinese are very paranoid about influence in their society. They shut down bloggers who get popular, even if they're just talking about stock tips or dating. They shut down talent shows and professional sports if there's any individual who is becoming too popular. That's why there is comparatively little sports and celebrity culture in China. When the average Chinese person looks out into eternity, the Chinese government wants them to see what the Chinese government wants them to see and not a bunch of celebrities and sports stars, as the average citizens of western nations do.
Ok, at this point I'm starting to wonder what the point of this article was. Is it that China doesn't let people engage in philanthropy or that rich people are not engaging in philanthropy? Because the way the article came across to me was that the rich were not engaging in philanthropy.
> They want other people to do good things so they can feel warm and fuzzy knowing that good things are being done and they had a part in it, without actually doing anything at all like earning the money that did those good deeds.
Your argument held weight until you said that. Yes, China is still more underdeveloped than the US, and yes, there are many more opportunities for companies there to make large differences.
But did you even read this article? Who exactly is trying to encourage these donations?
Your argument held weight until you said that. Yes, China is still more underdeveloped than the US, and yes, there are many more opportunities for companies there to make large differences.
But did you even read this article? Who exactly is trying to encourage these donations?
"The public is outraged by the country’s wealthiest ducking out on the Gates-buffet event"
What differences can these companies make, and more importantly why do they have to make them? There has to be a reason why you think these companies need to do something and I'm going to go with wanting other people to do what you think is right. So when other people do right, you feel right which leads to you needing other people to do right in order to feel right (if you didn't need too this would all be a non-issue) which makes you just as selfish as the people that don't want to spend the money in the first place.
What differences can these companies make, and more importantly why do they have to make them? There has to be a reason why you think these companies need to do something and I'm going to go with wanting other people to do what you think is right. So when other people do right, you feel right which leads to you needing other people to do right in order to feel right (if you didn't need too this would all be a non-issue) which makes you just as selfish as the people that don't want to spend the money in the first place.
Poppycock. People that want the rich to be more involved in philanthropy are not necessarily doing so just to get a "warm and fuzzy feeling because they had a part in it" or some such nonsense. Simply wanting rich people to, say, I don't know, help people doesn't mean that the "wanter" actually believes he has a part in the philanthropy. The idea that just selling beverages and storing up billions of dollars helps people more than selling beverages and giving some of those billions away to actually help people is naive. Your analogy doesn't seem to make much sense here.
Now, maybe it is not fair to expect billionaires to "give their money away" or maybe it is but either way it is not necessarily selfish to want them to.
Now, maybe it is not fair to expect billionaires to "give their money away" or maybe it is but either way it is not necessarily selfish to want them to.
Why do people want these companies to participate in philanthropy? Because they think it is the right thing to do. So when companies engage in activities that the public believes are right, the public is happy aka, warm and fuzzy.
We can go back and forth on what is right and what is not. The issue I see, is that what you are asking in wanting companies to engage in philanthropy, is to have the companies live at your behalf. To have them do what you think is right, whether or not they feel it is right. The public is trying to make the rich slaves to the public's ideals and I think that is the problem.
We can go back and forth on what is right and what is not. The issue I see, is that what you are asking in wanting companies to engage in philanthropy, is to have the companies live at your behalf. To have them do what you think is right, whether or not they feel it is right. The public is trying to make the rich slaves to the public's ideals and I think that is the problem.
But that's not what you said. You made a pretty incendiary charge that those people are selfish and want to take the credit of helping without actually making the money to do it. That's an entirely different story. Also, I think it is a bit much to say people who want the rich to become philantropists are wanting to enslave them. That may be accurate if you make a cartoon of the whole thing and make caricatures of everyone but it is a bit naive. Sure, maybe people should just shut up about telling others what to do with their money but it's hardly comparable to slavery to state that people with obscene wealth should, if they are to be good people, use some of their money to help people. Now, some might argue that actually helping people hurts them - that's fine. But that's not the point I'm making (by the way, that's pretty ridiculous as well!)
I've been thinking about this all day long. I don't understand why it's so hard to understand and I don't mean that is a bad way, just a observational thought.
Being good and giving to others is great. Wanting others to do the same is fine. Expecting them to do it is wrong. Do you get the nuances of each statement?
When you declare that others should live as you would, you are saying 'I know better.' When you expect people to do the same as you would, you judge them based on their actions. You are being selfish by expecting everyone else to live like you and not be their own self. When other people do not do as you like and you try to force them to do something (in this case a steamy news article) you have taken the position as master in the master/slave arrangement.
You might think slavery is bad simply because of the cruelty, I see slavery as the relationship of those in power demanding from others any action they deem fit. Slavery as the coercion of other people by any means, normally a whip, this time with supposed morals. (If other people have to participate in your morals for them to be correct, then they are not morals at all.)
To go further about the selfish part, When other people do the things you want and that makes you feel good, you are being selfish because you are not letting that person do things for themselves. You are making them do things for your own self to feel right. If you were not selfish, the actions of other people would not make a difference.
Being good and giving to others is great. Wanting others to do the same is fine. Expecting them to do it is wrong. Do you get the nuances of each statement?
When you declare that others should live as you would, you are saying 'I know better.' When you expect people to do the same as you would, you judge them based on their actions. You are being selfish by expecting everyone else to live like you and not be their own self. When other people do not do as you like and you try to force them to do something (in this case a steamy news article) you have taken the position as master in the master/slave arrangement.
You might think slavery is bad simply because of the cruelty, I see slavery as the relationship of those in power demanding from others any action they deem fit. Slavery as the coercion of other people by any means, normally a whip, this time with supposed morals. (If other people have to participate in your morals for them to be correct, then they are not morals at all.)
To go further about the selfish part, When other people do the things you want and that makes you feel good, you are being selfish because you are not letting that person do things for themselves. You are making them do things for your own self to feel right. If you were not selfish, the actions of other people would not make a difference.
trade creates wealth... there are a lot of arguments that philanthropy may in fact do more harm than good.
I don't know how this is relevant. Maybe helping people really destroys their lives. That's fine. The point is, people do not only want others to help people because they are selfish and want to take credit for what the rich do in terms of philanthropy.
i agree that people want to help others for reasons other than "selfish" ones, but my point was that it's possible that creating a soda business and incidentally "'Storing' billions of dollars" is possibly more helpful than giving the dollars away.
See http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/chinese-philanthro... for another example - a Chinese philanthropist who donated his entire fortune (more than $1 Billion) to charity.
A quote from him "If my children are competent, they don’t need my money, Mr. Yu explained. If they’re not, leaving them a lot of money is only doing them harm."
A quote from him "If my children are competent, they don’t need my money, Mr. Yu explained. If they’re not, leaving them a lot of money is only doing them harm."
Hong Kong is a quite different place. It differs from Mainland China. It preserves Chinese traditional values while accepts Western values.
Traditionally, Chinese manages themselves according Confucian, Buddhist and Taoist views. Riches are encouraged to donate in order to secure better later life, reincarnation, lives of offsprings. Sometimes it was rewarded with some good "titles" from mandarin. Communist in Mainland Chines destroyed all the traditions while Hong Kong preserves it.
In Hong Kong, there are many international non-government organisation. Western type of charities can establish in Hong Kong. Some of them extends their charity services into China based in Hong Kong. Charity fund-raising happens all round the years.
Traditionally, Chinese manages themselves according Confucian, Buddhist and Taoist views. Riches are encouraged to donate in order to secure better later life, reincarnation, lives of offsprings. Sometimes it was rewarded with some good "titles" from mandarin. Communist in Mainland Chines destroyed all the traditions while Hong Kong preserves it.
In Hong Kong, there are many international non-government organisation. Western type of charities can establish in Hong Kong. Some of them extends their charity services into China based in Hong Kong. Charity fund-raising happens all round the years.
Charity is implicitly a critique of a government's inability to meet its citizens' urgent needs. I'm not surprised that an allegedly communist government doesn't like attention drawn to problems it isn't solving yet should be.
This article was awfully condescending and insulting to the wealthy in China. I stopped reading a few paragraphs in.
The author's remark on how it's impossible to become rich in China without being corrupt is extremely ignorant.
The author overlooks the same factors that cause non-millionaire Chinese to have such a high savings rate: uncertainty about health, retirement, and social stability.
There's none of the social insurance that exists in North America or Europe; less than 50 years ago there were serious famines; the regime itself is only about 60 years old and the current era of economic liberalization only about 30 years old.
In such a environment, people will be a bit more clingy "just in case" they're going to need every last cent in an upheaval.
There's none of the social insurance that exists in North America or Europe; less than 50 years ago there were serious famines; the regime itself is only about 60 years old and the current era of economic liberalization only about 30 years old.
In such a environment, people will be a bit more clingy "just in case" they're going to need every last cent in an upheaval.
"The busy Mr. Zong said he thinks philanthropy is a bad idea. He can do much more for society by running a productive business, the beverage billionaire noted. Not every Chinese tycoon is so cold-hearted, however. "
So the guy thinks he can do better for people by running a business and that makes him cold hearted. Just what exactly is going on here? Who are these people to tell other people what to do with their money? Who are these people that think they know better how money should be used? Who are these people and what's their cut?
People that want other people to give away their money to help other people are just as selfish as the people that have the money. They want other people to do good things so they can feel warm and fuzzy knowing that good things are being done and they had a part in it, without actually doing anything at all like earning the money that did those good deeds. It's the grasshopper and the ant all over again just pointed in a different direction.