Jack Peat — Poorest London Boroughs Give Most to Charity

I guess taxes are just to high for those oppressed rich folk to contribute. (snark)

The London Economic
Poorest London Boroughs Give Most to Charity

Jack Peat

Mike Konczal — The Conservative Myth of a Social Safety Net Built on Charity

The right yearns for an era when churches and local organizations took care of society's weakest—an era that never existed and can't exist today.

History lesson.

With this history in hand, it’s worth teasing out a general theory of why the voluntary sector has limits in providing social insurance that the state does not. Economics as a field has theorized extensively about the concept of market failures, or moments when markets don’t allocate resources efficiently. It has also described government failures, particularly in the libertarian-influenced “public choice” theory. This focus on markets and governments leaves the study of the voluntary sector under-theorized. In turn, this lack of critical attention leads to assumptions that the voluntary sector can solve problems it cannot.Why

But the Great Recession offers the perfect case study in why the voluntary sector can’t solve these problems. If people like Mike Lee are correct, then the start of the Great Recession would have been precisely the moment when private charity would have stepped up. But in fact, private giving fell as the Great Recession started. Overall giving fell 7 percent in 2008, with another 6.2 percent drop in 2009. There was only a small uptick in 2010 and 2011, even though unemployment remained very high. Giving also fell as a percentage of GDP (even as GDP shrank), from 2.1 percent in 2008 to 2.0 percent in 2009 through 2011. (The high point was 2.3 percent in 2005.)
As research by Robert Reich and Christopher Wimer showed, the decline occurred with all sources and hit almost all types of nonprofits. Individuals gave 8 percent less in 2008 than the previous year, and their giving dropped an additional 3.6 percent in 2009. Charitable bequests fell 21 percent overall between 2008 and 2010. Contributions by corporations fell in 2008, and only slowly increased afterwards. Foundations also gave less in the Great Recession even though they have legal payout and operating rules to follow that would presumably put a floor on this.

There were some bright spots—giving to food banks, for instance, increased. But as the economy went from free fall in 2008 to stagnation in 2010, private charity still remained depressed. Worse, as a wave of austerity hit state and local governments—with large retrenchment in spending and layoffs of public-sector workers—the state pushed harder on private charity to pick up the slack of social work.

Why didn’t this sting as badly as it could have? Because of the role the federal government played. “Automatic stabilizers,” a key policy innovation of the welfare state, were there to pick up the slack. Automatic stabilizers are policies such as unemployment insurance and food assistance that maintain an income floor and security for people, which allows for more spending when an economy goes into a recession. This ability to boost purchasing power automatically is a major, effective response to a recession. These stabilizers, in turn, also decline automatically as the economy starts to recover.

The Atlantic
The Conservative Myth of a Social Safety Net Built on Charity
Mike Konczal

A huge role of a modern government is providing social insurance that only the currency issuer has the means to do. Private insurance is unable and unwilling to do so, and charity declines instead of expanding to meet the need in downturns.

Falguni A. Sheth on neoliberalism and the biopolitics of charity

In my research, I’ve been exploring neoliberalism and the biopolitics of charity. How do we understand consumption and activism in a society whose social/public safety nets are increasingly eroded?

I’m going to try to post a series of pieces on neoliberal practices. This is the first. And there’s a fun snarky video at the end.

Translation Exercises — Philosophers Club
Consumer Activism and the Biopolitics of Consumption

Correcting the Poor: The Civilizing Impulses of Homo Corporatus and Private Charities

Falguni A. Sheth

(h/t John Zelnicker)

Novel Variation on Corporate Welfare - Racketeering, Renamed Upper Looting Class Tax Forbearance

(commentary posted by Roger Erickson)

The Top 1% Mostly Gives to the Other 1% ... and Calls it Charity

Collusion?

Fine. Here's a scheme to suggest to your Congress Critter. Since the taxes the Middle Class pay don't go anywhere, or get used for anything ... why not claim that you're effectively giving buying pwoer to the 1% too, and request ... NAY DEMAND! ... a similar tax write off.

In fact, until enough Aggregate Demand materializes to resuscitate the Middle Class, why not just request a holiday altogether, from your currently mandatory donation of Aggregated Demand to the IRS black hole?

If the IRS screams about the apparent deficit in nominal fiat, say "Let them eat 1% demand!"

And if 1% of the population pours into the Country Clubs, and tries to hire enough poor people to shoot other poor people?

Give me Aggregate Demand, or give me fiat death?

Peter Buffet: The Charitable-Industrial Complex

The son of Warren Buffett is out with an OP-ED in the NYT here.

Philanthropy has become the “it” vehicle to level the playing field and has generated a growing number of gatherings, workshops and affinity groups.

As more lives and communities are destroyed by the system that creates vast amounts of wealth for the few, the more heroic it sounds to “give back.” It’s what I would call “conscience laundering” — feeling better about accumulating more than any one person could possibly need to live on by sprinkling a little around as an act of charity.

But this just keeps the existing structure of inequality in place. The rich sleep better at night, while others get just enough to keep the pot from boiling over. Nearly every time someone feels better by doing good, on the other side of the world (or street), someone else is further locked into a system that will not allow the true flourishing of his or her nature or the opportunity to live a joyful and fulfilled life.

I pretty much agree with Buffett junior here.

"Charity" or philanthropy are no substitutes for just and righteous economic policies imposed via the  authority we humans can grant to our institutions of civil government.

Billionaire Ty Warner gives woman $20,000 for her cause after asking her for directions

Human interest story out today at Yahoo!.

A California woman suffering from kidney failure was begging for "money" in the middle of the street  to pay for a life saving medical treatment when a billionaire seller of "beanie babies" rolled down the window as he pulled up next to her to ask for directions.

Apparently the billionaire heard about her plight then he drove off and then thought about it and turned around:

He'd returned after an hour or so. Rolling down his window, he reached out his hand and introduced himself. I immediately recognized his name. He was kind and sincere as he looked directly into my eyes... I listened as he repeated over and over that he was going to help me. That my fundraising was done. That I didn't need to worry any longer. He said he would send a check after he returned to his offices during the week.

I'm very happy that this woman has happened upon the US dollar balances needed to account for her critical procedure.  But, I'm sorry to say that beyond this fact, this kind of story makes me sick to my stomach.

What if this wealthy person didn't need directions?  She dies?  How can we take any satisfaction from this story?  We cannot provide balances to our citizens for critical health care without the financial success of moron "beanie babies"?  We have all of these critical medical technologies, research, development of surgical procedures, facilities, training and education of personnel, pharmacology, rehabilitation, etc... BUT NONE OF THIS CAN BE UTILIZED WITHOUT THE US DOLLAR BALANCES TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS UTILIZATION FIRST BEING ALLOCATED TO BEANIE BABIES????

What kind of morons are running this country?!

Accordingly, I'm sure this billionaire will be invited on "Oprah" or whatever moron daytime show and everyone will fawn all over him that "what a great person he is", blah, blah, blah, and don't get me wrong I have great respect for what he did and his generosity; but this guy shouldn't be blushing red from humility, he should be purple with rage (if he has a brain).

White collar workers on charity

Read it a Bloomberg
White-Collar Workers Join Crowd Straining Food Banks

by Patrick Cole

While Americans generosity in providing charitable assistance for those "down on their luck," there is a question as to whether this is the appropriate institutional arrangement, or whether it is more appropriate for government to meet the needs of its people.

Some say that this is properly handled by private charity, whereas others object that this takes advantage of the good hearted and provides a free ride for the stingy, arguing that the burden is social and should be part of public purpose, hence, properly the purview of government.