by Tyler Cowen
on August 14, 2010 at 12:43 pm
1. Arnold Zellner has passed away.
2. Reciprocal markets in everything.
3. What German billionaires think of philanthropy.
4. Unlimited paid leave is becoming more popular.
5. Artwork, carved from pencil tips.
These German billionaires strike me as unimaginative and far too optimistic about the success of international organizations. I see that one billionaire donated to UNICEF – an organization that I imagine is a lot more corrupt and lackadaisical with its funds than the billionaire probably thinks. Not every “established organization” is as efficiently run as the German state, and I don’t think they realize that.
Nothing wrong with charity, but it is does fall into the scope of Jeffrey Sach’s “solution” of through a billion+ dollars at the other countries’ problems and they will go away…Unfortunately the UN and other organizations are fallible organizations ran by fallible people with “good intentions” and that never end up turning good.
I have a post up about Zellner on Econospeak adding some things not in this story. I knew him and
admired him. He was a great guy as well as a great Bayesian econometrician.
That is of course what rich a hell Germans say in a country where the state is god. I wonder what they do. In the US, we think science is god, despite evidence like #2 that clearly indicates science is church.
“Krämer: What legitimacy do these people have to decide where massive sums of money will flow?
SPIEGEL: It is their money at the end of the day.
Krämer: In this case, 40 superwealthy people want to decide what their money will be used for. That runs counter to the democratically legitimate state.”
Think how many private health insurance policies their fortunes could pay for.
Think how much healthcare their fortunes will actually pay for through donations.
It seems the fundamental theory of the German billionaire is that the U.S. donors are actually giving up nothing, just instead of paying the money in taxes they are donating it. This is 100% incorrect, is it not? At most you would save only about 1/3 of the donated money, and in their case not even a tiny fraction of that amount due to deduction limitations and AMT. Am I wrong?
Comments on this entry are closed.
Previous post: Is policy uncertainty the problem?
Next post: The worst Americans of all time?
Email Tyler Cowen
Follow Tyler on Twitter
Email Alex Tabarrok
Follow Alex on Twitter
Subscribe in a reader
Follow Us on Twitter
Marginal Revolution on Twitter Counter.com
Get smart with the Thesis WordPress Theme from DIYthemes.