Comments on: Fred, the rich and compulsory good causes

By: matthewtaylor

matthewtaylor — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 09:06:23 +0000

I agree David. This is one of the thoughts behind our Tomorrow’s Investor project, which aims inter alia, to ensure that our pension savings are used to enforce responsible capitalism http://www.thersa.org/projects/tomorrows-business/tomorrows-investors.

By: matthewtaylor

matthewtaylor — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 09:03:56 +0000

Between what and what?

By: matthewtaylor

matthewtaylor — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:41:35 +0000

Hi Mike
Sorry I haven’t got time to respond at length. It is worth noting that this Government has done a great deal to promote philanthropy, including changes to the tax regime and funding research and campaigns. There was growing interest in what Matthew Bishop and Michael Green dubbed philanthrocapitalism http://www.philanthrocapitalism.net/. However I think overall levels of giving have not risen much despite these efforts and who knows what will happen to philanthrocapitalism after the crunch. Also, notably several of the US’ biggest rich givers wrote a letter opposing Bush’s last round of tax cuts to the rich

By: david ramsay

david ramsay — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:05:01 +0000

Matthew’s comment 4. I disagree with what you say about not worrying about profits. I think there is an opportunity to re-balance the basic equation to include automatic social/community benefit away from the sole mantra of shareholder benefit in its current definition. Adjusting the fundamental equation is not rocket science to use the cliche. Profits are fine but they need to include this benefit for the common good – as a matter of course. I think the overall rebalancing that accepts less profit ( there will be no choice in the short term) and social benefit can sweep up the issue of excessive salaries and bonuses as they will be seen as totally out of context.

By: Ned Hercock

Ned Hercock — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:42:39 +0000

the left should be shouting that there is no difference