Apparently casting about for ideas for an Op-ed column this week, Nicholas Kristof has gone back to the "philanthrocapitalism" well with a column titled "How Giving Became Cool."  He credits Ted Turner's decision to funnel $1 billion for charitable causes through the United Nations a few years back, and then his agitating for more generosity from Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, who have since championed "The Giving Pledge," where our wealthy betters promise to give away half of their fortunes to charitable causes.

I'm skeptical that this is an unabashed good.  I'm not arguing against charitable giving, of course.  I just believe that orienting society towards the charitable whims of billionaires is problematic.

Kristoff says:

"Tycoons used to compete for their place on the Forbes and Fortune lists of wealthiest people. If they did give back, it was often late in life and involved museums or the arts. They spent far more philanthropic dollars on oil paintings of women than on improving the lives of real women."

I don't believe that all that much as changed.  The race for accumulation among the tycoon set is still on.  I think that Larry Ellison just basically bought an island with people on it.  Philanthrocapitalism is what it always was -- public relations meant to make the rest of us more comfortable living in a country where a very few are Croesus and the rest of us struggle.  This was as true as when the robber barons of old built libraries, museums and national parks as it is now, when Bill Gates channels some of his fortune into fighting malaria and AIDs in Africa.  Or, more pointedly, when Bono avoids taxes in Ireland, makes job destroying private equity investments in the United States and then globe trots in opposition to third world poverty.

It's also annoying that Kristof is so dismissive of artistic and cultural philanthropy.  The idea of the arts being reliant on the generosity of the rich has always been vexing.  Picasso's Guernica will not save lives so directly as a malaria cure would and it's easy to dismiss the importance of a performance of an experimental opera at Lincoln Center while American children go hungry, but you can't have a vital and engaged culture without a vibrant arts scene.

The problem with artistic philanthropy isn't, as Kristof suggests, that it's money that could be put to better use.  It's that rich people do not necessarily have developed or interesting taste in art.  My worry should is that rich patrons will have a banal influence on the culture.

A good point that Kristof makes about the Turner donation is that it went to the U.N., to be used as that organization sees fit.  A lot of philanthropy is specifically directed by the giver and, in the U.S. at least, non-profits are required to honor the intent of a "directed donation," should they accept the money.  Turner made the good step of saying, "I want to give you this money, you know better than I how to put it to the best use."

But I think that if Kristof is right when he argues that Bill Gates will one day be remembered more for his philanthropy than as the founder of Microsoft, that the true purpose of this generosity (PR, image maintenance and legacy creation) will have been truly laid bare.  We should not forget where Gates' money came from and all of the little people he stepped on along the way.

We should, of course, appreciate and accept philanthropy when it is offered.  But it does not represent a sea change in capitalism or society and it's ultimately a lousy, undemocratic way for society to set its priorities.  Philanthropy in no way excuses the vast disparities of wealth that it is meant to obscure.