Philanthropy: How it alters our moral perception without altering structure.

Philanthropy is the concept of using resources for public good. It implies a net positive. In other words, the expectation is that society is better because of philanthropic efforts.

Mr. Beast is an example of what philanthropy looks like when used for business. Mr. Beast is a philanthropist. He has donated between $300-400 million dollars. Yet his business, valued at $5 billion dollars, relies on his image as a philanthropist. His business is philanthropy.

Let’s take a look at how philanthropy functions as a business using Mr. Beast’s company as a model.

Mr. Beast’s business functions as follows. The business takes in wealth, then redistribute a portion to acquire more wealth, then redistributes a portion of to acquire more wealth.

There are parallels to plain Jane business in this model. Businesses take in wealth, put some of that towards making things, which they sell to make more wealth. That said, most businesses exchange their wealth for labor. Right or wrong, labor wages are supposed to approximate equal exchange. Not a gifted or won redistribution.

A more apt comparison is the state lottery.

The state lottery has the same cycle and like Mr. Beast’s business it redistributes wealth without an exchange of labor. Further, the state lottery has not only distributed more in total wealth, but proportionally it retains far less incoming wealth than Mr. Beast’s company.

Yet the state lottery does not feel more philanthropic than Mr. Beast.

Mr. Beast is a person making donations and the state lottery is a business making money. But Mr. Beast is also making money.

Put another way, Mr. Beast is able to do less redistribution than the state lottery, but is seen as more philanthropic.

The word philanthropy is stating less about the mode or impact and more about the motive. It is distorting our view. Let’s take the word out of our analysis for a moment and consider what Mr. Beast’s philanthropy is as a system.

Mr. Beast donates money. Regardless of his intent, the result is his company’s value increases. That increase must be greater than his donations in the long run. Otherwise, the business would collapse.

Taking in more than what goes out is a necessary condition for the survival of all business.

The result is, if the system used by Mr. Beast’s business succeeds, the system will ultimately have taken more than it has given. If it fails, it collapses and ceases to give.

Bringing back in the word “philanthropy,” Mr. Beast’s philanthropy is part of a system that ultimately takes more than it gives. The use of the word philanthropy obscures the underlying inevitability of the system. Further, attaching a word like philanthropic or similar words like “giving” to other systems yield the same contradiction.

Thus, philanthropy implies net giving, successful business cannot, and the use of the word philanthropy when it pertains to a business allows extraction to masquerade as virtue.