This conversation is closed.

Why I think Dan Pallotta is wrong about charity and social business

In his widely viewed talk Dan makes the case for attracting talent to charity and assert that only charity will address the needs of those business won't reach. The same argument has been made for social business in highlighting where capitalism fails to trick down to a minority.

Recently Peter Buffet wrote of a Charitable Industrial Complex. What he says resonates with my experience of tackling poverty in Ukraine where young people sell themselves on the streets and 60% of those afflicted with HIV/ AIDS have no access to treatment in spite of massive aid donations.

  • thumb
    Aug 10 2013: Dan Pallotta has it wrong. He's stuck in an outdated paradigm. Charities could be using the internet more effectively to raise money. Consider this story about crowdfunding.
  • Aug 8 2013: Peter Buffet calls for a new approach. He doesn't want to end capitalism, but introduce humanism.

    The Death Camps for Children story was the beginning of a social business An alternative to capitalism where humans come first.

    The story revealed how NGOs were coopted into silence for fear of reprisals and fear of losing donors.

    For many it was a story they didn't want to hear. for some a story they didn't want others to hear.
  • Aug 31 2013: Many people, maybe Dan included, have figured out there is a truck load of money to be made in "the charity business".

    And most of the time to the informed the answers the ceo's give are a joke, or they miss the point, or hedge, or are downright misleading.

    Many people too are not well informed enough to know that the vast majority of charities are scams, and little or none of your money will be guaranteed to get to the actual people in need.

    Or the staff that have never been to Africa/South America,India,Pakistan,Philippines, yet seeming know all the problems, the culture there, the pitfalls, the warlords, start a charity and guarantee that, that baby will live ... if only you donate.

    But in some ways all of those people that do pay into the charities are equally to blame... they fall for marketing ploys, they dont check, they pay the money, feel better about themselves, wash their hands and walk away.
  • Aug 12 2013: Not evil, of course, unless willfully blind to human suffering. Yet there are a great number of charities with highly paid execs and there doesn't seem to be a valid argument for increasing them if it doesn't make the ultimate impact more effective.

    Humanism by means of capitalism was our own starting point.
  • Aug 11 2013: Well, I would agree to most of Dan's comments.

    He doesnt say that "overhead" is mandatory. He says that "its not evil"

    Also, he doesnt vouch for less of humanism. In fact, he vouches for more of humanism 'through' means like capitalism.