I think you've misread trhtrsh. 'Let people earn it in healthy ways, by their contributions, not their accumulations.'

This view is that rich people should only be respected for their contributions "back to the society which has enriched them." Not for their ability to acquire and hold $100+ million.

I believe also that the point about 'selling "personal advertising space" on the sides of libraries' is meant to include the Carnegie libraries. Some 2,509 were built between 1883 and 1929. It coincided with a big increase in interest in town planning and personal enrichment.

I think the Carnegie libraries example highlights possible limitations to trhtrsh's optimistic views of philanthropy. The libraries were successful in part because of the Carnegie Formula. For example, towns had to "demonstrate the need for a public library" and "annually provide ten percent of the cost of the library's construction to support its operation."

This was chosen instead of, say, an endowed institution because "an endowed institution is liable to become the prey of a clique. The public ceases to take interest in it, or, rather, never acquires interest in it. The rule has been violated which requires the recipients to help themselves. Everything has been done for the community instead of its being only helped to help itself." (I'm cribbing directly from Wikipedia for these quotes.)

That observation from 150 years still rings true today. Some types of philanthropy aren't good for the society. Any sort of "social status" must bear that in mind. Alas, social status is not easy to define, and mistakes or problems caused by a case of bad philanthropy may easily be misattributed.

I agree it's tricky to get right. The art world is one example where some philanthropic spending is arguably for the public benefit, but other philanthropic spending has arguably fallen "the prey of a clique".

I wasn't thinking in my comment upthread as systemically, though, in terms of whether philanthropy or, say, taxation, is a better way to tackle inequality. I actually lean a bit towards the latter myself, and am skeptical of whether very wealthy people are actually good at directing large philanthropic projects on average.

I was thinking more small-scale at just a cultural level, like the anecdotes this article is describing. The article paints a picture of some wealthy people in a certain set of circumstances who are quite dismissive of poor people, even contemptuous towards them. But in other circumstances, it's seen as one of the rewards of wealth that you can act as a sort of magnanimous benefactor, gracious servant of the public. Whatever causes that cultural difference strikes me as interesting. One guess is that it relates to whether wealthy people feel some sense of community with poorer people in the same area, so they gain something socially from being a town's benefactor, because the poorer people they're helping out are in the same social circles. But I imagine that's only one aspect.

Your upstream thread reminded me of an essay I read a few months back. It concerned Downton Abbey, which is a show I've not seen so anything I say here is second- or third-hand.

In the British style of the 1800s, the system was set up so the lord of the manor (or whatever the title might have been) was the caretaker of the wealth and the people. For example, he would build housing for the people of the manor, provide money to the church, support the sick and elderly, and so on. In return, the people would work for him.

This makes the system dependent on one person. If that person should invest heavily in a sugar cane plantation in the Caribbean, which goes south, then that may mean economic hardship for the entire area.

It's hard for me to say that this model is either philanthropy or taxation. It's remnants of feudalism. That makes me think that the issue actually one of centralized vs. decentralized power, or of resilience vs. fragility. (After all, towns and cities also go bankrupt.)

Wealth is a force multiplier, which can be used for good and for bad. There are ways to attenuate its use for bad: equalize wealth (eg, through progressive taxes or increased philanthropy), strengthen laws (so those with less wealth seek remedy in case of bad treatment), inculcate (eg, through the Carnegie Formula) an ethos towards "good" philanthropy, and so on.

Progressive taxation to me is the easiest to accomplish. It does require a transparent, responsive government, but then again, so do the others.