Gift Economy pt. 2

[xephyr]

Just to note, that as it is practiced in America, philanthropy is not a gift economy.

In America --1. Funding is only provided in context of achieving some goal

Comments

[litch]

The macarthur genius grants are not goal focused, based on needs, time frame dependant, etc

[xephyr]

They are goal focused, because they're given specifically to folks who meet their goal: genius.

Meritocratic philanthropy does not assess needs, it assesses merit.

The rules for philanthropy that I outlined above comes from my work with non-profit service organizations, primarily with their work for the poor.

[luxcanon]

Well, with that logic, there's no such thing as a grant that isn't goal focused.

Grants to random strangers for no reason have the goal of funds redistribution.

Where are you getting this Gift Economy stuff from, or is it your construct?

[xephyr]

It's not that giving should have no purpose, but that there should be no quid pro quo regarding any specific exchange.

The previous Gift Economy post had a link to the Wikipedia article that got me started.

[paradoxosalpha]

"Investment in" a gift economy coopts and destroys it by imposing teleological frameworks.

[xephyr]

Ding! Ding! Give that man a cigar!

[luxcanon]

I don't get how you can impose teleological frameworks. I thought they were analytically derived by examining actual use patterns and behaviors.

[abrasax]

sounds like you have walfare in mind. Other sorts of gifts, like venture capital, are similar yet distinct in several important ways. But yeah, I get the overall gist of what you're saying.

[xephyr]

Yeah, welfare is the primary example. Venture Capital, however, is very most certainly not a gift, but a very specific commodity arrangement.

[luxcanon]

Well, would it be correct to say that the teleologicalfunction of welfare would demonstrate another set of specific commodity arrangements? People on welfare get checks, right? Written in dollars? That they get to then spend on goods? That's a very specific commodity relationship. The actual result is that people who cannot or do not generate enough money themselves get some, from a fund that is created by taking a little bit of money away from everyone else. So from a macro-economic standpoint, it's a pretty much a slam dunk transaction.

[xephyr]

Thank you for summarizing my point so well.

Welfare systems in commodity markets are very poor examples of a gift economy.

[luxcanon]

Okay, now I get it.

It's good that there are already existing gift economies like blood banks, and it's good that much of our social compacts utilize these tenets.

I'm glad there's no way to formalize it, or supplant commodity economics with it, though. It's not sustainable. And the constant negotiation of obligations amongst the community is horrible to me. It punishes people for prefering autonomous self-reliance by reducing their intake of goods. It seems like it's only designed for one thing, ie, to ensure that no one does without a share in everything they need. I'm skeptical of systems that are solely structured to solve the problem of marginalization or poverty.

[xephyr]

I'm pretty sure gift economies arose in order to provide a measure of collective risk distribution for tribes and multi-family units, thus enhancing the general survivability of the community.

"Marginalization" and "poverty" are terms that only have meaning in the context of a tiered economy -- certainly not a tribal one!

[beowulf1723]

Peter Lamborn Wilson had a bit on gift economies in one of his books. I think it was Escape from the 19th Century, but I could be mistaken.