The country’s philanthropic culture has largely been a product of its government’s historical unwillingness to mitigate the social and economic inequality produced by its vibrant form of capitalism. This well developed culture of giving has surely produced some benefits – often, as you mention, in form of cultural institutions. But while you bluntly state that, among countries, “when philanthropic giving is absent, development is slow,” you provide no evidence. Is this giving actually contributing to entrepreneurial opportunity, or to the re-naming of new art gallery wings? Moreover, are you suggesting that this model – whereby individuals give independently based upon their values, interests, connections or even their hubris – is the most efficient or equitable means of serving the collective public interest?

What of the immense role government plays in creating opportunity, through the education system, through myriad social supports, through the maintenance of strong institutions and the provision of a regulatory and tax environment conducive to entrepreneurship? Presently, the United States is among the most unequal developed societies in the world, with relatively abysmal primary and secondary educational outcomes (PISA test scores), a great imbalance in the provision of health services, etc. This has grave implications for future innovative capacity. The US is also an outlier among developed nations in the muted redistributive role government plays in the provision of many of the foundational social supports that provide economic opportunity and innovative capacity. There is no doubt that the US maintains among the most dynamic and innovative economies in the world, but is this philanthropic reliance really the optimal means to bridge this opportunity gap that already exists for many Americans?

Republicans do not have an absence of principle, they have an absence of ideas.

I don’t understand what is meant by, “The republicans have an absence of principle”. How so? The ranks of Republicans are filled with both entrepreneurs and those who give a much higher proportaion of their income to charity than Joe Biden and pre-book-signing Barack Obama.

You might make a case for the whole nonprofit sector, at $665 billion annually, but it’s mostly funded by individuals and volunteers, as well as government contracts for social services. Foundations are less than 10% of the total income of nonprofits. I agree that nonprofits and philanthropy fill critical roles in the US, including some innovations, but I wouldn’t put them in a central role of the economy.

America is maybe not the only model for “recycling the energy of society.” In much of Europe, the government provides many of the services that nonprofits do here. Even here, government provides over half of nonprofit income.

Since I work in the nonprofit arena, I’d love to hear more details on the sector’s role in the new economy.