Philanthropic Profit

By: Jonathan Seidel

NGO’s and philanthropic businessmen: Mr. Beast good or bad? (Sowell, 57)

Mr. Beast, aka Jimmy, the most popular YouTuber was railed for healing the blind. Charities created to do that job took to twitter to shame him. CEOs of these groups chastised the YouTube for clout. Yet is this even fair?

Mr. Beast may be doing it for the clout. If we were to accept the nefarious or even agenda driven narrative, that Mr. Beast is looking for views, is that so wrong? Ought we to shame someone who is making himself famous by helping others? He makes a buck healing someone? These NGOs would have you believe Mr. Beast is a villain. He is extorting the helpless for his YouTube channel. He is extorting them for personal profit. Yet none of the blind actually care. The NGOs may care but the victims do not. The victims are now blind free. They can finally see. It took a flashy profit-driven YouTuber nefariously paying for their medication to make more money. For people to see him as a saviour of the people. Evil man he is. The formally blinded are overjoyed. They hug him kiss his cheek. They may even recite a prayer for him or to him. He has blessed them and saved them from torture. He has committed a beautiful deed but apparently such a deed brought of profit is devilish. It ought to be shamed and censored. I do not think the cured care nor see it that way. 

Mr. Beast has used the ill as an example to show his philanthropy. How terrible. He has exposed the cruelties of the world and aided the downtrodden. He has given awareness to hundreds of millions of viewers to this dire cause. Again how awful a man. These people are unnoticed and even if Peter Berger aspires for people to give charitably to Africa it doesn’t happen. Even more so to a cause incredibly remote from them. People aren’t flocking to aid those downtrodden because they have no connection. NGOs attempt to raise awareness but the funds are insufficient. Seeing this gaping hole, Mr. Beast took it upon himself to travel and show that this is an important cause. Maybe Berger would be satisfied with such selfless aid. Did he make a bunch off the video? Probably. Does it matter? No. Since the people he helped are ever grateful. They are being exploited for his pride. So let him show off his grace. At the end of the day, thousands of people will see. That is a win. Whether or not he is such an angelic figure is of little relevance. What matters is the results. 

Is it so wrong that he is publishing this content online? While he is making a profit he is also exposing the dire circumstances these unfortunate people are living with? How much more can you ask? Profit-driven or profit-induced good is still good. It doesn’t need to be non-profit to be good. To be marked as sacred and pure. Such a belief is idiotic. Why can’t money and fame bring goodness? Why does it matter the motives? So Mr. Beast is trying to win the heart of a young maiden or he is trying to grow his channel or he wants people to like him. It really doesn’t matter. His ulterior motives are saving so many at the time. His ulterior motives are not subjecting anyone to harm. They are not distorting nor undermining the treatment. All he gets is some more love and coverage. If the video does really well maybe he’ll do a second trip or use the profit to finance a different trip for a different cause. What a mensch. What a selfless person. Yet all the chatter is how horrible, how selfish and dishonourable he is. 

The haters seem to forget how money meshes with morality. It is no coincidence that slavery ended at the behest of the industrial revolution. Once machinery was profitable those anti-slavery could push back hard. Not only is slavery evil but is unnecessary. This is a devilish act that needs to be abolished and it can be easily replaced. Then the abolitionists in their financed esteem set off to globally push abolitionism. They returned to the shores of Africa to which they first participated in the slave trade and sought to end it immediately. Just as the Europeans forced natives to end ritual sacrifice here they did for slavery. With the economic prowess to thrive in a technologically developing world they were able to “realign” their values. The abhorrent evils were dealt with. The same can be said of the democratic universalism. Democracy was not only promoted as the most economically viable option but then was battled for its expression. For other countries to enjoy the splendour of free markets. The imperialist threads of the 1870s and 1970s were heavily morally induced. Capital enabled ethical restoration. 

This has been the truth throughout America’s short existence. Slaves, women, blacks and then all races and types to equality. Once it was economically viable it was morally possible. A great contemporary example is going green whether veganism or renewable energy. The anti-group is heavily against due to its ineffectiveness. It’s impractical and poses more torture on the individual. It is economically inviable. Technology hasn’t reached that point where vegan food and renewable energy provide the necessary comfort and necessary quotas. They are both super expensive and unhelpful in the world. The same goes for electric cars. The greatness of Tesla is its sleek supercar type ideal. While it has its faults, it is a good car. Yet it is expensive so for the average person there isn’t an option. Until then people roaming the streets halting traffic for the sake of the earth are just making people more annoyed. Most people know of the issues, there just isn’t an economically viable option absent the advocates own hypocrisy at times. 

The power of technology produces like Tesla newer better models that aid people in aligning with necessary good. Advocates have a better job convincing people with a new product than halting the streets. It does nothing but annoy and only creates more hostility. While that may be cruel and unfair, that is the way of people. This is the way of the consumerism world. There is endless competition (ideally) and endless opportunities to reach the pinnacle. Want people to go vegan make it more affordable and delicious. Want people to stop using fossil fuels make better electric cars and stop politicians and Hollywood stars from doing so as well (it can’t be a commoner thing). It is not that people do not care but the options presents are deeply asymmetric. By this lousy electric car that costs a ton to charge and only lasts a few miles. Eat this fake burger that costs double the price and is utterly disgusting. It isn’t that people are immoral freaks but that the options are between delicious and disorienting. 

Alarmists have also caused scepticism to wreak havoc but that is beyond this short piece. Better facilities, better possibilities for all have been provided because someone invented something and made a profit out of it. The consumer market cannot change on a dime to the idealists do it for the sake of whatever. It is just not how the (post/meta)modern man is hardwired. What is attractive is that which is beneficial. Go out and make something that is useful. Spend time working instead of shouting. Morals outshine with cash flow. When an option is better and bolder it will win out. Until such an option is readily available to the consumer it will not be heeded. The question isn’t spare a few bucks, it is upend a lifestyle and pay and extra few thousand at least. It is too early. Yet no one is too entrenched to give up when the better option is safer and better. People love to drive but self driving cars with their superiority will probably win out. Capital has the power to build bridges and mend fences. The opportunity needs to be willing and up to the task.

Mr. Beast has all this money and he with all this capital invests in helping others. Does he win? Absolutely. Do people love him more because of this? You bet. Does that make him evil? No way. He has the funds to do something to help others and he does it perfectly. He waltzes into the area and sets up everything needed to fulfil the ill’s long awaited hopes. He does it because he wants to. He is able to. He pays for everything and makes a return on his investment. His return on investment pales in comparison to the value of sight. The people would pay anything for their illness to be cured. He does it all for free. He does it all for them. So what if it is prideful and selfish. He has saved thousands and intends to do more. Why should we stop him because some NGOs are unhappy? He is helping and they scream menace? They are just upset that he is doing their job smoother and more efficient. He has done what takes them so long to do. He got off his ass and paid instead of running around gathering funds. 

Why are they so mad? NGOs have their own drama and internal issues but more so they are inefficient. They are non-profit organisations that struggle to raise money. People don’t always want to give to causes they know little about. Yet if Mr. Beast opened a gofundme the next day, he would be able to do their job a few times over. His influence and his popularity exceeds their capability. So it is a show. Who cares. They can see that is all that ought to matter. For NGOs to be upset is either because he is ruining their business which is then a good thing since if he heals them all and they do not exist we’ll have a healthier planet. More so he did it better than them. They’re upset because a boastful twenty something year old who makes crafty funky videos on YouTube saved thousands of lives. He is the better model. He doesn’t exist to serve the ill but he is willing to help out. To be angry is to be selfish. If all the NGOs cared about was healthy people like their mission statements say then they would be overjoyed. They would be promoting more people to do so. They just want to be relevant at best and profit at worst. A true charity would be elated that someone else is taking the mantle. 

Mr. Beast’s actions deserve praise not ridicule. He has brought better attention to some issues the intended organisations couldn’t. Whether people like influencers or not, they help. Mr. Beast is healing people. That is all that matters.

Paupers Profiteering

By: Jonathan Seidel

Market socialism: free markets, individuality and profit

While salaries at companies are skilled based, the more productive, the higher climbing up the rung the more money made. A VP who sees over more and has much more responsibility than a newbie will make more money. Salary is determined by incentive to the company. How necessary are you. While there is much good faith and good logic on this side. When considering the accumulation of profit, the discrepancies are giant. Though the VP and associate make different amounts, they both are employees making little compared to the employer. He keeps most of the money for himself. He hires and kicks back. Is this fair and commendable?   

I was watching one of those Ben Shapiro destroys liberal snowflake videos. While many of them are eagerly entertaining. Watching people meltdown in a debate. Unable to handle rebuttal. Stomping in disgust. There was a singular episode where an individual pressed Shapiro on workers in a pencil factory for their effort should gain more of the profit instead of the boss who does little work. Shapiro’s response makes logical sense in that the boss puts in all the risk by providing all the supplies for the workers to work and then makes a mean spirited comment about the ease of compiling pencils. While there is truth to Shapiro’s claims it is not always true that a job is easy nor that the boss can do it. He does not automatically allocate because there is too much but because he needs the help. He may have paid for the industry but his lacklustre skill prevents him from competing anything. An influencer on Youtube maybe making the content but without his cameraman he is at a lost.  

Beyond the realm of sales, there is little commission incentives given to employees. The effort given in the grade scale of things is negligible to their effort. It is the impact more than the official title or its difficulty. A project coordinator may have a simple job though deeply tedious and arduous but his role is central to the project’s execution. Can he easily be replaced? Not necessarily even if the work is easier than most complex tech jobs. This does not mean that all workers should receive an equal profit. There is still a hierarchical ladder. The more prestigious the job the more compensation. Work harder get paid more. Result oriented will only empower people to work more efficiently instead having to wait to be given an advanced title to be respected for hard fought work.  Appearance is everything. An individual who performs excellently is praised with a slap on the back. If a position opens up he can get that raise but it has little to do with current performance. 

There is an angle to consider: the insufficiency of humanity. While there is a major detriment, it could be genuine. Some people are just incapable of succeeding. Instead of taking the extreme of special needs who by their limitations struggle to meet the average potential fall short of processing beyond. Poverty forces people into situations that limit their capability. Take a single mom working two jobs. Limited education limiting her options. She is already turned away because of the shrewd system. Working as a cashier at Walmart is not a difficult job. Do to its ease she is paid minimally. There lacks skill and exponential growth. To demand more profit from bagging food or stocking shelves is hard pressed. Yet, here the workers who all do the same job can split the profit evenly. The job’s difficulty does not affect workers’ indispensability even if expendable. The storeowner needs people to man the cashier as he will not do it himself. There should be a larger percentage for their efforts even if it is not that much given the division amongst the group. 

Taking a more talented example. Tesla was poor and needed to produce results. JP Morgan was funding him and without any results Morgan’s money would be wasted and be out thousands of dollars. His funding was on Tesla’s results. Morgan freely giving his money would differ from loaning it on condition that Tesla’s performs. Desperation will hit quicker in the latter. Scientific equipment is expensive and finance was necessary. Yet if Tesla performs he will profit and he will give a percentage to Morgan for his aid. Tesla owes Morgan for his work. Morgan could not achieve Tesla’s inventions but Tesla could not accomplish without Morgan’s money. They needed one another. How the percentage is split whether 50/50 or 50/40 for Tesla because Tesla made it. Though a fair argument could be made that if Tesla kept failing continuing with loans would fairly dip the percentage in Morgan’s favour. Yet here the production owner Morgan is giving the worker Tesla his rightful ability. 

This issue with the Tesla example is Tesla’s greatness. The average scientific aspirer does not have that clout. An interested individual is not aided by donations without any profit to be made. Thinking about a Jewish example brings to light the reality of mediocrity. In the Middle Ages, rabbinic prodigies’ advanced schooling was paid by a wealthy merchant on condition he marry his daughter. Thereby he sheps nachas from the marriage and his son in-law’s prestige. The merchant was seeking spiritual reward. A different type of reward and yet a medieval capitalist solution. Not everyone was blessed with the opportunity. Not the passionate. Only those with the capabilities. Tesla is no different. He was skilled. While there is room to discuss a profit margin this only helps the readily capable. The profit mentality is primal. 

This medieval example shines light on the successes of the few. The few then exert their money over the unsuccessful. Those with money then pass on their wealth to their descendants. Those in power remain in power. It is akin to dynastic royalty. While this is not always true. There are many stories of rag to riches. With the buzz of the internet expanding more people are attaining more wealth from various backgrounds. It is in no way exclusive to a feudalistic familial ability. Yet in the market faculty either go into tech or make little money. The motto is to follow the money. There are vast ways to accumulate wealth yet investments are tricky and most people play it safe. Choosing to be an employee is not always a choice. Rich investments pay off because they have the capitol to invest in grossing products. The average Joe does not. YouTube gurus are not the most trustworthy folk to fondle. The solution of amassing self wealth is not for everyone. 

Falling into darwinian fate is an immoral society. Entrepreneurial efforts are acclaimed but are almost never self made. There are outliers but many grow from overwhelming someone else. It is a battlefield competing for supremacy. There will always be leaders but every leader needs an advisor and also congregation. A king needs soldiers. Reducing their integrity because of their ignorance undermines their importance. A leader with no congregations is no leader. The employer needs the employee.  Those who win still need others under them. Using their own phobias against them. Their own worst fears to coerce into working is disgruntling. People will take the job because they need to provide. There are limits and workers have fought back but the scare and responsibility to family will compel much less anyone to accept terms to protect. It is an envious game playing on people’s instincts. Keep them on the lowest rung. Give them the bare minimal within the lines. Survivability depends on the offering. Feeding people crumbs to over come the restless work hours is depressing. 

Profit is not in itself evil but it is weaponised for self greed. Using wealth for influence is to insert the self in the mist of decisions. Looking to benefit at every turn. To continue climbing the social ladder economically enlightening the majorly representable aspects. It is a repressive agenda keeping someone behind. the profit is consumed by the owner with little backwash for the assisters. The entrepreneurial asset is to climb solo. When an idea is spawned the vision needs insight to cultivate its execution. A hired army to foster its facilitation. The army heeds the commands and is expendable but it is indispensable to victory. Profit is hopeful but is an aspect that needs to be divvied up. The spoils of war are not the kings own. Ragnar makes the point to Earl Haraldson, Though the earl gave him permission to use his boats, the earl did little to nothing to attain the treasure. He happened to be in charge so he gained the treasure. The treasure was rightfully the soldiers who fought for it. While a percentage should go to the leader who led the fight and provided transportation, those who sit back and do not lift a finger are tyrannically enforcing their will. 

Continuing with the Ragnar story. He promises his warriors treasure. If they travel with him, they will gain whatever they put in. If they follow him they will be blessed. A risk but a worthwhile one. Most established companies are kingdoms with entrenched dynasties. They do not need to promise for followers. They make replacements but the order is in place. Ragnar’s example is a desire and accountability that must persist. The start up nation is a perfect example. These groups have potential to alter the employer-employee dynamic. They need aid and those who do so ought to be rewarded. Yet once they gain traction established will they reform to the systematic trend of other corporations. Only time will tell. The relationship is only debated when the visionary needs assistance. He may place himself a top the hierarchy but he cannot look down on his assistants. Those who work for him are good soldiers. Hierarchies cannot be abolished today as society demands functionality of commanders and commanded. Do you make laws or follow them. The lawmaker is responsible for his clientele. He is a shepherd caring for his flock.   

Part of the Process

By: Jonathan Seidel

Wrestling and socialism: predestination and collectivism 

Barthes relates the theatre of wrestling. Wrestling differs from boxing in its entertainment primacy. Wrestling unlike its counterpart sports attempts to achieve a positive result. Players wish to win and stats are everything. This is not the case for wrestling. Wrestling is a spectacle, scripted from the onset. Wrestlers have a role to play. Theatre actors displaying their excellence in entertaining the crowd. The role playing model harkens to ancient antiquity and the marxist ideals.

Sports are democratic. Classically restrictive and conformist. Inside the language game there is much movement. There is a liberation to achieve the greatest peak. Inflating statistics and winning championships primarily fuels the athlete to perform. Players are out to perform to succeed to accomplish. They rack up trophies to gain appreciation. Content creators spend loads of time compiling the excellence of players and their prestige. Constant murmurs about who is the greatest, whether LBJ or MJ, Renaldo or Messi, encompasses the media arena. It is not just analysts and youtubers making countless content on the same issue. Even the players themselves voice their opinions. They wish to gain the respect they believe they deserve. They work tirelessly for fame and fortune. To win at all costs and to be hailed supreme. Those who cop out with “I play for the love of the game” according to Nietzsche is a slavish response. Jealous of the master’s excellence, he alters his confidence to a new mission. Answer deceptively to avoid his true intent.    

Love of the game is a common trope but it is all behind the escalating accomplishments. There is a truth in the highest level of competition but the privileges that accompany the big pay day is a deep aggressive spirit. There is a deep level of competition that like any other job compels outlasting opponents. Besting them adds more fuel to the fire. It is all about climbing the ladder. Whether that is the player’s initial rationale it becomes a revolving lifestyle. Survival in the league is through perpetuated success. As long as results are high, the love for the game is immaterial. It matters little. It may empower production but it is the end not the means that really matter. While these slogans capture fan approval and respect, it is those with heart and also excel that are most noticed. Not being able to achieve the expectations at the end will draw hate and potential firing. The thought doesn’t count insofar as level of playing must be sky-high. 

Stooped in the capitalist market, players compete for their high paid salaries. Players make a half a million plus. With relatively limited roster spots available, securing a spot on a team is difficult. Like any business, if effort is not up to the team’s liking they can drop you from the team. Achieving awards for fame is parcel of the totality of the business. Winning awards attracts more cash like signing bonuses. More awards more notice and more potential money. Attractive offers flood excellent players to show off to inspire their fans to buy the advertised merchandise. Growing influence adds personal prestige but also adds opportunities. It is climbing the ladder in the basketball word and the corporate world. For example, LeBron James’ excellent play on the court got him a higher salary from the team, a shoe deal with nike as well as making profit from other endorsements like AT&T. His influence runs deep into politics as well preaching on twitter to his followers. He is not only a basketball player but an icon. 

For someone like LeBron James, his talent and work ethic ensured his success. He has reaped much reward for his effort. Yet though speculative, what has inspired James to keep buying stock in different sectors and owning different branches? The first answer is because he enjoys it. The second is the ever-growing fame and fortune. This is not to say that James is greedy or a bad person but it does acknowledge the persistent amassing of fortune and expanding influence. Is this so wrong? James has donated more than one hundred million dollars to charity as well as building a school in his hometown. He is nothing short of philanthropic. Playing in the system he still manages to personally give back over the governmental taxation promise. If he is giving back that much, is his three mansions worth a total of sixty million dollars? Additionally, the teams make money from merchandising sponsorships and tickets. The fan gifts him a large portion of this money. 

At the end of the day it is a day in day out competitive business. Wrestling is indeed a competitive business. It is not in the statistics that other sports are. There is a level of performance in the ring. Yet it is more the entertainment. More of an actor than a stockholder. Any actor can be fired for his lacklustre performance but because it is rigged it is playing a role formidably. While LeBron James also technically needs to play a role effectively, that of a superstar ballplayer, it is not in the same realm. Efficiency is obviously important but it is the means in the latter than the result. Wrestling is about collective spirit. Team chemistry and audience fascination. These elements exist in other sports but winning usually tramples them. A player may be problematic but if isn’t truly intolerable and wins then keep him around. There is a point of no return but the primacy is not the teamwork. For wrestling it is. His skills are useless if he cannot work with others. 

Wrestling is a play in stages in real time. Weekly events tell the tale of this journeyman. His popularity is considered and contemplated by the audience for each periodic scene. It gives the audience time to sink into the character’s routine. A live television show where the character is praised or booed. The audience’s engagement fuels the storyline impassioning the plot. The result is not individual accolades but a collectivist dream. The wrestler is not judged by his personal accomplishments but his team work in the overall scheme. Wrestling is still in the capitalist world trying to make money but it is a production for the fans. It is a fan service to enjoy the theatre not to display personal skill. People don’t count numbers but remember events. Recalling experiences in personifying the wrestler’s purpose to the plot. The moment is not at the expense of another as it in sports. Most recall the moment of individual players in their outstanding shots forgetting the defender while the wrestler recalls the match both opponents. 

Moulding an experience that expels the greedy singularity. Those who go off script are fired. Individuality is toxic. The team effort to create a beautiful storyline carries the crowd with them. The audience is part of the experience. They observe but cheer and jeer at the wrestlers. They demonstrate their praise or contempt for the story. The dialectical order portrayed is a cinematic fashioning. Fans disliking ball players is from their troubling incidents with teammates. The media storm that capitalises on useless commentary. Wrestling creates its own drama. It does add a second layer to discuss afterwards to orchestrate its preeminent disclosure. Wrestling is a participatory climate. An engaging manifestation of simple cohesion between the audience and professionals. A linkage in a mutual experience. The ring is the centre of the action but the stadium is a participant in the plot. The audience’s voice is central to the journey empowering the the thematic storyline. 

Its unique standard in the all inclusive experience entails a deep encounter between wrestler and audience. They are not mere bystanders but coaches in the corner. The audience recognises the fiction before their eyes but to them it becomes more real. The professional excellence pulls off a beautiful artistry of scripted acting without technological guises used in cinema. Wrestlers are placed on the spot to exact their role. They are playing for the audience. In a sense it follows the colosseum model of becoming a fan favourite. There is a measure of individualism. That autonomy is working hard and working well. Showing the audience you belong and completing the scenes properly with coworkers. The goal is to finish the scene with positive reaction from the audience. The good/evil binary inevitably will have the protagonist meet the antagonist. Cheering and jeering is the monument of respect to the antagonist’s successes and failures. Even the youth can see their importance to the plot. Getting the crowd to dislike without disregard is a successful villain. 

Values emanate from the plot. Its themes point to an impactful realisation. The storyline is educational in its action packed thriller. Its fiction purports a realism unable to attained in daily life. A spectacle of drastic messaging. There is a purpose for each side to persistently develop. A group effort for the betterment. Rejuvenating the merit in the fight. Characters play various roles as they fight in the ring. The drama exudes and audiences marvel. Wrestling is more akin to a family. The entertainment is a group effort. Wrestlers need to key in on their roles with little arrogance. Their pride will be their downfall. It is the humility of the group and collective innovation that empowers the impact of the plot and its life messaging. A role is enshrined to a specific character to act in a specific way, for a sequence to play out accordingly. It is not up to chance but sketched out in harmonious revelation. Wrestlers may play characters morally grey but it is their commitment to their craft and ensuring their excellence in their role. They are positional pawns to create majestic mastery.