Large-scale philanthropy, based in the private - not the public - sector, is a relatively recent historical development.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Effective philanthropy requires a lot of time and creativity - the same kind of focus and skills that building a business requires.
Philanthropy is natural. For a mother, taking care of her children is natural. If I am rich, I take care of the poor, like a mother would.
Philanthropy should be taking much bigger risks that business. If these are easy problems, business and government can come in and solve them.
You cannot mandate philanthropy. It has to come from within, and when it does, it is deeply satisfying.
Much corporate giving is charitable in nature rather than philanthropic.
A world in which government is burdened by historic debt, philanthropy has limited resources, and the private sector is only interested in its own personal gain is simply unsustainable.
Philanthropy without scale and sustainability is like any other bad business that will simply wither and die on the vine.
There is a place and a time for philanthropy, and there is only so much money you can give away.
At the end of the day, philanthropy can only ever be an adjunct to what governments provide. And government coffers need to be replenished.
I think the tradition of philanthropy is far better developed in the U.S. than in India, as is the whole notion of giving away 50% of your wealth while you are still living and not waiting till you're gone.
No opposing quotes found.