This Bud's for Bud

I know it's been awhile, but this will take more than 140 characters, and I know that no one will pay attention to a Facebook status update that goes on longer than a line or two.

A friend posted the above image to his Facebook feed.  Once I wrapped my mind around the message. . . Well, I have to admit, I was still confused.

The gist of the meme seems to be that we should thank our lucky stars that we live in a free-market system that enables corporate benefactors to provide for the general welfare.  That because Anheuser-Busch has reaped the rewards of capitalism, they are now able to give back and provide aid and comfort to the beleaguered denizens of Texas now reeling at the onslaught of Hurricane Harvey.

Really?

My first response to this was to point out that, while we can give appropriate kudos to Anheuser for doing a good deed, this hardly qualifies as capitalism.  Indeed, giving away product that has a monetary value is kind of the exact OPPOSITE of capitalism.  Ayn Rand would not approve.

But, the libertarians will cry, who ELSE but a massively successful corporation could possibly provide clean drinking water to storm-tossed refugees?

Uh. . . the government?  That's what we pay taxes for: So we can have things like clean water and sewer systems and roads and dams.  It's nice that Anheuser Busch decided to forego some profits for the day and devote their resources to the public good, but I wonder how many lobbyists that selfsame company employs to make sure that they pay as little as possible in taxes?  How many loopholes do they exploit?  Hell, how much of a write-off are they going to claim for the good deed they're doing here?  If all companies paid their fair share of taxes, then perhaps our country's infrastructure would not be in such a calamitous state of disrepair that major weather events frequently wreak havoc on our cities and towns.

But still. . .  Still. . .  Let's give credit where credit is due.  Thank you, Anheuser-Busch, you are good. . . Good. . .

And then it hit me: Look at the cans.  These are not simply cans of drinking water.  These are cans of drinking water emblazoned with the Anheuser Busch logo.  This is not (just) charity; this is advertising.

Well, so what, you'll say?  After all, the point is that thirsty people will get clean drinking water.  If Anheuser-Busch wants to claim credit for this service, that's their right.

And, again, yes. . . but.  I mean, think about it: These cans must have been lying around, right?  Obviously, Anheuser didn't JUST (in the last few days) get them printed up since Harvey made landfall.  So this got me thinking about what the company actually did: They made a decision--and I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they decided with the best of intentions--to help out Harvey's victims and turn their production facilities from beer to water.  But then what?  They must have thought about how much water to distribute.  So what drove that decision?  What led them to the number 500,000?  Is that the number of cans of beer that would have been produced in a day?  If so, OK.

Or.

Is 500,000 the number of water cans the company had ready to go?  Because, if that's the case, then capitalism--far from inspiring virtue--in fact deprived people.  Because Anheuser, rather than producing as much water as it possibly could, limited its supply to that which could be marketed, to that which could serve as a platform for advertising.  Because Anheuser chose not to fill plain unmarked aluminum cans with water or--heaven forfend!--cans that had already been printed with Budweiser labels!  Because better to let some people go thirsty than risk that someone would open up a can of Bud and get water!  Think about the damage to the company's reputation!

(The fact that I personally find a can of Bud to be virtually indistinguishable from water is a whole different issue.)

Capitalism may do some things quite well, but when it comes to helping people--to altruism--a few cans of water are truly just a drop in the bucket.

Plus, You've Got to Take the Kochs and Scaifes with the Gateses

Through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, billionaire Bill Gates has donated millions of dollars to such causes as improving education, eradicating malaria, and upgrading water systems around the world.  Through the Open Society Foundation, billionaire George Soros has disbursed vast sums to promote democracy and human rights.  These guys are part of the problem.

Don't get me wrong: I think clean water and human rights are good things--especially when it comes to making soup.  But as Nicholas Confessore points out in today's Times, such aggressive philanthropy often finds itself at odds with democratic principles and the greater good.  While some would argue that any private support for public initiatives is welcome in these economically difficult times, such largesse often provides ammunition for conservative arguments about the rationale for shrinking government--"starving the beast," in their parlance: "See, government doesn't need to be involved: Private citizens can do a fine job of providing for society's well-being."

But even if private charity could conceivably fund public services at a level adequate for society's needs (it can't), the relinquishment of such services to the private sector would represent an unacceptable abdication of government responsibilities.  While everybody may support the idea of improving education, for example, not everybody agrees that Bill Gates' approach (which places particular emphasis on the role of charter schools) is the best way to get there.  But in a privately funded system, the citizens don't have a choice about the way the money is used: They can take it or leave it, and "leaving it" is not a realistic option.

Certainly, Gates and Soros and other public-spirited tycoons have every right to use their money the way they see fit.  As citizens, we can applaud their charitable impulses and appreciate their desire to "give back" to the society that has enabled them to amass their great fortunes.  But we must also remember that we cannot count on their support to meet all of society's varied needs.  The best way for the 1% to give back is to support (as, to their credit, people like Gates and Warren Buffett do) progressive taxation to meet the needs of the general public.

No-Good Do-Gooders!

If there's one thing we can't stand, it's brussels sprouts. But if there are TWO things we can't stand, they would be brussels sprouts and stealth-marketing for controversial causes. Obviously, private corporations (or at least their board members) have the right to endorse whatever charities or causes they choose. If Domino's Pizza and Wendy's want to contribute to pro-life organizations, if Target wants to donate to anti-same-sex-marriage candidates, if Apple wants to give money to support puppy liquefaction--well, that is their right. All we ask is that they be up front about it. Customers have a right to know about the loathsome causes companies support so as to make informed decisions before patronizing them.

If we had known that Dominos supported pro-life organizations, that wouldn't have stopped us from ordering the double-size portion of Chicken Kickers, but we would have done so with an appropriate amount of self-consciousness.

Yesterday was the last straw. We opened up a refreshing Jones' Fufuberry Soda, and as we brought the sweet, sweet fufu to our lips, we happened to glance at the bottle cap, whereon was printed this:

"You just helped save a child's eyesight. Thank you."

Fuckers! If we had only known. . . . Now the Solipsist is going to be forever linked with the anti-juvenile blindness crowd. We don't even want to think about the mailing lists we just got on!

Charity Begins at Starbucks

A panhandler made his way down the line of cars at the drive-thru the other morning. We idled behind a minivan with Georgia plates. The panhandler stopped at the minivan's window. The woman behind the wheel shook her head apologetically. The panhandler approached our window, and we, too, shrugged and murmured something about having no spare change.

At about this moment, the minivan woman rolled down her window and called the man back--she had apparently located some spare change. He went to her window, accepted the coins graciously, and began to walk away. After he had gotten to the sidewalk, the woman honked her horn. She had found even more change and wanted to give it away. The man came back and took the extra money.

While we respect the woman's desire to go the extra mile--to search her purse or cup holders for something to give this indigent stranger even after he had walked away--we think that calling him back smacks of excessive piety. Maybe she was simply honoring the traditions of Southern hospitality or Christian charity, but, to us, her actions reflected less of a desire to reach out than to rub in.

Nation?