« Social Venture Philanthropy at 10: Paul Schoemaker at Hudson | Main | Values in Estate Planning Courtesy of Worth Magazine »

November 14, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Good stuff, but I can't help but think about how you can reframe from the perspective of communities and what we hold in common, rather than from the self out. For most of us without trust fund money, we put far more into public funds through taxes to be spent through the political apparatus than we can afford to give personally. I just heard a number of $20k per household as the cost of the war. Put the real numbers like these into your logic model. As long as our spending on destruction outpaces our spending on building communities and infrastructure we are doomed.

As individuals with or without a trust fund, there is not much we can do alone. We need to learn to work together in public collaborations. Funding and finance is just one area of collaboration. Making the money flow from many sources to the people and organizations who are doing the best work in the field at all levels should be the collective purpose of financial collaborations.

Even from the individual frame, you emphasize the collectives we are embedded in, but as you go around to logic model it is more critical that the potential donor not waste time constructing a purely personal vision. If we don't collaborate at the vision level to establish a collective vision that drives the logic model and from there, the rest, then we won't have a framework for collective action that includes all of us.

It other words, we need to all work from one logic model, even as it is necessarily and always a work in progress, incomplete. That is we need a field, that like the field of science, constructs itself by processes of generation and selection. Like science, this field is not singular. There are many sciences each with its own domains, objects, relationships and logic. They don't rule over one another, but they interact deeply.

This is how I would start to describe the construction of the Public Square, or perhaps we should say re-construction of something that never fully emerged and was almost destroyed in a game of world domination and fear.


That is a great comment, Jerry, and very much in the spirit of what what both Tracy and I are trying to articulate and encourage. "Community" on the chart and "politic viewpoint" and "logic model" and "team building" are all rather weak ways to gesture at what you are saying much better. You are right, the chart is directed primarily towards those with wealth, their advisors, and the nonprofit fundraisers who court them. What is missing is the many-to-many element, and the elements of politcal leadership, thought leadership, or public service.

Thank you. Tracy would say, Amen, I believe, to your comment. So do I. "Logic Mode" and "Field of Interest," could get us closer. But maybe "model of social change" is better. Even that leaves the "many" invisible on the chart. No Dumpster on the chart, you might say. Maybe I should have it printed with a Dumpster Watermark, provided as a public service, courtesy of the good people at Wealth Bondage?


i need to know much more about money laundering


Everything you need right there.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Wealth Bondage Premium Content

  • Castle by the Sea
    Provided as a professional courtesy at no extra charge to those with net worth of $25 million or more and/or family income of $500,000 a year or more, and to their Serving Professionals of all genders.