If you're a billionaire, I think the best thing you can do with your money (usually) is to put it into local economic development in a region that needs it.
The point being that leadership - coordination of local actors, including universities, businesses, and nonprofits - is probably much more important than the direct impact of the money spent. The money mainly just gets attention and convinces people you're serious.
This process is described well in the book "Our Towns" by @JamesFallows: amazon.com/Our-Towns-000-…
Local development leaders are KEY to reviving or building up a small or declining city. They don't have to be billionaires, either - billionaires just get attention.
Local development leaders are KEY to reviving or building up a small or declining city. They don't have to be billionaires, either - billionaires just get attention.
Pike Powers, one of the most important local development leaders in Austin, was just a consultant - really, a gadfly.
But he was very important for helping coordinate business, university, and government leaders to push for the development of Austin.
kansascityfed.org/PUBLICAT/newgo…
But he was very important for helping coordinate business, university, and government leaders to push for the development of Austin.
kansascityfed.org/PUBLICAT/newgo…
For small cities looking for a specialty, coordination is important. Industrial policy is important. And that requires some local leadership.
bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…
bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…
You don't have to be a billionaire to be a local development leader. Sure, it helps. And yes, billionaires should probably be doing this. But that doesn't mean only they can do it. Tons of people can do it. And it probably has a very big impact.
(end)
(end)
