[TeMPOraL]

> The 'charitable work' feels to me like it's primarily an exercise of power.

It might feel that way. What Gates Foundation does, or what Elon Musk does (not charity, but hitting the market with a stick until it gives up and moves where he wants it to), feels like an exercise of power. It feels undemocratic. It feels good.

There are problems in this world - some of the biggest and most important problems, like climate change, energy crisis, poverty or education, are of this type - for which both democratic governments and free markets fail spectacularly. Making things worse is usually more profitable than making them better, so that's what businesses do. And democracies spend endless amounts of time and resources on constantly talking and doing nothing. I'm very happy that there are people who can single-handedly do something about problems that lie on the other side of coordination trap.

And yes, I'm aware that this type of power can backfire and the next rich person may use it for evil. But when the alternative is to continue doing nothing (or making things worse), the risk can be worth it.

[vezzy-fnord]

most important problems, like climate change, energy crisis, poverty or education, are of this type - for which both democratic governments and free markets fail spectacularly.

Countries with democratic governments generally do not have free markets. Don't butcher the term's meaning.

(In fact, there is evidence that markets, free or otherwise, do advance education. Alternative educational institutions like Montessori, Sudbury, Summerhill and democratic schools tend to be private.)

"Poverty" also isn't what it used to be for many in both First and Second World countries, unless you're extremely myopic.

[ant6n]

I'd argue that more democratic countries (say, Denmark) are more successful at dealing with climate change, poverty or education than less democratic countries (like Saudi Arabia or the United States).