I hope that, in raising money for the Mises Institute by finishing the marathon, I will have enough inspiration to surmount the challenges I will face while running. My aim is to raise $1,000 for every mile that I run. FULL ARTICLE by Vijay Boyapati
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/14693/marathon-for-mises/
Marathon for Mises
Previous post: Ok, I’ll say it: I was right
Next post: The Essence of Keynesian Thinking
{ 48 comments }
I don’t really understand this type of situation, since it seems to be a more and more common occurrance I have been confused a lot lately.
You want people to “sponsor” your run… why? Doesn’t Mises.org teach the importance of building something genuine? The importance of providing a valuable service or product? What does you running 26.2 miles do to improve the world? The country? Your local society?
Let me clarify, I am completely supportive of your running a marathon. I think that you should have the freedom to choose what you do with your free time, you should be able to choose what sorts of hobbies you participate in but what is it that is noble about the running that should make people pay you for it?
This is such a crazy idea that I just can’t stay silent anymore. I recently read an article about a man that shoots baskets in his driveway and has convinced people to sponsor each made basket so he can donate the money to “the soldiers”. When will this silly tradition end? Does someone want to “sponsor” me for how many blogs I comment on? How about sponsoring me for how many eggs I can eat or how many times I can say that word “silly”?
I get the impression that there are two reasons why this “sponsor” craze has taken off.
1. People want to not only have the free time to do what they want, to push themselves, to train, but they also wan’t a clear conscious in feeling like they are not wasting their time or being selfish while doing it. For example, I will train hundreds of hours for a marathon because it is good for me, I am proving something to myself and I am helping those less fortunate, replace “less fortunate” with any current political issue such as global warming, poverty, the war on drugs, teen pregnancy… and the list goes on and on. The truth is that running a marathon or shooting a basketball has zero correlation to helping any pet project. We create artificial correlation, this is done through point two…
2. I don’t do much thats worth while with my life. Because of that I need to create reasons to feel good about myself. One great way to artificially feel good about myself is by sponsoring people that do things that I wish I was doing. I can sponsor people for lifting weight, for running, for shooting baskets. In this way I will be able to pretend that I have really improved the world. The money that I donate will give me an excuse to continue to stay just the way I am in my life. It gives me an excuse to justify and rationalize accomplishing very little because I can always just give money to others that are “accomplishing” things.
Naturally I will be considered as cynical to many that read this. I don’t know what to say in response to that claim. I don’t think I am cynical, I think that I am happy and love life, but I have had it “up to here” with this sponsoring tradition. Does no one else see a problem with it? I think that my comment has only scratched the surface on the problems with it. I know that it is not good for society. I think it preys on inadequacy and guilt and masquerades as being “selfless” when it is anything but.
If you want to help the world then go out and do it. There are hundreds of things that you can do to bless it and improve it. Running a marathon is NOT one of them, at least not in the way that you seem to think it is. That does not mean that running a marathon is bad or wrong. It just isn’t “selfless”. In the end you are running it for your self. If you truly are not running it for yourself and instead are running it only with the goal to raise money then you are raising money by taking advantage of the guilt in our modern society.
Go volunteer, read to a child, plant a community garden, teach classes, love others… the list never ends. But don’t pretend that running a marathon is the way that you can do your “bit of good” any more than shooting basketballs is.
Troy,
Um, he’s not keeping the money you’re paying him to run, he’s donating it to Mises.org. Or, do you think that Mises.org is unproductive?
“Does no one else see a problem with it?”
I do – I agree completely with your post. I find it nauseating. I distinctly remember having it out with everyone in work when I read this and worked out how much this was costing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/8493238.stm
Money quote: “I will be accompanied by a boat with a crew of five, including a cameraman, to record the crossing and will swim up to eight hours a day in three bursts.” I could make a lot of stuff – stuff that adds to our actual standard of living – with those resources.
“Um, he’s not keeping the money you’re paying him to run, he’s donating it to Mises.org. Or, do you think that Mises.org is unproductive?”
Come on Jonathan – people are parting with money for nothing, for someone he is clearly going to anyway for his own ends. He could just as easily get them to part with money in exchange for an act which creates wealth rather than simply diverts it (that you agree with the final resting place of this money is neither here nor there). He chooses not to though.
I have no problem with this – I DO have a problem with people acting like it’s something noble. I mean, who would have thought – you can solve the world’s problems with rock concerts! How did it take us so long to stumble on this?
So then advertising is equally pointless?
as the resources the company spends could also be spent on other productive things.
What on earth are you talking about?
I’m asking if you’re consistently opposed to the spending of resources for the purpose of bringing attention to a particular good or service.
Or are you fine with Coca Cola spending resources to get more people to purchase Coca Cola, but not okay with Vijay spending his resources in order to get more people to donate to the Mises Institute?
Both are cases where resources are allocated in order to bring attention to a particular provider of a good or a service.
“I’m asking if you’re consistently opposed to the spending of resources for the purpose of bring attention to a particular good or service.”
no, of course not. vijay and coca cola can do what they like with their time and money.
The question is whether or not this mechanism of people running marathons and rowing the atlantic in return for donations contains sufficient information to enable people to determine whether it is wealth creating or destroying. There is no price system here. If someone really wanted to help, another way would be to volunteer to work here at the MI for a week doing admin. Would that be better or worse? Who knows? But I do know one thing for certain – that people don’t do this sort of thing anything remotely near as often as they perform self-promotional activities that they wanted to do anyway and then pass it off as some noble act by requesting “donations” at the end of it, like this money wouldn’t have been spent on something else or saved unless they climbed some mountain.
I think you missed the point. People are “parting with money” to donate to the Mises Institute. I mean, it would be equally beneficial for people to just directly donate, but apparently people need a motive. In that sense, the run is productive, because it provides that motive.
Only because you say more money ending up in the MI is productive. I think so too so in this specific case, yes go for it. In general though, everyone donates to different charities and of course every person thinks that the money they donate makes the world a better place. Most people would say the MI is evil – most of the people (morons) that i know think free markets are evil.
Who could disagree with diverting wealth to Cancer Research for example? What kind of person would disagree with that? Well, me actualy. I’ve been involved with it – the whole thing is a racket where I, for example, saw someone recruited to the group because they did stem-cell research and, this being the current buzz word, it would “put our grant applications to the top of the pile”. Trust me, the well-being of the patients is the last thing on the mind of many of the researchers. So someone running a marathon and making such a donation is double dipping – they are destroying wealth in the sense of the opportunity cost of the time spent training and running, and then donating the money thereby raised to another wealth destroying activity. It is supremely useless and pointless.
So your initial point was essentially:
Donating to some charities is counterproductive. Therefore, donating to all charities is counterproductive.
I hope you never get food poisoning.
He’s choosing to perform those actions because he wants to. It is those actions that bring him more satisfaction than all other choices. Furthermore, he’s not aggressing against other people by these actions.
The satisfaction he gains from these actions outweighs the dissatisfaction caused by the loss of all the inputs required for these actions (time, energy, money, etc). For Vijay, the gains from the outcome outweighs the losses from the means of producing this outcome. Therefore these actions actually create wealth, not destroy it.
Evan, the rock stars and the like always SAY it’s about “raising awareness” – and so them appearing on talk shows being serious is “raising awareness”. But coca cola is a business and therefore if it allocates too much to “raising awareness” and not enough to “making nice cheap coke”, then it will go under.
What is the mechanism by which we decide that there is too much “raising awareness” for a particular cause and not enough “actually doing stuff” to solve the real fundamental issue, that of incorrectly allocated resources? When can we tell someone he that awareness has already been raised enough and he should pick up a shovel? This never happens – people go on and on raising awareness while the problems last for years and decades. Maybe we need another way.
“He’s choosing to perform those actions because he wants to. It is those actions that bring him more satisfaction than all other choices.”
Yes – agreed. But if someone were to say (i’m not having a go at Vijay personally obviously) he’s doing it for the “cause of liberty” or something, I would just have to ask why all these charitable acts are very public ones. As I said to Evan, yes there is some “raising awareness” to be done – but not everyone should do this, at some point there is diminishing returns in raising awareness and people should pick up a shovel instead. They never do though usually – they go on and on raising awareness, which, conincedentally, keeps them in the limelight and allows them to speak seriously on talk shows.
The fact that Vijay is clearly does not seem to be doing this and that the MI could in my opinion do with all the help it can get publicity wise is not the issue, I’m speaking not of this particular case but of the general mechanism by which publicity hungry stars/athletes and a guilty public collude to pretend they’re solving a problem when they’re not. Free markets and price systems solve problems, not attention seeking.
he’s not raising awareness at the cost of “doing something”.
his 2 options were:
1) “try to run the a marathon and not post anything about it on Mises.org”
2) “try to run the marathon and also use it as a way to raise awareness”
the option:
3) “try to run the marathon instead of spending the same amount of energy and time flying to the mises institute and voulenteering”
isn’t on the table.
“raising awareness” is bad only if it takes away from “actually doing something”.
I don’t see how you can know that that is the case here.
Kid Salami wrote:
I see this statement as contradictory. “Attention seeking” is an action that occurs in the free market.
Also, I have some observations:
a) You seem very quick to judge the circumstances in which “attention seeking” is “good” or “bad”. Maybe it’s just me, but unless aggression is being committed, why should I care how other people choose to spend their time?
b) You seem to place the blame squarely on the “attention seeker” rather than on those people who repeatedly fail to recognise that the entire activity may not actually be achieving the original stated purpose. Maybe you’re directing your outrage at the wrong people?
Economics is about humans satisfying their needs. Charity is a means of doing so, otherwise people wouldn’t do it. Criticizing charity on account of productivity is absurd.
Otherwise, I’m not even sure what your argument is.
” but unless aggression is being committed, why should I care how other people choose to spend their time?”
““raising awareness” is bad only if it takes away from “actually doing something”.”
“Economics is about humans satisfying their needs. Charity is a means of doing so, otherwise people wouldn’t do it.”
So, you’re not allowed to criticise, ever, the actions of anyone if they are not coercing a third party into something. Apparently, criticising mistaken ideas is no longer allowed. I must have missed that memo.
So, for example, if someone opens a night school teaching people Keynesian Economics which tells the enrollers how the bail-outs are just the trick (there are such courses available near me), according to you lot, there are no grounds on which I can criticise this person – he is, necessarily, adding to the economy as he is satisfying his own wants and those of the enrollers. Sure, you can technically argue that if you like. Well done – yet another of the increasingly common cases of intellectual posturing on Mises.org.
Let’s agree that my posts weren’t that clear, but in my defence i was expecting peeple do actually make an argument and not just repeat mantras.
Someone requesting a charitable donation should, if they are at all interested in their stated aim, demonstrate by their own action that they are invested in this cause too. Vijay, I say again, is doing this by donating his own money – people donating can take confidence from this fact. Rather like how banks require a deposit before you take out a mortgage – borrowing with no money down means asymmetrical risk. The bank can never know as much about the details of the house as the buyer, who has only 1 house to consider – demanding a deposit is really insisting that the buyer do some research for them. I’m sure I’ve seen references to stuff like free markets and information and economic calculation on this site somewhere, maybe I’m wrong.
We can certainly be sure that Vijay isn’t going to change his mind next week as to whether his cause is a good one or not given his own actions – his sacrifice is information for those considering a donation.
However, those do-dooders who are doing exactly as they want to do for themselves anyway – ie. not performing any action to indicate to people that they too are invested in the cause – but are soliciting charitable donations should be considered attention seekers until proven otherwise.
Troy, stop me when you disagree:
1) by running 26.2 miles, vijay will likely cause more money to be donated to the Mises institute.
2) by having more money, the Mises institute will be able to stay open longer and reach more people.
3) by staying open longer and reaching more people, more people will be likely to read the archived version of this thread
4) the more people that read the archived version of this thread, the more that will see your response
5) the more people that see your response, the more who will be enlightened as to the futility of running a marathon for the LvMI
therefore: vijays running this marathon for charity is essential to help spread the word that running marathons for charity is stupid
Your error is in step 3.
Step 3 ignores the free books, videos, articles, in short, the free KNOWLEDGE that can be learned by visiting the site.
It is not just about this particular thread. It is about the whole entire site.
I definitely agree with Troy.
Thank you for posting your thoughts and writing so succinctly.
Do crossfit instead. Somebody over there reads Mises.
Hot dog contest for Hayek! Ring toss for Rothbard! Breakdancing for Bastiat! Monster truck madness for Menger!
Donate 13K quietly and with dignity if you want to Vijay, but don’t make a circus of it.
“I hope that, in raising money for the Mises Institute by finishing the marathon, I will have enough inspiration to surmount the challenges I will face while running.” SRSLY? LMAO.
These comments are really sad. Goes to show how deep most people actually think.
That is, like, so deep, man. Go ahead and throw a few coins to see the man run it seems utterly ridiculous to me.
If it seems ridiculous to you, then don’t donate. Nobody is forcing you to donate.
Oh, I don’t know.
I like Frank’s idea of Monster Truck Madness for Menger. We can hold it every April 22 (Earth Day).
I agree with you Jonathan. These comments are sad.
It’s not like Vijay is lobbying government for stolen funds or anything underhanded like that. He’s reaching out to the community and asking people to voluntarily donate money for a good cause. Vijay is not only trying to raise money to support Mises.org, he is also actively promoting Mises.org. How anyone can condemn this behaviour is completely beyond me.
I wonder if the same people who condemn this behaviour also condemn fundraising for children with disabilities or for a cure for cancer.
Jay,
They probably do condemn those behaviors. It is always sad when people think that they should condemn and criticize others just because they have different preferences.
One might think that Austrians would withhold criticisms of voluntary, non-aggressive behavior in order to focus their scorn on aggression and government violence… but alas that is not always the case.
I agree it is sad.
I think so many people are attacking this because deep down they want the free money, and find it offensive that people are not giving them free money.
Good post Troy!
I don’t give money to runners and walkers or do I buy Girl Scout cookies from anyone other than a Girl Scout.
The best charities are the ones that are self supporting. Jim Crammer, who in my opinion should not be giving investment advice, has a charitable trust that is run off its capital gains.
It seems to me that a group of trained economist could easily outperform someone like Crammer, or can they?
I have a friend named Alexander B. who had lukemia when he was just a baby. He survived at a great cost as his thyroid is now radiated into oblivion and carried some of the classical symptoms with cancer and it’s treatments.
Last year, he and his father trained for the STP before he went off to college and raised money for organizations that provide medical services to children under his name. If he had just posted an ad or left a webpage up begging for money, the funds would have been little to nothing. He raised more than he could have hoped exactly because he participated in the STP.
I really don’t care what everyone else is complaining about as most of you are completely missing the large phenomenon at work here – I’ve seen the benefits of these first hand and I absolutely wish you the best in your race.
What cynical and crankish comments. Thank goodness some people, like Mr. Boyapati, are trying to do good.
“…Naturally I will be considered as cynical to many that read this. I don’t know what to say in response to that claim. I don’t think I am cynical, I think that I am happy and love life, but I have had it “up to here” with this sponsoring tradition. Does no one else see a problem with it? I think that my comment has only scratched the surface on the problems with it. I know that it is not good for society. I think it preys on inadequacy and guilt and masquerades as being “selfless” when it is anything but.
If you want to help the world then go out and do it. There are hundreds of things that you can do to bless it and improve it. Running a marathon is NOT one of them, at least not in the way that you seem to think it is. That does not mean that running a marathon is bad or wrong. It just isn’t “selfless”. In the end you are running it for your self. If you truly are not running it for yourself and instead are running it only with the goal to raise money then you are raising money by taking advantage of the guilt in our modern society.
Go volunteer, read to a child, plant a community garden, teach classes, love others… the list never ends. But don’t pretend that running a marathon is the way that you can do your “bit of good” any more than shooting basketballs is.”
- Troy (see the first post)
In this case “running a marathon” or “shooting basketballs” are forms of ADVERTISING!!!
Advertising for a good cause is just as important to the cause as advertising a product is important to a company. Many socialists make the mistake of thinking that advertising is a waste of resources, but I would not have thought that so many Austrians would…
By advertising for the Mises Institute, vijay is performing a valuable service; just because you do not respect or choose to respond to that form of advertising does not mean that no one else will.
I saw the first post. Troy’s reasoning is ludicrous: Take a look around, people raise money for charity all the time in the manner Mr. Boyapati has chosen. It’s a social convention to make an event out of something that people are amenable to but might not think to do spontaneously on their own. It’s a social convention to recognize the hard work of one person by donating to the cause they have chosen. It’s a social convention for charities to use a seemingly unconnected activity that has its own merits (like running) as an occasion for raising money.
These are established norms that people not only place quite a bit of value on but also use to do a lot of good. If Troy or any other social armchair theorists think they can do more good for worthy causes by complaining, all the more power to them. Somehow I doubt it will be as successful.
There is so much assumption about the authors motives or even his nature being made in this thread based on his request and I think it’s all pretty ridiculous.
I mean could we at least put language at a reasonable level?
“I find it nauseating”? – seriously? I think you are probably exaggerating here but I’d like to know what else is put in this category if you think someone having different ideas on how to achieve goals is nauseating.
“I don’t do much thats worth while with my life. Because of that I need to create reasons to feel good about myself.” – OK, lets say this is true. So what? Do you think it’s wrong for people to try to feel “good about themselves”? I don’t even get what the point of that is.
“masquerades as being “selfless” when it is anything but.” – When did the author claim to be selfless?
“SRSLY? LMAO.” – have you run a marathon such that you know what it’s like and that it’s not a real trial?
“don’t make a circus of it.” – I’ll buy this comment slightly, since he is bringing it up in front of everyone here but if you don’t like it you can just not donate. I don’t see the reason to be a jerk about it.
Best of luck, Sir.
If it increases the visibility of the Institute and demands nothing more than donations that are matched by Vijay for purposes of augmenting the Institute’s income stream, then where’s the harm?
Whoa! I guess I started a firestorm.
I do see the “advertising” value in the action.
I do think that the original poster has every right to run a marathon. I see nothing wrong with running.
I think my viewpoint would be like this…
I recognize that the result of this action will be beneficial. $26,000 to Mises.org is a great thing. I love Mises and I can think of few organizations that I would rather donate to were I donating.
Even if the goal of $26,000 is not met the result is still beneficial. Just raising a few hundred gives money to Mises and lets the original poster run the marathon that they want to run.
Seems like everything is good.
My concern is that even though this works… It shouldn’t.
In a society that was emotionally mature this type of action would be non-existent. People would donate money when, where and as they felt like it. People would run marathons when, where and as they felt like it and never the twain should meet (except in some races maybe=)).
I see such action as the equivalent of a parent telling little Tommy that once he puts his toys away he can play outside. With children we need to teach cause and effect, even when they don’t necessarily correlate. We teach it because the world is full of cause and effect and we want to ensure that our kids understand that (it also doesn’t hurt being able to manipulate the effect in a way that gets the kids doing what the parents want).
Putting toys away and playing outside are only correlated to one another in an artificial environment, an environment that we create to teach a lesson. This is acceptable for children but to continue such “teaching styles” into adulthood is simply a sign of an emotionally immature people.
My problem is that running a marathon and raising money for anything do not naturally correlate with each other. The only correlation between the two is an artificial correlation that we create.
The real question is why do we create such a false correlation…
I can just imagine trying to explain to little Tommy why we are sponsoring a marathon runner.
Tommy: Dad, why is that man running?
Dad: Because he wants to raise money for _______________
Tommy: How does running raise money?
Dad: Because we pay him for every mile he runs, then he gives that money to ______________
Tommy: Why do people pay him to run?
Dad: Because we want to donate the money to _______________ as well. It is a good thing.
Tommy: If you wanted to donate the money then why don’t you just donate it?
Dad: Uh, Go ask your mother.
You see, I know that this will raise money for Mises and I know that that is a good thing. I just hope that one day we are all emotionally mature enough to realize that we should not create artificial correlation with the intent to take money from one person and give it to another.
Lets just appeal to the higher levels of people. Lets change our hearts instead of changing our “advertising” approaches.
Vijay,
Unfortunatly I used wording in the first post that made it sound like I was making this about you.
I have no problem with you and I apologize if my post has offended you. I certainly should have been less accusing because I don’t think this is about you at all and even thought I disagree with the method you have chosen to raise money I do think that your effort and results (whether correlated or not=) ) will be beneficial.
My concern is NOT with you. It is with a society that still does not see the “turd in the punchbowl” even when it’s bobbing up and down…
I really do with you the best of luck… Hell, I would sponsor you myself, but I don’t believe in that=)
Troy
Evan,
I loved your comment. I think Mises.org is the only place on earth where readers could come up with something like that. It is completely logical and still it is the last thing I would have expected to read.
Thanks.
Vijay was open and honest about using sponsorship in order to motivate him to complete the marathon. If I was sponsored to climb a 13b, that would motivate me, too.
What a load of wet blankets you are!
Sorry, I don’t get why are you bitching and moaning. Sometimes people are just jerks.
Troy,
You might be the biggest loser I have ever encountered. The entire premise of Vijay’s idea is based on voluntary exchange for mutual benefit. You have substituted a value judgment on an outcome you predict that has no basis in logic in order to discourage people from a voluntary exchange. Are you sure you’re not a liberal economics professor at Berkeley?
The responses to this posting are hilarious. The fact that it has turned into a discussion is even more hilarious. Let me present a few observations.
The essence of Vijay’s idea is this:
I want to donate $26,000 to Mises.org. I’ll put up $13,000 of my own. Can you guys chip in the other $13000? (Through small donations) As a side, I am running a marathon advertising Mises .org and the virtues of liberty.
Unfortunately, Vijay felt he had to “sell to the choir” which set off people like Troy and others. I will admit when I read the article I was somewhat turned off. Not by what Vijay is trying to do but that he had to write a whole article to explain something that I and most others understand and in the process try to “sell” me on…Vijay.
Lets look at Murphy/Krugman donation. Murphy didn’t write an article trying to sell his idea. He went and started without any Mises support. It was noted on the Mises blog (in a couple of different postings) and later Murphy wrote an article describing the mental process he took developing the idea. His idea sold itself…no preaching was necessary.
The saying goes “it’s not what you say…it’s what people hear” … people didn’t like what they heard when they read Vijay’s article. It’s that simple. Others are able to look past the bad marketing and understand the essence of Vijay’s goal.
In the end, had Vijay copied and pasted my second paragraph (or something like it) and blog posted it…there would have been less outcry and more support. The lesson here is- “don’t sell to the choir…just tell the choir.”
If you don’t want to donate then don’t donate. Everything is voluntary, so I don’t see what the big deal is. Everybody who donates, ipso-facto and praxeologically, values what they are doing with their money over something else they could be doing with that money.
Wasn’t one of Mises’ big contentions that an individual’s values are determined ipso-facto by his actions, without any other criteria? Then who are we to judge a person’s values, except by saying that we personally might not choose the same action in the same situation? Such personal feelings are fine, but I just absolutely don’t see the need for the condemnatory language.
There is no involvement by the state. Shouldn’t that be enough for you guys?
(Not the same Mike who already posted here)
Community marathon it is but for a great charitable cause. You can register the morning of the race. The views of the Pacific Ocean are the only high point outside of the HILLS HILLS HILLS and more HILLS. A little drizzle during the marathon was bearable. Mental toughness is required as you past the finish line three times before it is actually your finish. Running back through the original starting line is no fun. It felt more like a long run around some neighborhoods rather than a marathon. Water stops has minimal water and even less electrolyte drinks. They use the old school chips. Less than 1 foot after crossing the finish line, you are expected to stop suddenly so they can collect the chips. A practice long run at best.
Please feel free to visit our website:
http://runlifescourse.com/
05.14.11 – Palos Verdes (4:33:31 PR) – Community marathon it is but for a great charitable cause. You can register the morning of the race. The views of the Pacific Ocean are the only high point outside of the HILLS HILLS HILLS and more HILLS. A little drizzle during the marathon was bearable. Mental toughness is required as you past the finish line three times before it is actually your finish. Running back through the original starting line is no fun. It felt more like a long run around some neighborhoods rather than a marathon. Water stops has minimal water and even less electrolyte drinks. They use the old school chips. Less than 1 foot after crossing the finish line, you are expected to stop suddenly so they can collect the chips. A practice long run at best.
Please visit our website:
http://runlifescourse.com/
Like us on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Run-Lifes-Course/127122357347822
Comments on this entry are closed.