Soros's senior moments.

 Doing first order good means helping specific people in specific ways. Second order good is getting other people to help specific people in specific ways. The danger is that trying to do second order good crowds out first order good. Indeed, agitating for second order goods can become a nuisance. It can even lead to the collapse of the social order and its replacement by something much more brutal and hypocritical.

That is what happened to Soros's philanthropy. 

In 'crisis of global capitalism', Soros writes

 I found philanthropy riddled with paradoxes and unintended consequences.

Some philanthropy- funding scientific research and using new technology to raise agricultural productivity or health outcomes for very poor people- was highly successful. Sadly, charitable foundations often get captured by crazy, virtue signaling, cliques and this certainly can have consequences unintended by the donor. That is why billionaires found ways to retain control over their foundations and politicians found it convenient to turn a blind eye to what was essentially a tax evasion scheme.

For instance, charity may turn the recipients into objects of charity.

It can create dependency. However, a well designed project has specific beneficiaries and a 'sunset clause' such that perverse incentives don't get perpetuated.  

Giving is supposed to help others, but in reality it often serves for the ego gratification of the giver.

Nothing wrong with that provided actual first order good gets done.  

What is worse, people frequently engage in philanthropy because they want to feel good, not because they want to do good.

Similarly, people eat tasty food because they enjoy eating even if that tasty food is actually bad for them. The solution is to make nutritious food tasty and to inform people that they can enjoy their meals without harming their health.  

Holding these views, I had to take a different approach. I found myself behaving not very differently from the way I behave in business.

The problem here is that Soros did not contribute to research in 'econophysics' or 'fintech'. He merely made money from ideographic knowledge. He did not suggest ways to improve mechanism design in finance.  

For instance, I subordinated the interests of the foundation personnel and of the individual applicants to the mission of the foundation.

This was foolish. You need to hire people who are good at finding specific people who can be helped such that there is a big positive externality. The mission of the foundation should change based on 'minute particulars'. As Blake says, those who focus on the 'General Good' end up creating a public nuisance- if nothing worse.  

I used to joke that ours is the only misanthropic foundation in the world.

Everybody now agrees that Soros's Foundation harmed all the causes he supposedly held dear. Soros's money created a closed eco-system for the endless recycling of stupid, paranoid, lies.  

I remember explaining at a staff meeting in Karlovi Vari, Czechoslovakia, around 1991, my views about foundations, and I am sure that those who were there will never forget it.

 Three years later, Soros was slamming the 'greedy' Czechs because they refused to help finance his Central European University which he then moved to Budapest. That didn't turn out well. It is now in Austria. How soon before it has to move again? 

Czechs are smart. They spotted Soros for a useless tosser from the get go. 

I said that foundations are hothouses of corruption and inefficiency and I would consider it a greater accomplishment to wind up a foundation that failed than to set up a new one.

Wind up your own foundation you senile narcissist! 

I also remember telling a gathering in Prague of staff members from European foundations that networking means not working.

Which is why people like doing it.  

I must confess that I have mellowed with the passage of time. There is a difference between running a hedge fund and a foundation.

It is the difference between making money and pissing it away. 

The external pressures are largely absent and it is only internal discipline that keeps a critical attitude alive. Moreover, heading a large foundation requires people skills and leadership qualities and people do not like critical remarks—they want praise and encouragement. Not many people share my predilection for identifying error and even fewer share my joy in it. To be an effective leader, one has to gratify people. I am learning the hard way what seems to come naturally to politicians and heads of corporations.

There are shitty politicians and heads of corporations who reward failure just as Soros does.  

There is another influence as well. I have to make some public appearances, and when I do I am expected to exude self-confidence.

The cunt exudes Messianism which is easy to do if you have lots of money and can buy yourself a claque.  

In reality I am consumed by self-doubt and I cherish the feeling. I would hate to lose it. There is a wide gap between my public persona and what I consider my real self, but I am aware of a reflexive connection between the two.

That's a good thing. If your real self decides to fudge your pants while giving a Press Conference your public persona may be laughed at. Still, in Soros's case, we must overlook such 'senior moments'.