i totally agree with you. i think your assessment of both the system and the largely global factors which keep it afloat. and it really wasn’t my intention to criticize durant for actually giving money to a good cause. giving is better than not giving. similarly, i would never argue that someone volunteering their time is doing a disservice when really we should be paying more people better salaries to offer a social good. that’s mean spirited.

at the same time, though, i do feel that we have misplaced priorities, and that (too be overly simplistic) we could have less defense spending and more money directed towards social welfare. i understand that defense is intrinsically tied to the global system that allows for billionaires (and governments, really) to exist, so i won’t tackle that here. it’s really more that that i’m disconcerted by, and not durant’s generous donation.

The concentration of wealth into the hands of a small number of billionaire capitalists is what enables the massive replacement of government aid with NGOs. It both allows ‘philanthropists’ to look good, while replacing any need for the government to raise taxes or otherwise threaten business profits.

Now, it’s extremely hard to change this. The government gets paid off by business interests on a scale that is basically impossible for anyone else to match. And for a ton of other reasons has every cause to keep structures in place to support business/capitalism.

Even in a socialist utopia, certain workers would end up commanding really high salaries. In a global world, it’s inevitable–people want to watch Kevin Durant, not the best small forward from their town. There a lot of people like this, people who (mostly) aren’t part of ownership structures, but still make a ton of money—actors, musicians, sports player, and so on.

So when these people run charities or give money to foundations, I see it as an effort on their part to make up for the government’s shortcomings, and to give back. The difference here is that, given their druthers, I think most of these individuals would be OK with a greater government role in aid. It might mean less revenue for them directly or down the road, but I think a higher percentage support it than among philanthropists.

For all of these points (and they’re valid) I would say that history and context matters. Let’s group together “primary non-center stars who must lead to win” as a group. That is, guys who didn’t immediately have a high-level side-kick to help out. As you say, it took LeBron 9 seasons to get his championship, but once he got his, everything was forgiven. It took Jordan 6 seasons. It took Dirk 11 seasons. So clearly it takes time. KD’s still got a few seasons, then, to not win before we’ll start getting anxious.

I don’t disagree that Westbrook’s value has been emphasized through his absence. I guess the counterpoint is: what if the roles were switched. If KD went down, and suddenly it became Westbrook’s team, would the Thunder be as successful? Certainly this will put the “Thunder are better without Westbrook” nonsense to rest. But the two need one another, and without a solid team, they may not get there.

Now, it took Jordan/Pippen 5 seasons to win their first. It took Kobe/Shaq 5 as well. KD and Russ just finished their 5th, and had Russ not went down, well, who knows.

Durant is surrounded by players who are significantly more talented than LeBron had in Cleveland. Think about that thoroughly mediocre ’07 Cavs team that LeBron just willed to the Finals. Durant just isn’t doing that now, and he’s still got a better team around him, even without Westbrook. He’s not carrying his team like a superstar needs to. What this series is showing us is how overvalued Durant is (though still incredibly valuable) and (maybe) how undervalued Westbrook is (and how undervalued James Harden was). If Westbrook misses the entire first round, I think Houston probably wins that series. If Durant’s teammates aren’t healthy, he just doesn’t seem to be able to get it done, as evidenced by his 2 for 13 showing in the fourth quarter/OT last night.

If Durant doesn’t win a championship this season or next, he’s going to be asked those same questions that hounded pre-2012 LeBron. And any future path to the Finals does not look easy with the emergence of the Grizzlies, the Warriors, and the Rockets. And, obviously, the T-Wolves. The Heat are always going to be standing in the way, and it sure feels like the Bulls and the Pacers are going to win at least one championship each one of these seasons, right? At least if they can keep their cores together and healthy.

It took LeBron nine seasons to win a ring. Assuming Durant doesn’t get one this season, he’ll have gone six seasons sans championship, and season 7 may be up in the air depending on Westbrook’s recovery. What are the odds that Durant never wins a ring? Probably higher than most realize.