In particular, the blogger highlights our argument that “Each of the past philanthropic golden ages ended with the state ratcheting up its role in society, crowding out some the philanthropists. In part, it is the recent attempt in many countries to roll back the borders of the state through privatization, deregulation, tax cutting, and attrition that has made space for the philanthrocapitalists of the fifth golden age.” Then the blogger asks “If these actions helped to create a new Golden Age, what are we to make of the recent financial bailouts, government buying stock in banks, moves to re-nationalize public service and upcoming tax increases for the wealthy? If Golden Ages are relatively short and fleeting moments in time – is the newest on its way out? And then what?”

These are important questions. This is clearly shaping up to be a generational moment for capitalism and for government, in which decisions by political and private-sector leaders over the next few months may define the nature and scale of wealth creation and the borders of the state for several decades.

What is not clear is whether the underlying trends that drove the wealth boom of the past 25 years are really going to be fundamentally changed. So far, all we know is that finance is in the midst of a period of rapid change – though nobody could possibly characterise this as an industry that has operated without a strong government role during the boom years. What is going on now is best characterised as a reform of regulation rather than the introduction of it. The acquisition of equity stakes by governments may be far less significant in terms of future wealth creation than how governments choose to regulate, and in particular, their attitude towards and (the greatest unknown of all) their ability to control leverage.

It seems a safe bet that finance will be less of a source of billionaires in the near future, though history suggests it would be wrong to conclude the same about longer-term billionaire creation. A few wealthy philanthropists will be forced to cut back or abandon their giving due to the meltdown, as they are after every financial crash. (In the book, we tell the story of Alberto Vilar, whose fortune was hit by the dotcom crash, but who was unable to contain his generosity – as one friend said, “asking Alberto for money was like offering an alcoholic a drink”.) However, provided governments decide they want to continue to have private wealth creation, they are sure to want to take steps to encourage investing in companies, from venture capital to initial public offerings, which will create plenty of opportunity to make fortunes – which, hopefully, will then be given away.

Moreover, as the Foreign Policy blogger noted, we said that governmental changes were responsible only “in part” for the wealth creation of the past 25 years. None of the other forces that gave rise to the huge fortunes of that period seem likely to disappear. Information technology, biotech, globalisation and global brands, and super-celebrity, all seem likely to continue to benefit from innovation and growth, though they will no doubt suffer from short-term recessionary pain. So, too, the phenomena of “winner-take-all” markets, where the most successful practitioners do disproportionately well.

And the new era of bigger government may not be as all-powerful as some pundits now think. Even today’s relatively low rates of tax on capital and the income of the wealthy may prove surprisingly robust, both because of governments’ need to get wealth creation going again, and because of international tax competition, which gives the wealthy the credible threat of taking their money elsewhere if the government of the country where they are based tries to take too much of it. Already, President-elect Barack Obama is taking a softer line on tax increases for the wealthy than he was during the election, and we would not be surprised if other political leaders do the same when confronted with the potential mobility of capital that they need invested in their country.

Economic downturns are inevitable. They should not be confused with fundamental shifts in the direction and nature of economic activity. It may well prove premature to call an end to the global golden age of wealth creation that has been under way for 25 years – though it has certainly suffered a setback that politicians may yet manage to deepen severely, as they did in the 1930s. Equally, therefore, it is too soon to write off our hoped-for golden age of giving.

The hot topic, of course, was the financial market meltdown and the impact on philanthropy, which was the subject of an article in the New York Times yesterday. We argued that, with a few exceptions, the rich are likely to come out of this mess better than others and that the need for their philanthropy is going to be greater than ever.

The Chronicle were also interested to get our response to critics from inside the philanthropy business who think the techniques of the philanthrocapitalists are inappropriate for the nonprofit world. We think this critique is largely based on a narrow caricature of the philanthrocapitalists but we do acknowledge that philanthrocapitalism is a disruptive force, which is no bad thing. As Joel Fleishman described in his outstanding The Foundation: A Great American Secret, philanthropy may have achieved a lot but it has also underperformed. Philanthrocapitalism could help philanthropy to live up to its potentail.

Just back from an interview with publishing guru Judith Regan on Sirius Satellite radio, going out on Wednesday 1 October throughout the day. Listen here.

Judith’s big question was whether global financial meltdown would cause philanthropy to dry up.  We argued that there are still plenty of rich people out there, some of whom will probably become richer because of the crisis, and the need for philanthropy is even more acute.  And with political controversy about the US bailout of the banking system still raging with much of the blame falling on the wealthy, now is the time for the super-rich to step up to the plate and show that they are giving back to the rest of society.

But does a bad time for capitalism spell trouble for philanthrocapitalism? Not necessarily.

Certainly, a few wealthy philanthropists have taken a nasty hit, most notably Dick Fuld, the erstwhile billionaire boss of Lehman Brothers, and Hank Greenberg, the former boss of AIG, who claims that most of his $3 billion net worth has been wiped out.

But we are betting that when the dust settles – and assuming the powers that be do not repeat the huge policy errors after the 1929 Crash that led to the Great Depression – most of today’s super rich will not be much worse off, and many of them will be considerably richer. Not for nothing is one of the most dependable laws of finance “invest when the blood is in the streets”. There is plenty of blood today, and this will represent a golden buying opportunity for those that have liquid funds and the right connections.

This will be a testing time for philanthrocapitalism for a different reason: it will be a test of whether the recent fashion for philanthropy among the superrich is for real. The temptation when times are tough is to cut down on discretionary spending; the next couple of years will reveal whether the new philanthropists regard their giving as discretionary or, as many of those featured in our book claim, fundamental to how they now live their lives.

One thing is certain: the need for their philanthropy will be greater than ever. Having spent so much saving the financial system, government budgets for meeting society’s other needs are likely to be under greater pressure than ever. And the perception that taxpayers’ money is bailing out fatcats is turning the public mood against the wealthy, even in America. Time for the superrich to dig even deeper into their pockets for humanitarian and more self-interested reasons.