News Warren Buffet Gives Away His Billions

[Gokul43201]

Gravity is different from obligation, no?

 

[Skyhunter]

Gravity is different from obligation, no?

Gravity, weight, burden, obligation, duty, they are all synonyms for what I am trying to express here.

Bill Gates recognizes that because of his good fortune, brought about in part by his own efforts, as well as the efforts of others, that he is now obligated to use that wealth for something other than personal self gratification. Although he probably finds his philanthropic endeavors gratifying on many personal levels.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/MediaCenter/Speeches/BillgSpeeches/BGSpeechNGA-050226.htm

Everything Melinda and I do through our foundation is designed to advance equity. Around the world, we believe we can do the most by investing in health – especially in the poorest countries.

I couldn't find the speech I heard when he talked about the absurdity of his wealth that brought him to found the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Obviously though he feels some obligation to make a difference in the world for the better. Retiring at a relatively young age to devote himself to philanthropy is strong indicator of his beliefs.

I would not agree with imposing an obligation on the wealthy. They are in control of the wealth and should utilize it as they see fit. I believe that the duty and obligation is to themselves, not to society. Although arguably their wealth is a product of the society in which they live.

The wealthy are deluding themselves if they believe that their wealth is solely the product of their own labors.

 

[McGyver]

Philanthropy Movement to Shape Future Global Capitalism, Socialism, Responsibility

I believe the discussion that is emerging here is which "societal model" will shape globalism, policy, and economic growth in the next 50 years: Capitalism or Socialism or Socially Responsible Capitalism?

I think we can all agree that Buffet and Gates are two of the worlds most influential capitalists of the last 30 years, and that their actions are integral in shaping world business. Yet, now they separately (and jointly) are redefining years of their own efforts. Two major questions remain: Where are they going with this philanthropy, and why? My instincts see it as a redefining of their legacy, and also part ego.

To better answer this, step back and look at "who" in the West was able to bring about major political initiatives in recent years without the use of big money or government clout? Perhaps first, was Paul McCartney's former wife (can't recall her name), who as an amputee successfully brought international attention to the perils of land mines, that led to new initiatives in restricting their use in combat.

The second individual I cite in this dawn of new international human rights activists from the West was Bono of the band U2. Bono's efforts led to huge government committments and furthered Bill Gates' interest in famine and poverty in the African continent, though Gates had already been slightly involved prior to Bono.

My point is that Gates and Buffet saw how a rock star and wife of a rock star could unite major forces on behalf of the international community, and an "ego factor" entered into the equation. Money can only buy so much good will. And you can't take CASH with you to the other side (the afterlife). But make historic humanitarian changes to life on Earth - and that, most would agree, goes with you into the afterlife, and you leave behind a legacy of the likes of Mother Therasa. So - the big revellation that will be watched in international boardrooms, is how much impact can Gates and Buffet have on international business, growth, and policy? Can they successfully blend their vast finacial resources with the kind of vision and passion needed and re-shape the world?

Will Buffet and Gates be able to set aside years of capitalist perspectives to become the "Mother Theresa" figure of the 21st Century?

Their actions, successes, and failures will no doubt become key markers on societal model will shape globalism, political policy, and economic growth over the next 50 years: Capitalism, Socialism, or a new Socially Responsible version of Capitalism.

To gain more insight into this new corporate responsibility movement, visit the website on Corporate Social Responsibility www.csrwire.com[/URL]. Warren Buffet's company, Berkshire Hathaway, purchased CSR Wire earlier this year - which foretold his most recent efforts.

Stephen Dolle, Founder
Dolle Communications
Yes - I Live w/ Brain Shunt Too

 

[loseyourname]

My understanding of Buffett is that he had always planned on giving away whatever portion of his fortune he did not personally spend. He simply had a dispute with his wife over when to give the money away. She wanted him to do it while he was still alive, whereas he wanted to do it upon his death, bequeathing his fortune to charity, figuring he could use the money while alive to make more money, meaning he would have more to give. When his wife died, he became convinced that she was correct after all, and the money would be worth more now than it would be at his death.

 

[Astronuc]

Paul McCartney's estranged wife = Heather Mills.

It is my belief that when one acquires wealth, that one also acquires duty.

I agree with this view. It's a matter of Stewardship.

 

[McGyver]

Paul McCartney's estranged wife = Heather Mills.

Thank you, Astronuc.
I agree with this view. It's a matter of Stewardship.

Stewardship ... I'm not so sure. That infers some sense of duty, and I see nothing which suggests they feel any sense of duty. Gates and Buffet are entrepreneurs, free to do with their foundations and charitable contributions as they please. Some in the U.S. use foundations as a means to an end, to greater wealth and popularity. They can serve as harbingers of wealth, but I don't see that in Gates or Buffet, though in the former it could be the "challenge" to do what no one has done before.

 

[russ_watters]

Gravity, weight, burden, obligation, duty, they are all synonyms for what I am trying to express here.

How about just power?

Though I personally do subscribe to the good Samaritan theory of ethics (those who can, should), in my experience it isn't all that common, and I'd be careful ascribing it to others. I would be curious as to whether or not they do, though. It often just is 'I can and I feel like it', though.

Plus, I've found that even if people do subscribe to in a limited sense, they don't necessarily necessarily take it very far. Ie, most people will hold a door for someone, but how many will help change a tire or give a jump?

 

[Skyhunter]

It is not always about ego or power, remember Charles Feeney?

http://www.time.com/time/special/moy/grove/runnerfeeney.html

Feeney's unmasking was the first of 1997's philanthropic dramas, as a roaring bull market induced conspicuous giving from Ted Turner, George Soros and Bill Gates. And yet the richest 1% of Americans still give only 2% of their annual gross income to charity. It made Feeney's silent work seem all the more admirable. In an age of aggrandizement, Feeney showed that humble hearts still beat. In many ways, that is a revelation even more gratifying than the sums he has given away.

Feeney gave away 99.9% of his wealth anonymously.

 

[Zlex]

On the other side of this matter, I heard a comment that Buffet gives his money to charities, including the Gates Foundation, but this means that 'rich' people decide how the money should be invested. Well, I don't agree with that position, because charities hire managers and management teams, just like any other business. Ostensibly, the management team utilizes research to determine an effective manner in which to provide money philanthropically.
Just a thought.

OK, I'll volunteer to set up the crash dummy, but then I'm leaping out of the way.

This rich guy has usurped a slice of the right of The People's Representatives to best serve The People by just handing that responsibility over to the ilk of Bill Gates. Bill Gates!

There's a big slice missing from "The Pie" today...and it's likely going to end up in Africa or wherever these upstart private emperors of need consider it is needed most.

Perhaps to bring back Zimbabwe from the edge of "Senile Hero of The People Hell?" (See Frontline a few weeks ago?)

But that's not the point. The point is, The American People will have no say in where their money is going. (They gave that money to Buffet, after all, so they should have some say in where their money is going.)

Better that Barbra, Hillary, Diane, Charlie, Teddy and Dennis be the emperors of need, and redirect the best use of Other Peoples Money

Imagine the balls of these private emperors of need, passing such obvious judgment on the cluster **** in DC like this.

As if the government taking his money when he dies is anything but buzzards flying over a dead carcass.

 

[Astronuc]

As if the government taking his money when he dies is anything but buzzards flying over a dead carcass.

Do I detect a hint of cynicism in this statement?

 

[Gokul43201]

And I thought the entire post was meant to be sarcastic! Now I'm confused.

We really do need them sarcasm tags.

 

[McGyver]

And I thought the entire post was meant to be sarcastic! Now I'm confused.

We really do need them sarcasm tags.

True, there is sarcasm in much of what we write here. But like in Shakespear's writings, the best stuff is often in what's NOT said, rather infered to one's open imagination!