News Warren Buffet Gives Away His Billions

[Astronuc]

Buffett to begin giving fortune away to charities

Five foundations, including Gates’, will get bulk of his $42 billion (AP)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13541144/

[size=9pt]OMAHA, Neb. - Billionaire investor Warren Buffett announced plans Sunday to give the bulk of his roughly $42 billion fortune to five foundations in annual gifts of stock starting next month.

The decision represents a stark reversal for the world’s second-richest man, who for years had said his wealth would be pledged to philanthropies after his death.

Moreover, his vast holdings of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. stock had been expected to go largely to the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, begun by his late wife. Her foundation has given millions of dollars to hospitals, universities and teachers, as well as to Planned Parenthood and other abortion rights groups.[/size]

I really admire Warren.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

That's incredible when you can give away 40 billion dollars, and still be a billionaire.

If only he would give me a million or two

 

[kant]

I see people who parade that they love a particular singer, a movie star, a besketball player, and i can t see why that is the case. These people are being pay millions of dollars to do their job. They are performers, and that is it. i think people like gate, or buffett are something to be admired, not so much because of how much they gave to charity, but because of their character from their acts of kindness. Their spirit of giving to help the less fortunate is in my opinion that mark of true nobility, and worthy to be emulated.

 

[loseyourname]

What an interesting guy. I remember reading a while back about the debate he had with his wife about giving. Apparently, she thought he should give away as money as could continuously, and he thought it best to wait until death so he could make as money as he possibly could and then give it away. I think inflation finally convinced him that giving it away now would maximize the value of the money. Someone I know that idolizes him was telling me he lives a basically middle-class existence, too, as if he spent his entire life accumulating the world's second-largest fortune for the sole purpose of being able to give it away.

This will make a hell of a movie someday.

 

[Astronuc]

I think somewhere during his career, Buffet noticed which consumer products his wife was buying, and he started investing in those companies, and then started buying those companies.

His modest lifestyle and his philanthropy are definitely to be admired.

 

[arildno]

Why does he deserve to be idolized??
What is it about Americans that make them so prone to regard rich people as superhumans?
So, he's shown himself as a decent fellow, why regard him as some godlike figure?

 

[Astronuc]

Why does he deserve to be idolized??
What is it about Americans that make them so prone to regard rich people as superhumans?
So, he's shown himself as a decent fellow, why regard him as some godlike figure?

I would not say idolized, but admired, because he lived frugally rather than excessively or ostentatiously.

Neither Buffet, nor Gates, should be considered superhuman or godlike, of course. On the other hand, there are many who aspire to have such great wealth.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why does he deserve to be idolized??
What is it about Americans that make them so prone to regard rich people as superhumans?
So, he's shown himself as a decent fellow, why regard him as some godlike figure?

Godlike? Idolized? Superhuman? You're kind of hyperbolizing and putting words in others' mouths at the same time, ain'tcha?

But if took more than half the money you currently have and gave it all to charity, you'd be admired too.

BTW, from an purely objective point-of-view (and something that, alone, makes it newsworthy), it is the largest charitable donation in history.

 

[Anttech]

Think of the tax he is saving :) hehe

Nice chap, good show, well done... Wonder if the money will actually do any good.

 

[arildno]

But if took more than half the money you currently have and gave it all to charity, you'd be admired too.

Eeh?

 

[arildno]

I would not say idolized, but admired, because he lived frugally rather than excessively or ostentatiously.

Neither Buffet, nor Gates, should be considered superhuman or godlike, of course. On the other hand, there are many who aspire to have such great wealth.

Since I don't know anything about him as a person when it comes to such morally relevant issues as how he treats his family or employees, I really can't see why it is necessary to acknowledge anything else than that he is probably a decent fellow, which I've already done.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I think somewhere during his career, Buffet noticed which consumer products his wife was buying, and he started investing in those companies, and then started buying those companies.

That's Peter Lynch.

Edit: Peter Lynch was the one who enccouraged people to buy stocks of companies that made products they liked. Buffet was the one who bought companies with the intention of running them.

 

[Gokul43201]

(just heard this on the radio) An approximate quote from Buffet : I want to leave my kids with enough money to do anything in life, but not enough for them to do nothing.

 

[russ_watters]

Since I don't know anything about him as a person when it comes to such morally relevant issues as how he treats his family or employees, I really can't see why it is necessary to acknowledge anything else than that he is probably a decent fellow, which I've already done.

By the same token, I think you are attributing a general approval of him when that is not implied by what people are saying. People (including me) admire what he is doing with his money. That's it. No one knows how he treats his family, so no one commented directly on that and ther comments shouldn't be seen as approving of it.

 

[loseyourname]

Very few heroes are held up as examples of how to behave because of the way they treat their families. Buffett is trying to make an example of himself to become a model of how the super rich should behave with respect to the societies they got rich off of. That's fine; for that, he is a great example.

 

[arildno]

By the same token, I think you are attributing a general approval of him when that is not implied by what people are saying. People (including me) admire what he is doing with his money. That's it. No one knows how he treats his family, so no one commented directly on that and ther comments shouldn't be seen as approving of it.

Well, in one post, a poster mentioned a friend that idolized him, and as for the word "admire", I have always thought that were used more to express strong approval of individual's person, whereas words like "respect", "being impressed by" are more usual to characterize how one feels about a person's talent,achievements, and so on.
I'm obviously wrong then.

 

[Smurf]

Godlike? Idolized? Superhuman? You're kind of hyperbolizing and putting words in others' mouths at the same time, ain'tcha?

But if took more than half the money you currently have and gave it all to charity, you'd be admired too.

BTW, from an purely objective point-of-view (and something that, alone, makes it newsworthy), it is the largest charitable donation in history.

Ha, if only one could say the same about me. I don't think anyone would be idolized for giving away 50 dollars.

 

[russ_watters]

You're only worth $100? Ouch.

 

[Smurf]

meh, my rent's paid. I'm happy :)

 

[loseyourname]

Well, in one post, a poster mentioned a friend that idolized him, and as for the word "admire", I have always thought that were used more to express strong approval of individual's person, whereas words like "respect", "being impressed by" are more usual to characterize how one feels about a person's talent,achievements, and so on.

I said it. The girl that idolizes him is an aspiring entrepeneur. He's not a bad guy to idolize and model oneself after if you also wish to be a super rich business leader, which is what she wants to be. She never said she wanted to model her parenting style after him.

 

[Anttech]

Why does he deserve to be idolized??
What is it about Americans that make them so prone to regard rich people as superhumans?
So, he's shown himself as a decent fellow, why regard him as some godlike figure?

I said it. The girl that idolizes him is an aspiring entrepeneur. He's not a bad guy to idolize and model oneself after if you also wish to be a super rich business leader, which is what she wants to be. She never said she wanted to model her parenting style after him.

I sort of aggree (empaphys) with arildno.

Really you don't have to take what he says personally, as an insult towards yourself's personally. You just have a different culture, where wealth is deemed asperational, and the more you parade your wealth the better. Bling Bling and all that. If take a step back and look at what "images" come from your media and are beamed across the world I hope you will be able to see where Arildno is coming from. People with Money seem to be made into demi-gods and beyond, big cars, big houses, fancy jewels.. etc etc

It is a valid question, which nobody has answered. What is it with your culture that makes people look at rich people (Hip Hop Stars, Movie Stars, CEO types) with such asperation? Is it because the drive to make a buck or Million was a large motivational factor of all people who emagrated to the US all those years ago, and even today.

 

[Astronuc]

Well for one, the media like to sensationalize the trivial and mediocre.

To say that Americans aspire to be wealthy is an unfair generalization. On the other hand, clearly some Americans do. In fact, some people in all cultures or society aspire to Power, Property and Prestige - e.g. the nobility of Europe, the Pashas and Caliphs of the middle east, various Emperors and Royalty of Asia, and so on.

I think those people who idolize the wealthy or celebrities are somewhat dissatisfied with their own lives.

 

[loseyourname]

Really you don't have to take what he says personally, as an insult towards yourself's personally. You just have a different culture, where wealth is deemed asperational, and the more you parade your wealth the better. Bling Bling and all that. If take a step back and look at what "images" come from your media and are beamed across the world I hope you will be able to see where Arildno is coming from. People with Money seem to be made into demi-gods and beyond, big cars, big houses, fancy jewels.. etc etc

It's funny you mention this, because one of the reasons she admires him is specifically because he has built up a huge business empire yet he does nothing to flaunt his wealth. I see where you're coming from, but you're directing it at the wrong girl and probably at the wrong super-rich business mogul.

She's one of those persons that swears by Dale Carnegie and Napoleon Hill and Tony Robbins. She wants to someday be a self-made success story like Charles Schwab, Colonel Sanders, Ray Kroc, or Warren Buffett. This may or may not be uniquely American, the Horatio Alger dream story, but it has nothing to do with bling-blinging. Those guys were known for their perseverance and ability to motivate people, not for living extravagantly and getting tabloid attention. There is a sizable subculture of aspiring entrepeneurs in the US that eat this stuff up like candy, modeling themselves after Zig Zigler or Carl Karcher. None of their idols are media celebrities, they're simply self-made men who embody the chief virtues of entrepreneurship: self-reliance, ingenuity, foresight, perserverance, and even luck. In the case of Buffett, add in generosity.

 

[Rach3]

Apparently quite a few fundamentalists in the US are stongly opposed to Buffett's philanthropy:

Pro-lifers against Buffett-Gates alliance

NEW YORK - Warren Buffett's new philanthropic alliance with fellow billionaire Bill Gates won widespread praise this week, but anti-abortion activists did not join in, instead assailing the two donors for their longtime support of Planned Parenthood and international birth-control programs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060629/ap_on_re_us/billionaires_abortion

With rhetoric ranging from...

"Some of the wealthiest men in the world descend like avenging angels on the populations of the developing world," wrote Population Research Institute president Steven Mosher, a frequent critic of Gates and Buffett. "They seek to decimate their numbers, to foist upon vulnerable people abortion, sterilization and contraception."

...all the way to

"The merger of Gates and Buffett may spell doom for the families of the developing world," said the Rev. Thomas Euteneuer, a Roman Catholic priest who is president of Human Life International.

Referring to Josef Mengele, the infamous Nazi death camp doctor, Euteneuer said Buffett "will be known as the Dr. Mengele of philanthropy unless he repents."

Sick, very sick.

 

[McGyver]

Charging "fees" for Good Samaritan Acts?

No doubt the most interesting debate as to Warren Buffet's generousity came amidst criticism from the "Capitalists" view on CNBC two weeks ago, and also amidst Walmart's announced plans to become eco-friendly and also to educate employees on better health.

It was CNBC's Kudlow's guest who beraded Walmart and Buffet for what he felt was both's failure to prioritize decisions according to "return on investment."

I admit I was encouraged by Gates and Buffet's respective announcements of corporate generousity, particularly in light of a 10-year trend of overly generous cororate compensation.

Having said this - I'm wondering if now's a good time to raise my fees for Good Samaritan Acts, in keeping with sound principles of capitalism?

 

[Astronuc]

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.

But it occurred to me, why didn't Buffet just distribute money to the people - the employees, who actually did the work, which generated his fortune - as opposed to giving it to a charity?

Just a thought.

 

[russ_watters]

But it occurred to me, why didn't Buffet just distribute money to the people - the employees, who actually did the work, which generated his fortune - as opposed to giving it to a charity?

Probably because the people who work for him have good jobs (because they work for him) and so they don't need the money.

It could also be the return-on-investment thing: I'm sure a janitor who is struggling to stay above the poverty line could put $10,000 to good use cutting his credit card debt or paying off his car, but how much benefit does that really provide compared to, say, spending that $10,000 on a reverse osmosis machine for a village in the Congo?

 

[Skyhunter]

It could also be the return-on-investment thing: I'm sure a janitor who is struggling to stay above the poverty line could put $10,000 to good use cutting his credit card debt or paying off his car, but how much benefit does that really provide compared to, say, spending that $10,000 on a reverse osmosis machine for a village in the Congo?

I know you are just being rhetorical here, and I agree with your point.

The Congo however needs more than reverse osmosis machines in their villages. Machines that would most likely end up in the hands of a militia.

Here is a recent article on the Congo.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4727745.stm

It is my belief that when one acquires wealth, that one also acquires duty. Nice to see Bill Gates and Warren Buffett discharging their duties. I would like to see what Bill does with his foundation.

 

[Gokul43201]

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

Not mine. And I'd be surprised to hear that Gates or Buffet shares this belief.

 

[Skyhunter]

Not mine. And I'd be surprised to hear that Gates or Buffet shares this belief.

No Noblis Oblige?

I don't know about Buffett, but Gates wouldn't surprise me. I have heard and read comments of his that lead me to believe he has contemplated the gravity of his position as the worlds richest man.

 

[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!