The Second Age of Carnegie

[JerichoHill]

"The rich are entrusted for a season with a part of the increased wealth of the community, but administering it for the community far better than it did, or would have done, of itself."
--Andrew Carnegie

One of capitalism's more robust features is that it concentrates wealth in the hands of those who have utilized it best. This unequal distribution is decried, and for some good reasons. However, it does, at least theoretically, make sense to have the wealth of one's country in its best managers.

Recently, two of the USA's best money managers, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, joined forces. Gates retired from Microsoft to head up the Gates Foundation, the world's largest charity, a charity that contributes more money to solving the AIDS and poverty problems in Africa than the rest of the world's efforts combined. On the heels of this, Warren Buffett has donated to charity 85% of his amassed wealth, while also coming out in favor of keeping the inheritance tax. The Second Age of Carnegie is upon us. One hopes that Gates's abilities in running Microsoft translate well to his charity (one also assumes they would).

One of capitalism's greatest strengths is that those who manage best are richly rewarded. What a concept it would be then, that those who are rewarded then give back the fruits of their labors to the world community AND their labor in gratitude for their success.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/26/news/gates.php

(The following illustrates that the problems most decried about in capitalism are due to culture, not a problem of the system itself. Men like Carnegie and Rockefeller, and now Gates and Buffett, serve as examples of men whose selfish action are paired with selfless action.)

Capitalism has demonstrated that it is the best system for creating great fortunes. More capitalists should show that it is the best for getting rid of them too.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

these men are to be watched, for they are the mentors of the capitalist system. If only we could all learn to be so responsible with our money, and how to give back to a community which has so rewarded us.

Three huzzahs for Gates and Buffett!

 

[Syntherio]

I don´t think I can find the right words for this, so I just bow to these men in appreciation.

 

[Cuivienen]

Yes, if only the 99% was like the 1%, then libertarianism might work.

 

[Kozmos]

Enron........I win.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Yes, if only the 99% was like the 1%, then libertarianism might work.

Hmm, it seems to me that acts like this are not uncommon. The richest of the rich like Gates and Buffet contribute enormous amounts of money to charities. I know that many baseball players who can make millions each year are very involved in charities as well as millions of ordinary people.

 

[Cuivienen]

Hmm, it seems to me that acts like this are not uncommon. The richest of the rich like Gates and Buffet contribute enormous amounts of money to charities. I know that many baseball players who can make millions each year are very involved in charities as well as millions of ordinary people.

They are the significant minority of the extremely wealthy. They tend to be those who get a lot of press coverage - sports figures, actors, or general celebrities such as Bill Gates or JK Rowling. There are, of course, also plenty of all of the above who are not so generous, and, more importantly, there are the non-celebrity rich, virtually none of whom are involved in such programs. These include stockbrokers, CEOs and other extremely wealthy corporate-types, and those who inherit their money.

 

[Whomp]

It seems Mr. Buffett has really set the pace considering the top 50 donors had combined for $65 billion over their lifetime and he comes in and adds $35 billion plus in one shot. Wow.

From Business Week...

Experts say the ranks of the mega-givers are sure to grow, especially as the largest intergenerational wealth transfer in history looms on the horizon, with at least $41 trillion estimated to change hands by 2052 -- $6 trillion of which is projected to go to charity, according to Boston College's John J. Havens and Paul. G. Schervish. Even the most youthful on the Top 50 are participating in the acceleration and mega-gift trends. Michael and Susan Dell, 41 and 42 respectively, followed pledges of nearly $300 million in 1999 and 2001 for children's causes with one that was more than twice that size in2003. Says Cheryl Saban, 53, who with husband Haim Saban is ranked No. 46: "You get to a point where it makes you a lot happier to buy a defibrillator for a hospital than another piece of Lalique."

Already, the Top 50 donors, over the course of their lifetimes, have thrown a dizzying $65 billion at charitable causes, many of them addressing the gaping inequalities that increasingly threaten domestic society, global stability, and world peace. The spread of globalization and the post-September 11 political climate have spurred some to direct their giving overseas, a trend mirrored in the corporate sector. (Though overall, international giving by donors still stands at only 2%.) "There's more awareness now that perhaps there would be greater security in the world if more people had more access to ways to make more money," says Marlene Hess, head of global philanthropic services for JPMorgan Private Bank.

That's certainly Ted Turner's view. Despite losing more than $7 billion of his fortune in the epically botched AOL Time Warner (TWX ) deal, the onetime media mogul is continuing to make good on his $1 billion pledge to the U.N., stretching it out over 15 years instead of 10. Disturbed by the fact that 30,000 nuclear warheads are on hair-trigger alert, Turner has focused his recent philanthropy on reducing the number of nuclear weapons in existence and preventing the spread of new ones. "The problems need to be solved now, not in 20 years," says Turner. "If we do everything right in the next 50 years, we'll be living in a paradise. But if we don't we could be gone, or living in a hot, burning hell."

 

[Perfection]

Enron........I win.

How so?

Perhaps this is the exception not the rule.

 

[Mastreditr111]

It definitely is the exception... that type of occurance is extraordinarily rare, especially in what I would term a "regulated capitalism" like the US. In 19th century America and Britain, perhaps, this (or the equivalent of the day) occured more often, but there are laws in place to protect investors while leaving corporations unfettered as much as possible.

 

[JerichoHill]

And doesn't a problem stand a shot of being solved more if one concentrates solely on that problem, instead of divvying up monies to hundreds of problems

(private charity vs. government)