In the past few days, there have been two billionaires who made their successes in the corporate world who will be relinquishing their massive fortunes and be giving a huge chunk to chairty. The first was the world's richest man and founder of Microsoft Bill Gates:

Gates to Give Up Daily Role at Microsoft


This is then compounded by an announcement by the world's second richest man Warren Buffett:

Warren Buffett gives away his fortune


Questions for Debate:
1) To what do you owe the incredibly generous nature of the two richest men in the world?

2) Do you think this type of charity can change the overall stereotype of wealthy CEOs that are led only by their greed?

3) (Now I am not intending to turn this into a high charge economic theory debate, but) Do you think this show of charity proves that the capitalist system can function and not be cold to the needs of the poor and the needy?

To what do you owe the incredibly generous nature of the two richest men in the world?

There's no doubt that the charitable donations of these men will help a lot of people, and I commend them for their philanthropy. I'm in no position to state what their motives are. Philanthropic people come in many different shapes and sizes. Some give because they have a desire to help those in need. There's also a tax benefit attached to charitable donations, and of course, there are marketing and networking benefits if a company or its directors donate to charity. I would imagine that most people in the corporate world take all of these factors into account, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. This is where a large portion of the money lies, and charitable contributions should be encouraged regardless of what the motive is. My gut feeling is that most people who make the decision to donate their hard earned cash are honest in their desire to help others even if they reap a benefit from it as well.

I must say, though, that I don't hold these men in any higher esteem than I would hold someone with less wealth who donates a portion of their income to charity. Every little bit helps, and I don't imagine that these men will be sacrificing much comfort even though their donations are larger than those coming from the little guy.

Do you think this type of charity can change the overall stereotype of wealthy CEOs that are led only by their greed?

I think the stereotypes will continue to exist because there will always be people who are led by their own greed. There will also continue to be people who act philanthropically, and sometimes there will be greedy people who do unethical things while simultaneously contributing to charity. 'Tis the nature of people, I think.

Do you think this show of charity proves that the capitalist system can function and not be cold to the needs of the poor and the needy?

Individual people can choose not to be cold to the needs of the poor and needy within the capitalist system, yes. Capitalism, itself, doesn't have its own emotional capacity, so there will always be room for both greed and philanthropy for as long as there are humans participating in the system.

Yes, I suspect that the donation of $39 billion dollars to Charity by Warren Buffet will reap some rewards in terms of publicity, popularity and tax breaks, but I think it is also safe to say that the rewards he will garner will be nowhere near $39 billion dollars in value. That makes this a pretty staggering act of philanthropy worthy of great praise. The amount of good this man has just done for his fellow men beggars belief.




Sadly, I think this is the opposite, the exception that proves the rule. After all, apart from these two very rare exceptions, the only way to get rich CEOs to part with their fortunes seems to be through criminal charges. I hardly think an act of philanthropy, however amazing, negates the criminal greed of so many others...

That is not to say all CEOs are criminally greedy, of course they are not, most are average normal greedy men and women who follow the laws of the land. But its pretty obvious there are 100 Skilling's and Lay's for every Buffet.



That's an odd question. Does that imply that before Gates and Buffet donated their fortune, the evidence was that Capitalism didn't function? How does the charitable acts of two wealthy men affect in any way the nature of the system? I suppose you could say that the capitalist system did not actively try and prevent them from being charitable, but other than that this seems like an utterly irrelevant side-issue.

Let me put it another way. Does the spectacluar and remarkable actions of Stakhanov in 1935 'prove' that the Soviet Communist system can work? Or was it just an isolated act by one man which has no bearing on the nature of the system?


Frankly this is an amazing act by a remarkable man who deserves high praise. But to try and read some economic theory or rebuttal of the CEO steriotype seems a bit pointless.

How much money can one spend on personal life and luxury? It ends someplace when you have everything you could possibly desire. However, money is power, passed on through generations. There is old money that traditionally has been used to hold power as we have seen in the great political dynasties in the US.. ie: Kennedy's, Bush's, Roosevelts, and the behind the scenes the Rothchilds and Rockefellers etc. who only saw to make themselves richer at others expense.
Then there is some new money as power, the Super rich like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. There is also Hollywood and television which have made some like Angelina Jolie and Oprah rich beyond their imaginations.

For some reason the nouveu riche are giving back. They have taken upon themselves much more than tax break status-remember that they are already under Bush getting millions of dollars in tax breaks, but I dont think that is the motivation. With exceptional wealth they are contributing to economic and educational endeavors both local and worldwide.

Perhaps its evolution, a realization that we are truly all connected to survival on the planet.
In the past statistics were that per capita and per income level the poor gave more to charity than the rich.
That was a harder thing for those who had little. Although these super-rich will not sacrifice anything of their standard of living, it speaks volumes that they are not just accumulating wealth for the purpose of maintaining it.



No. CEO's in 2005 earned 262 times the pay of the average worker as reported on July 21, 2006. We dont hear about them giving up wealth but a continued screwing of employees, the public, fazing out pensions while taking billions in retirement packages. Its apples and oranges. CEO's are the wannnnabe richer and they are giving up nothing. Greed is the factor here.
Oil companies are the worst offenders.


Thankful to the do-gooders, youre kidding right? With the multitudes in the US that believe we should allow the poor to die in the streets because capitalism is 'pulling up by bootstraps', brutal and self serving to individuals, do you think a few philanthropists can save the world from desperation and poverty, when the governments continue to create more of it, especially through war?
Thankfully these people are doing the best they can, but its going to take more of us to get with the program.

1) To what do you owe the incredibly generous nature of the two richest men in the world?

Gates and Buffet have been friends for a long time. I think that in discussions they've probably had privately over the years, they decided this was the best thing to do. Gates has been talking about it (and actively contributing) for several years now, so I suspect he was the instigator.

2) Do you think this type of charity can change the overall stereotype of wealthy CEOs that are led only by their greed?

First, I don't think the stereotype was accurate to begin with....America's richest have a long history of giving back to their community. As with most things, it is usually the few bad apples that get the publicity and create the stereotypes, especially since many of those who have contributed strongly desire to do so without publicity. It is also easy to see that much of the stereotype is due to the fact that no matter how much such people do contribute, it is never enough to satisfy their critics, leading to a continuation of the stereotype even when they are making significant charitable contributions.


3) Do you think this show of charity proves that the capitalist system can function and not be cold to the needs of the poor and the needy?

Again, this is arguing against the preceived stereotype, which doesn't have much to do with reality. Personally, I think the capitalist system has always been the best for the poor and the needy, as they benefit the most from enhanced economic opportunity. Further, for those at the upper end of the economic spectrum, it creates the most wealth for them to be able to able to make contributions such as those mentioned here (anyone making any $39 billion charitable contributions from China or Russia? I don't think so.) The stereotype comes from looking at various statististics that show the spread of wealth between rich and poor, which creates a biased perception, which can (but seldom is) tempered by comparing status between economies. Would you rather be poor in the US or Somalia, for example? As has been mentioned in other threads, it is only in the US that those in poverty manage to have color TV's, etc. etc. I am sure I will be criticized for being 'cold' in even mentioning this, which just goes to prove my assertion that there is indeed a false stereotype of capitalism to begin with, IMHO.

What capitalism does NOT do, and which is what seems to create the false sterotype of 'coldness', is seek to create equal wealth distribution. I would argue that it is functioning best when wealth distribution is most unequal, as that is when it is creating the most economic overall gain. Again, neither Gates nor Buffet would have anywhere near this wealth to donate in any other system...and it is usually forgotten that Microsoft has created literally thousands of millionaires during Gates tenure there, just within its employee ranks. Countless thousands of others have achieved similar wealth through investment in Microsoft, as have thousands of others who invested in Buffet's stock. Therefore, both Gates and Buffet have contributed mightily to the welfare of thousands of others even without donating a single penny back. Oil companies were cited as being amongst the worst offenders earlier in this thread...yet how many tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people have earned good incomes as a result of these companies? Again, I think the stereotype of capitalism is false to begin with.

1) To what do you owe the incredibly generous nature of the two richest men in the world?

Gates is influenced by his wife and Buffet is a regular guy. They're both trying to unload the burden of having too much money to leave behind, as that would sicken their children and grandchildren, probably greats and great-greats too.

It's only incredibly generous from our perspective. I imagine after the first billion, the rest don't matter. It's not like he's giving up a weekly movie to give to United Way, and his progeny won't have to worry about college bills. The will have enough to do anything they want, but not enough to do nothing. That's a pretty good head start for the little nippers.

There also might be the stairway to heaven syndrome going on in Buffet, but I doubt it. Gates is still too young.

2) Do you think this type of charity can change the overall stereotype of wealthy CEOs that are led only by their greed?

Nope. I also don't think this will start a trend.

Questions for Debate:
1) To what do you owe the incredibly generous nature of the two richest men in the world?

This is nothing new. Gates and other very rich Americans have been giving billions away for decades. And Americans in general give.
The 70 percent of American households that make charitable contributions give, on average, $1,800 dollars per year, or 3.5 percent of their income. This amounts to about $180 billion dollars. When contributions from foundations, bequests and corporations are added, total charitable contributions in the United States amount to over $240 billion. (from 2005)

http://seoul.usembassy.gov/18_feb_2005.html

2) Do you think this type of charity can change the overall stereotype of wealthy CEOs that are led only by their greed?

The sterotype is certainly not universally accepted. Gates and others give more back to the world than most governments including the US and the “globalization” hated so much by the far left does the same providing millions of jobs and billions in income to the poor around the world.

3) (Now I am not intending to turn this into a high charge economic theory debate, but) Do you think this show of charity proves that the capitalist system can function and not be cold to the needs of the poor and the needy?
Yes. The system that was/is “cold” is Socialism and Communism that kept billions in abject poverty and killed 80 million since 1917.