Philanthropy revisited

I've gone back to this article I mentioned in my first blog, and have removed a single paragraph upon which to focus.

"It's hard to rubbish the idea of philanthropy, as giving $37bn away to help fight HIV/Aids and global injustice is unquestionably a good thing. But that should not stop one from having a go. Instead of concentrating on where the money is going, it might be more useful to think about where it came from. Acquiring that much money requires a single-minded devotion to capitalism. Which means that Buffet's gain has - at times - inevitably been someone else's loss; he has made his money by exploiting others for profit."

'It might be more useful to think about where it came from', he says. 'Buffet's gain has - at times - inevitably been someone else's loss.' Perhaps. Indeed in a competitive environment, where one wins, another loses, but who really amasses vast sums of money simply through making other people lose? Casinos certainly work on this premise, but all business? If I 'win' by ensuring that my customers 'lose', will they return? And ultimately, will I win, or lose?

Crace also manages to make the jump from 'at times inevitably someone's loss', to 'he made his money by exploiting others for profit'. These are somewhat different statements. Undoubtedly, there are people that make their money through exploiting others. Con men and hustlers. And indeed some 'businessmen' are con men or hustlers, or both. But are all of them?

Buffet made his money on the stock market. Not through running sweatshops or tricking old ladies out of their pensions. He even agrees that our society pays disproportionately well for being able to do what he does well. Just as it pays disproportionately well if you are able to kick a football or sing well. Beyond that he believes that since he has been paid disproportionately well for this, that society has a claim on this wealth. This view of Buffet is rather different than the one Crace has portrayed. The key is that Buffet feels society deserves access to this, 'his', wealth.

Crace says 'giving to charity is something between me and my conscience' yet, from what I have read about Buffet, he feels somewhat the same. Unlike Crace he is both able and willing to make massive donations. Not just massive in terms of the sum, but also sums that make up a huge proportion of his wealth. Could you give away 10% of your net worth? half? How about three-quarters? Now maybe, like me you simply need more than half of your worth to cover the cost of living. But if you have savings, could you give away 10%? You could, but would you actually do it?

"No one is going to give me a pat on the back for giving $37 to Sport Relief and nor would I expect it... Buffet... hands over the cash and gets pages of copy in the world's press." Indeed he did, he did something remarkable and made the news. Did he go out and ask to be splashed over the newspapers? I can't answer this, but I suspect, neither can Crace"

'Philanthropists always seem to want a quid pro quo'. Again, I would add that you always hear about the people that you hear about. You never hear about people making massive anonymous donations, for quite self explanatory reasons.

As a final thought, let's say you're in the position to give away $50,000. Would you be making a 'better', more 'genuine' and altruistic act of kindness to slip the cash through the door of a charity in an unmarked envelope, or to go in and tell them what you want to do?

The answer will always be 'go in and tell them'. A good fundraiser will be able to turn your $50,000 into $83,333. Or more, depending on just how good they are at their job, and your situation. That extra $33,000 is surely a more altruistic act.

And of course, you could always ask the charity not to tell anyone, but who knows what your act might inspire in others.