NPR reports today that "Forty wealthy families and individuals have joined Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates and billionaire investor Warren Buffett in a pledge to give at least half their wealth to charity." If these folks follow through, it could mean upwards of $600 billion in donations. Such efforts should be applauded in these tough economic times, right?
I must confess that I have very mixed feelings on this overall topic. While I think the general notion of giving back to the overall community is something to be lauded, it grieves me nonetheless that we have a system that allows people to amass egregious fortunes in the first place.
What is the intrinsic difference between a person whose net worth is measured in pennies versus someone else who has collected billions of dollars? When our lives come to their end, regardless of all the machinations we surround ourselves with in this life, we each walk through the same veil of mystery, naked and alone.
There's another angle to this story -- one that is not touched upon at all in the article. Targeted giving by the rich and powerful is a strategy for molding society in their own image. If one of these wealthy philanthropists decides to donate $100 million to a nonprofit organization and they later go off in a direction that the philanthropist does not favor, you can be darn sure they won't receive any of his or her largess ever again. Of course, the nonprofit understands this stratagem up front and so they will make darn sure that any direction they head is in a direction the philanthropist wants them to go!
And so, whether amassing great fortunes or donating those fortunes to others, the power dynamic is not altered. Those with the greatest wealth are afforded the greatest input as to how our society is managed. Sadly, it turns out to be nothing more than another delivery method for maintaining control.
I must confess that I have very mixed feelings on this overall topic. While I think the general notion of giving back to the overall community is something to be lauded, it grieves me nonetheless that we have a system that allows people to amass egregious fortunes in the first place.
What is the intrinsic difference between a person whose net worth is measured in pennies versus someone else who has collected billions of dollars? When our lives come to their end, regardless of all the machinations we surround ourselves with in this life, we each walk through the same veil of mystery, naked and alone.
There's another angle to this story -- one that is not touched upon at all in the article. Targeted giving by the rich and powerful is a strategy for molding society in their own image. If one of these wealthy philanthropists decides to donate $100 million to a nonprofit organization and they later go off in a direction that the philanthropist does not favor, you can be darn sure they won't receive any of his or her largess ever again. Of course, the nonprofit understands this stratagem up front and so they will make darn sure that any direction they head is in a direction the philanthropist wants them to go!
And so, whether amassing great fortunes or donating those fortunes to others, the power dynamic is not altered. Those with the greatest wealth are afforded the greatest input as to how our society is managed. Sadly, it turns out to be nothing more than another delivery method for maintaining control.
"The pledge is a moral commitment to give, not a legal contract."
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion it is all spin. Sure a few on them may feel good about themselves and give but I doubt the vast majority of those pledging will follow through.
I don't read it much differently to when nations at the G8 or similar promise aid and get all the press coverage and then don't follow through (or worse - turn the aid into loans or make it dependent on privatisation of public utilities).
The non-following through is not going to get much press coverage if any.
While I agree that, ideally, the amassing of wealth should be rendered a pointless exercise, we should recognize immediately that, in this here and now, not all people are motivated by ethical, moral, or spiritual desires. As such, corporeal constructs of comfort, wealth, and power become necessary to motivate people. While we should do what we can to teach and guide people to live ethically and correctly, in the mean time we should utilize the motivations of more worldly people to effectuate good. Yes, individuals can amass such power that they have an undue amount of control over the motion of the social beast, but this amassing of wealth ALWAYS carries with it innovation, and innovation above all else allows people to live better and more fruitful lives, not least because it gives them more options through which to do so.
ReplyDeleteRambling,
ReplyDeleteI love how you are able to write things so perfectly. Money and wealth control everything. Nothing would get done if it was not involved. We work because we need money to live. We need money to fuel our desire for possessions. If money were not involved there would be no corporations controling our government. If money were not involved we would have politicians making decisions which is really in the best interest of the people