Gates and Buffett and Carnegie

Peter Edman

John Miller, author of a book on the Olin Foundation, has a commentary in the Wall Street Journal of 7 July 2006 on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I am with him in agreeing that it is better that Warren Buffett give his money to the Gates Foundation rather than spend it himself on global population control. 

In “Open the FloodGates,” Miller argues that the Gates family should follow the Olin model at least, and either give the money away during their lifetime or arrange for it to be done so within a couple decades after their death. This is certainly what Andrew Carnegie would have advised, I expect, seeing what has become of his foundations.

Definitely worth a quick read. But let me also comment on a few items of interest.

I am particularly interested in his opening.

When Warren Buffett announced his philanthropic merger with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation two weeks ago, Bill Gates described one of the motives behind dispensing untold billions: “We really owe it to society to give the wealth back.”

His statement was a cliché, but a strange one. Are we to assume that he has spent his adult life “taking away"--as if he and the other parasites at Microsoft must make amends for having sucked the life out of the U.S. economy? Surely there are better reasons to embark upon the world’s biggest grant-making program than to salve the conscience of a guy who has no business feeling guilty in the first place.

I’m no Microsoft fan, but the only thing Bill Gates should feel guilty for is the horrendous security nightmares of the past few generations of his products. No one can argue that he hasn’t created good (some dubious goods included) along with creating wealth. Yet isn’t it interesting that he does feel so? It’s worth consideration why.

It does seem to me that our culture has abandoned any conception of sin. At the same time, public guilt for the successful is exacerbated by a naked but nameless notion that used to be called envy.

If Mr. Gates views his foundation as a vehicle for guilt riddance, chances are his grants will fail often and spectacularly. Yet if he views it as a way of furthering his already enormous contribution to society through nonprofit rather than for-profit means, then perhaps he will make a positive difference in the areas where he is focusing his efforts: global health and American education.

This is a profound statement. In addition to abandoning the traditional definition of the problem, we have also abandoned the traditional spiritual remedies (confession, repentance, and the like). It looks to me like a failed experiment. The guilt isn’t going away, particularly for the successful. And there are no secular practices that will help them.

You see similar things in the environmental discussions (didn’t hellfire and brimstone used to be reserved for the pulpit and revival tent?) and in the corporate corruption scandals. Consider the recent untimely death of Ken Lay: people are still looking for some “closure” or justice. But it seems to me they’re looking in the wrong place. Without some external standard to appeal to, envy and rage and guilt can never be assuaged.

Gleanings, Philanthropy, Fri 07 Jul 2006