[Previous entry: "How To Eliminate the Competition and Become More Successful."] [Next entry: "It is Risky to Use "Google" as a Verb"]

06/27/2006: "The Age of Philanthropy or Egoism or Just the Way it's Always Been?"

Fortune magazine says in it's current issue that Warren Buffett gave more money away than John D. Rockefeller or Andrew Carnegie. That is in inflation-adjusted dollars. While that is true the fact is Andrew Carnegie gave away 90% of his money in his lifetime. Buffett is giving away over 85% of his fortune.

Had Carnegie lived longer he probably would have given it all away. In my mind Carnegie was the biggest giver in that the amount is less important than the percentage of what one has. But that really is not the important issue. Five percent may not be a lot --- although when you talk millions and billions it is indeed quite a lot.

To be sure Carnegie's gifts created libraries which helped many people, myself included, to become self-educated and to learn things they would not have otherwise learned. Mark Twain and others said Carnegie was an egoist because he liked to see his name on buildings, he liked the attention he got from giving away his money.

Well, let's face it. We all like to see our own names. Even serial killers love to see their names in the paper. It makes them feel important. So let's assume that Andrew Carnegie did give to see him name on libraries among other things. What harm is there in that? And as long as we can walk into any library in the country and borrow a book that can teach us or entertain us we have much to be grateful for. If the library bears Carnegie's name, that's fine. He deserves that.

Giving Back?

People are using the term "giving back" when discussing what these people are doing. Even Bill Gates used the term about his gifts. Why? They earned the money. It was not given to them. You can only give back what was given to you. These men earned what they have. They do not owe it to anyone. They are not obligated to give it to anyone. They could leave it to their families.

They have decided that to do so would not be a good idea. Indeed, those who inherit wealth generally turn out to be worthless individuals who are unhappy and have lives no one should envy. So to leave wealth to one's children is doing them no favor. As Buffet says, "You should leave them enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing." How true.

Carnegie believed that those who were wealthy had a moral obligation to give their fortune away before they died to benefit society. In particular, this money was to be spent in a way that did not encourage laziness (charities that only dealt with symptoms and not the problem) but that created institutions that made opportunities for anyone with the right character to be successful and rich.

In The Gospel of Wealth, Carnegie outlines his ideas about what he called "the problem of our age — the proper administration of wealth." Carnegie laid down the principles of "the business of benevolence" — and introduced philanthropy as we know it today and as is being put into play by Gates and Buffett.

First, Carnegie rejected the practice of leaving vast sums of money to one's heirs. He thought children should be provided for but he also believed that giving a child a fortune would do much more harm than good.

So what Gates and Buffet are doing today is not really anything new. It may be good. And hopefully the large sum of money will indeed bring cures to terrible ills around the world just as Rockefeller money cured polio and Carnegie money brought knowledge to everyone regardless of age or color of skin or the amount of money they had.

But hopefully society will not start to think that people with wealth "owe" them their wealth. In our capitalistic society a person has a right to what he or she earns and has no obligation to support others who may simply choose not to support themselves. Let's hope that any gifts will be used to help people help themselves and to become productive citizens.

Carnegie's gifts did that perhaps more than any philanthropic gift in history. For it is in reading and learning that we can become productive and it is through being productive that we are able to give to others who truly deserve it.