Warren Buffett gives away his fortune

[Protostar]

My take on it is that Buffett (like Gates) realizes deep down that all this money ultimately doesn't really belong to him, and has therefore returned it to its 'natural habitat'.

No, I think it has to do with the fact that they realize they can't take this money with them, so they should do something with it before they go, and what better way to spend it then to help people without. Its better than leaving the money to a bunch of spoiled ass kids, IMO. Hopefully I'll be in the same financial position he is one day, and will probably do with same thing with the money, but probably not for the same reasons.

[Nono]

I think the way I worded it and the way you worded it basically amount to the same thing.

[brien]

Quote by: Nono My take on it is that Buffett (like Gates) realizes deep down that all this money ultimately doesn't really belong to him, and has therefore returned it to its 'natural habitat'. For me, that's on-topic.

Yes, this is a valid and legitimate way to view Buffett's charity. Let's assume they do feel this way. Expanding on this view it seems to me he clearly understands that his money will go the greatest good for society by setting up a charity of his choice rather than allowing a panel of government fucntionaries who may be influenced by corrupt politicians or influence pedlars to use it toward their own benefits while pretending to do the greatest good for the indigent.

And since he is the one who generated the fortune, it is his right to disperse it as he sees fit. Any way one views this, it is a magnanimous action that is quite difficult to criticize.

[deedee]

Very nice of W. Buffet! :)

[Nono]

Quote by: brien It seems to me he clearly understands that his money will go the greatest good for society by setting up a charity of his choice rather than allowing a panel of government fucntionaries who may be influenced by corrupt politicians or influence pedlars to use it toward their own benefits while pretending to do the greatest good for the indigent.

Ask me why I saw that one coming.

If all fatcats could be depended on to do a Buffett, I'd say OK -- forget government with all its drawbacks. Instead we'd have fatcats deciding, with all THEIR personal eccentricities ("OK, now let's see: 10 million for The Society for the Upkeep of Wayward Donkies ... "). Still, I see your point.

But even if you can count on millionaires to be best at covering the vital needs of the indigent, there are still the countless other things that public spending accomplishes: putting more money in the pocket of the non-indigent consumer, building infrastructure and engaging in other public investment, etc.

Corrupt politicians and influence pedlars (but I repeat myself) are a huge problem, no kidding. Time for the voters to shoulder their responsibility.
(Hey, did you see the article in the Boston Globe the other day calling for a public investigation of the 2004 Ohio result? That'd be a healthy start.)

[brien]

Quote by: Nono Ask me why I saw that one coming. If all fatcats could be depended on to do a Buffett, I'd say OK -- forget government with all its drawbacks. Instead we'd have fatcats deciding, with all THEIR personal eccentricities ("OK, now let's see: 10 million for The Society for the Upkeep of Wayward Donkies ... "). Still, I see your point. But even if you can count on millionaires to be best at covering the vital needs of the indigent, there are still the countless other things that public spending accomplishes: putting more money in the pocket of the non-indigent consumer, building infrastructure and engaging in other public investment, etc. Corrupt politicians and influence pedlars (but I repeat myself) are a huge problem, no kidding. Time for the voters to shoulder their responsibility. (Hey, did you see the article in the Boston Globe the other day calling for a public investigation of the 2004 Ohio result? That'd be a healthy start.)

Yep, I know you keep your eye on the ball my friend. I think you are extraplolating my view upon this as I am against all government expenditures. I am not. Infastructures and anything to do with t he public good is a wise expenditure of government money collected from taxation. The devil is in the details.

Charity begins at home, they say. The more charitable the public is with private donations, the less money that needs to be wrung out of the budgets to run government.
Perhaps private charitable contributions would vastly increase if governments provided tax credits against tax revenues owed by the taxpayer. The current deduction system only recovers a percentage of the charitable donations from the taxpayer.

Better yet, scrapping taxation on income and production, and redirecting it towards consumption, would put the government in the position to extend direct tax relief for those who would normally pay the consumption tax but could be relieved of such by government decree thus extending charity directly to the needy without large government departments.
Government departments filled with government employees all drawing salaries that directly draw down the amount of money available to the indigent. Not to mention increasing the budget of government to pay the government employees salary, health care, and retirements.

I support charitable organizations whose employees do not draw large salaries to support a bloated bureaucratic organization that pilfers expense money from the intended recipients. I find these local to my area.

Do you mean: ("OK, now let's see: 10 million for The Society for the Upkeep of Wayward Donkies ... "). "wayward Donkies", like wayward Democrats? But that would be donkeys.

I did not seee the Globe Story. But I would also like to see right along side it the history of elections in this country. A story that would specifically elaborate on the ELection of 1960 and the results as tabulated in Mayor Daily's Chicago and in Lyndon B Johnson's Texas. And of course the election of "Rutherfraud" B Hayes in 1876.

See the link:http://www.npg.si.edu/exh/hall2/ruthers.htm

And the 1960 Nixon Kennedy Election:

Link:http://www.slate.com/id/91350/

From the link:

"You gotta swallow this one," says a Republican hack in Oliver Stone's Nixon, referring to the 1960 election, in which John F. Kennedy prevailed. "They stole it fair and square."

That Richard Nixon was cheated out of the presidency in 1960 has become almost an accepted fact. You've probably heard the allegations: Kennedy's operatives fixed the tallies in Texas and Illinois, giving him those states' 51 electoral votes and a majority in the Electoral College. Fearing that to question the results would harm the country, Nixon checked his pride and declined to mount a challenge.


You see the difference here is that most seasoned politicals understand voter fraud is an accepted fact in elections and some candidates let it ride and others just can't let it go. Everyone holds their nose.

I am not saying voter fraud is right, just that it is a fact of political life. Both parties are guilty of this crap and for one side to cry foul is hypocritical in reality. Sour grapes, so to speak.

[Nono]

Going way off-topic here:

Yes, I can quote chapter and verse on the 1960 election, and have no trouble believing that JFK's rum-running/mafioso dad fixed things up just so. A travesty of electoral politics.

As someone who remembers the terror of the Cuban Missile Crisis, however, I say Thank God it happened that way. If Richard Nixon had become president, we wouldn't be sitting here debating. Evil Dick would have followed the advice of the joint chiefs of staff, the US would have invaded Cuba, Cuba would have fired the nukes they had on their territory and things would have escalated into a worldwide conflagration. Instead we were saved by the wisdom of a forty-something son-of-a-fatcat who was supposed to be merely furthering Pop's political agenda.

Politics can be mighty strange, eh? JFK was one of those rare examples of power-corrupts-in-reverse. I don't mean to idealize a guy who was blown away before the invevitable wear and tear of Realpolitik was able to tarnish him. But I really think he was something special (so was his brother): people who, once in power, grasped the awesome responsibility on their shoulders and did their best to do justice to it.

[brien]

Quote by: Nono Going way off-topic here: Yes, I can quote chapter and verse on the 1960 election, and have no trouble believing that JFK's rum-running/mafioso dad fixed things up just so. A travesty of electoral politics. As someone who remembers the terror of the Cuban Missile Crisis, however, I say Thank God it happened that way. If Richard Nixon had become president, we wouldn't be sitting here debating. Evil Dick would have followed the advice of the joint chiefs of staff, the US would have invaded Cuba, Cuba would have fired the nukes they had on their territory and things would have escalated into a worldwide conflagration. Instead we were saved by the wisdom of a forty-something son-of-a-fatcat who was supposed to be merely furthering Pop's political agenda. Politics can be mighty strange, eh? JFK was one of those rare examples of power-corrupts-in-reverse. I don't mean to idealize a guy who was blown away before the invevitable wear and tear of Realpolitik was able to tarnish him. But I really think he was something special (so was his brother): people who, once in power, grasped the awesome responsibility on their shoulders and did their best to do justice to it.

Yea, but you, more than others, probably understand what I am alluding to when I point to the election of 1960 and also of 1876. It is inherent in the realpolitik of the "American" way in elections.

It does no good to speculate on what JFK or Bobby would have accomplished, although Bobby's legacy in the Civil Rights Movement was only exceeded by his courage to take on the mob because they probably killed him.

I lived the Cuban Missle Crisis as well. Being 12 years old and having the nuns train us to hide under our desks in the event of a nuclear attack, was certainly something I will never forget. Who knows, tricky Dick, may have been tougher on Nikita. Hey Nixon gave up the election rather easily, so who knows, he may have also worked out a diplomatic resolution on the Crisis as well. We can't play armchair historical rearrangements and speculate scenarios that fit our own political pov. We just can't say what would have happened if.........

The point is, until we have real election reform in the US, we will always run the risk of unfair elections being stolen by both major parties. Nixon went quietly into the night. Lately some Dems are whining so loudly, I wonder if they want some cheese with their wine.

We have fresh elections coming up but quite frankly, I don't see much changing yet. But then again," t'ain't Feb-ray in Na Hampsha".

[Nono]

Quote by: brien Nixon gave up the election rather easily

Nixon didn't make a fuss.
And JFK proceeded to bed dozens (hundreds?) of women right there in the White House.

These two seemingly unrelated facts aren't. The presidency (political office in general) had a halo over it in those days. Decent people simply didn't talk in public about elections being stolen. If Nixon had, he would have looked like a Bad Loser. Instead, he doubtless recited the Kennedy motto to himself: Don't get mad, get even.

As you know, it's still unseemly to suggest that elections in the US are stolen. Complaints about Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 were treated by the media like a loud fart in a polite salon, i.e. ignored.

[Osborn F Enready]

I would bet more money has been given away charitably over history, than by government.

Wealth redistribution by force (taxation) doesn't work in the long run.

[Nono]

And wealth distribution by voluntary means (to gain karma points or whatever) also doesn't work (see India fercrissakes, or see the Middle Ages, or see the Great Depression, etc. etc.).

If you make the law of the jungle the law of the land -- you get a jungle.

[Osborn F Enready]

The law of the jungle, WAS the law of the land, until man came along and thought HE could do better than nature.

We still see, that no matter how hard society tries to cage man, BEYOND his individual rights, the more aggression, regression of society via revolt, rebellion, protest, and more drastic measures being resorted to by those being disenfranchised by the current "operating procedures" of national governments.

No matter what man says, does or is, the law of the jungle will STILL ALWAYS reign on earth until earth is no more.

Humans are fallible, as we are nature, as is the jungle.

Nature is harsh, so if life, suck it up and pack on soldier.

[Osborn F Enready]

Also nono, let me say this.....

Is it, or is it not somewhat NATURALLY humilliating to DEPEND on charity?

Now, asking or even receiving charity, from a WILLING DONOR is something people must do sometimes, I have too. The big part is the WILLING DONOR part. When you have a man/agent/government, standing with a gun pointed at another working man, to FORCE SOMEONE to give you a handout, isn't that MUCH MORE degrading, and also criminal by intent?

What gives YOU the right to EXPECT a handout from ANYONE? Perhaps you are counting on the "better side of man" which we have seen in our day to day lives, the charitable man? Perhaps you are thinking of those organizations that are non-profit that exist simply by man's good will to look after those less fortunate?

It is one thing to "expect" a handout based on good will. It is another thing entirely to put a gun in the hand of a government agent and say "go out and get me (x) money from joe schmo, so I can take some off the top, and distribute some to the needy who I pre-qualify according to my terms of needy", is it not?


Man overall as a whole, is GENERALLY good, and giving, especially if they are allowed to keep all they earn.

Maybe we should try that for a while, since we know government doesn't share the same disposition with funding, especially aid funding, especially if coming from ANY form of taxation?

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I would bet more money has been given away charitably over history, than by government. Wealth redistribution by force (taxation) doesn't work in the long run.

I would bet not. Since people have had more spendable income, maybe, but in the past, no.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I say: LOL. If that was $33,000,000,000.00 in GOLD, maybe. Instead, its fiat paper. That means even if you only distributed it to LEGAL AMERICANS, it would only amount to $110.00 per person. One night at the hotel room with the jacuzzi tub, champagne extra? One months car insurance? One months electric bill? When you see a house that was built in 1954 for $27,000.00, and in 2005 that same house sells for $1,400,000.00, what does that tell you about the value of your fiat dollar?

LOL. Your economic innumeracy continues to amuse. Being so dismissive of $33 billion is quite funny. Actually, it is not fiat money anyway. It is shares of stock in a company that holds ownership positions in many companies. Probably more tangible and equally as fungible as the gold you admire so much.

Then again, if you wish to give away any of the fiat money you seem so to despise, I will take it off your hands.

[RickSp]

The whole "only government can be trusted to give away other people's money for the common good" argument makes exactly as much sense as "the rabble cannot be trusted to choose their own leaders."

I love Steve Colbert's comment to the effect that, "Buffet is so rich that he hired Bill Gates to spend his money for him." That is rich.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: RickSp ...so rich that he hired Bill Graves to spend his money for him." That is rich.

Bill Graves=Bill Gates?

[RickSp]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Bill Graves=Bill Gates?

Oops. Been one of those days. I've fixed it.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp The whole "only government can be trusted to give away other people's money for the common good" argument makes exactly as much sense as "the rabble cannot be trusted to choose their own leaders." I love Steve Colbert's comment to the effect that, "Buffet is so rich that he hired Bill Gates to spend his money for him." That is rich.

This was a generous thing for Buffet to do. It makes one wonder why anyone would have a negative thing to say about it.

I agree heartily with your first paragraph. It boggles the mind how some will put such faith in the ability of government to monitor purse strings.

I believe the last time someone that untrustworthy was put in charge of the money purse, his name was Judas.

[Chris]

My favorite quote from him:

"There's no reason why future generations of little Buffets should command society just because they came from the right womb. Where is the justice in that?"

You have people like Paris Hilton who has had everything handed to her from birth. She doesn't even know the value of money or the pride in spending what you have earned.

Good on him.