The motto of the United States is "In God We Trust" but perhaps, it should be P.T. Barnum's famous quoted philosophy: "There's a sucker born every minute" (which itself is grossly misattributed).
Last year, a billionaire's pledge captured media attention, and like many of you, I was very pleased to hear the idea. But while it has been presented as a sort of paradigm shift in American greed, part of me thinks they've sunk to a new low.
In short, 40 wealthy families and individuals joined Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates and billionaire investor Warren Buffett in what they called the "giving pledge," donating at least half their wealth to charity. Buffett said calls to about 75 of the nation's wealthiest individuals were placed by himself and Bill Gates. The people who agreed to the pledge came from 13 states, with most participants residing in California and in New York.
In truth, I'll believe it when I see it. I imagine Warren Buffet is probably legit with his pledge, but it seems that any family (outside of Bill Gates) could contest the donation under duress. The pledge garnered a lot of media attention, and everyone knows public image is critical component of success. Based on the media attention given this personal decision, I question how any businessman could have considered the full weight of the idea before agreement.
While the action itself is noble and praise-worthy, the publicity around it could nullify its effectiveness. Maybe I am overly cynical. Maybe I want to be pleased again when (if) it actually happens. Maybe it is the words of Matthew 6:2-4 ("Therefore, when you give alms, do not choose to sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the towns, so that they may be honored by men. Amen I say to you, the have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your almsgiving may be in secret, and your Father, who sees in secret, will repay you.").
Obviously, there's a wealth of good to be done, but I keep remembering JBL's theory that if every person in America switched places with their financial counterpart (i.e. the rich were poor, and the poor were rich) tomorrow, then everyone would be back to where they are today within 20 years.
Additionally, there is the known caveat that many of these billionaires have their own charities (often named after themselves). Donald Trump has his own charity, and when he has done cross-promotional events with WWE such as WrestleMania 23 in 2007 or appearances on Monday Night RAW, they have compensated him by donating to the charity. In fact, I read that WWE has put more money into it than Donald Trump himself, so he could leave half of his money there. Even Bill and Melinda Gates do most of their philanthropic giving through their foundation.
One question that may remain is why bother? There are couple of reasons: the value of good will from charitable giving often exceeds the good press is can net. Secondly, and far less altruistic is redemption. Mexican drug lord Carlos Slim Helu surpassed Gates and Buffett to become the wealthiest person on earth and nab the top spot on the 2010 Forbes list of the World's Billionaires. Pay attention when the media covers the news, because it is often noted that if you add the charitable giving of Gates and Buffet to their net worth, then they would still be in the top two spots.
The fact that their "giving pledge" was announced publicly shortly after the release of the Forbes list may be less of a coincidence than their pledges are legally binding.
