Posted on 07/28/2013 7:44:17 AM PDT by NotYourAverageDhimmi
When billionaire Warren Buffett pledged to give away 85 per cent of his fortune in 2006, as part of a Giving Pledge where some of the country's wealthiest people would do more to help charity, he was applauded.
But, seven years on, his son Peter warns that just throwing funds at problems in society such as poverty and ill health can prevent a more permanent solution from being found.
In an opinion piece in the New York Times, the composer and chairman of the NoVo Foundation warned that a donor's desire to 'save the day' could have 'unintended consequences.
Mr Buffett said that after his father announced his decision to give away a large portion of his wealth, including donations to three foundations set up earlier for his children to run, the composer noticed a damaging cycle beginning.
He told the New York Times: 'People [including me] who had very little knowledge of a particular place would think that they could solve a local problem.'
'Whether it involved farming methods, education practices, job training or business development, over and over I would hear people discuss transplanting what worked in one setting directly into another with little regard for culture, geography or societal norms.'
An example of unintended consequences from a well-intentioned attempt to help others was when the distribution of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDs in a red-light district resulted in creating a higher price for unprotected sex.
However, Mr Buffett said 'conscience laundering' whereby the wealthy sleep better knowing they have donated large sums while the poor continue to have just enough to get by for the short term, is perpetuating the cycle of inequality.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
“a well-intentioned attempt to help others was when the distribution of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDs in a red-light district resulted in creating a higher price for unprotected sex.”
Barf. What/who you give to has a lot to do with the problem.
What perpetuates the cycle of inequality is the belief that wealth should be commonwealth, shared equally among all members regardless of effort or merit. The moral hazard is that a society with income equality encourages the lazy to be lazier and to blame others for their misfortunes and to create a sense of entitlement to the fruits of the fools who actually work.
“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” ― Benjamin Franklin
The trick is, giving money to charaties the actually perform the desired function and not just to any old charity.
Suffering is needed to learn not to do that which causes suffering. Help isn’t helping.
Learn wisdom from reading God’s law or learn the hard way. Experience!
(Like that's going to happen...)
what an ass
what fuels the poverty circus is lack of economic opportunity cause by depraved government policies that desire to enslave us all
I understand Mr. Buffet, that your idiot zillionaire father supports the current administration
It would be far better for people like Buffet to invest in industries that employ people than it would just to simply give money away.
Look no further than the welfare handouts in the US. Been going on since the 60’s and getting worse. Oh, but the libs have a clear conscience.
daug
ever read the story of the Good Samaritan?
Methinks your Bible knowledge is might sparse
Democrats do not believe in donating to charity ,you pay more taxes and the government will handle it
I agree 100% with Ben.
There will always be a need for some sort of charity, but it should not be a governmental function. It should be local and personal.
I’ll give you food if you’re starving. I won’t give you money to spend on crack or expensive sneakers. The government shouldn’t either. That’s MY MONEY you’re spending on crack and I don’t like it.
Yet its OK for liberals to want government to seize money to give to others to make liberals feel good about themselves?
While I prefer private charity over government spending, this guy makes a good point.. even if the charity is private, it can have unintended consequences.
I think that was his point.
I think that was his point.
No, the welfare state does that, kid.
Buffet ain’t got enough money to launder his conscious. I’m not talking about his capitalism but his rentseeking. He encourages bigger government so he can siphon more money.
I'm no Bible scholar so I can't give you chapter and verse but I think it's in Phillipians where it says, "If a man won't work, then he shouldn't eat."
And I believe it was Jesus His own self who said, "You will always have the poor with you."
Even my Christian brothers and sisters will occasionally cite the "I am my brother's keeper" or the "Good Samaritan" verses of The Bible.
But, in the case of the Good Samaritan, the guy spent his own money on another guy who was beaten and robbed.
He didn't run for office on the grounds that the guy who was beaten up should be taken care of for the rest of his life by his fellow citizens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.