I wonder why they do not start giving a way money while still alive, SO ( I would expect) they can see some of the transformative effects of their giving ?
If their money making methods are ethical then isn't this a better strategy, to leave the decisions to others rather than impose your values on them while alive? Also presumably Buffett and his cohorts are better than others at growing their money, so in the vein of the EA argument, it would be best to leave the money untouched while it is being actively managed by the donor, then hand out the windfall after they are dead.
For this argument to work, you have to stop at the donor themselves - you can't keep extending it ad infinitum to their descendants or inheritors. But in the case of the pre-committed amounts, like Gates and Buffett, that isn't the case.
Spending Buffet's staggering fortune in a manner nearing anything efficient feels like a herculean task that even the most capable would struggle with.
Objectively, his kids have not demonstrated any capability to do something of this magnitude. It's really quite disappointing to see Warren mostly backtrack on what he's always said (around nepotism and leaving staggering sums to future generations among other things).
You'd think even if this is related to Gate's Epstein connection, he would still recognized the importance of using his net worth for maximum good.
Maybe the human instinct to leave your possessions to your children is too strong for even Warren to fight.
It's really quite depressing watching the fiasco of how Mackenzie Bezos is donating her fortunes and what seems likely to come from Buffet's children. So many resources created+collected by brilliant people and then squandered by their loved ones.
Buffet loves making money, is may be the wrong guy to give it away.
Based on his article, his children seem very locally oriented rather than global visionaries.
If I was him, I would not leave this to my kids, who may never agree on much, and then there is zero impact and the pile of cash just sits there doing nothing.
The Scottish billionaire Tom Hunter (who go rich from selling shoes) hired
a team of 30 who spent a decade working of charitable giving (spending Tom's one billion pounds donation, which if I remember correctly was at least at the time the largest one in UK history).
I guess he was just buying time and goodwill from the masses with his announcements. What a disappointment. I guess the wealthy really did win the class war.
Quite possibly he did mean it at the time. However, since the announcement that it would be going to the Gates Foundation, uh, Bill Gates' reputation has had a rough time. Also, it was the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation at the time, and they (and their money and charitable endeavors) have since split, so if it was Melinda Gates' instincts and skills on charitable giving that he was counting on when he made the initial announcement, that might be a reason for pulling back.
Pulling back from that foundation, sure, but starting his own org from scratch with no experience, and puts his 3 weird kids in charge? That's ludicrous.
The ultra wealthy have (correctly) read the room in the U.S. and realized the the oligarchy has won and fully completed it's metamorphosis; there is no longer any reason to play pretend about it.
For this argument to work, you have to stop at the donor themselves - you can't keep extending it ad infinitum to their descendants or inheritors. But in the case of the pre-committed amounts, like Gates and Buffett, that isn't the case.
Objectively, his kids have not demonstrated any capability to do something of this magnitude. It's really quite disappointing to see Warren mostly backtrack on what he's always said (around nepotism and leaving staggering sums to future generations among other things).
You'd think even if this is related to Gate's Epstein connection, he would still recognized the importance of using his net worth for maximum good.
Maybe the human instinct to leave your possessions to your children is too strong for even Warren to fight.
It's really quite depressing watching the fiasco of how Mackenzie Bezos is donating her fortunes and what seems likely to come from Buffet's children. So many resources created+collected by brilliant people and then squandered by their loved ones.
Based on his article, his children seem very locally oriented rather than global visionaries.
If I was him, I would not leave this to my kids, who may never agree on much, and then there is zero impact and the pile of cash just sits there doing nothing.
The Scottish billionaire Tom Hunter (who go rich from selling shoes) hired a team of 30 who spent a decade working of charitable giving (spending Tom's one billion pounds donation, which if I remember correctly was at least at the time the largest one in UK history).
What pile of cash?
These are shares. Buffett and Munger have taken great pains to ensure that capital allocation will be done well at Berkshire after their death.
There’s no “pile of cash sitting there doing nothing”.