Doesn't mean they are liable because of wealth.
It does mean they are gluttonous.
And you could be viewed as a lazy sloth for not applying yourself in a way so that you can make a huge positive impact on the world a la Gates and Buffet.
What I've always found is ... once you are the change you want to see, you see it a lot more in the world. Go be that change and come back with a better, clearer view of the world and it's people.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Well, the article is a little old (from 2001). Anyways, the thing with Mexico is there are huge disparities inside the country and I believe that some areas have improved more than others. Some of the border towns are still the poorest of the country. So, it is very likely that if you disagregate the poverty rate by cities there will be differences.
Anyways, there's been an increase in Mexico's social expenditure, especially in social programs for the more vulnerable groups, and considering the trend of the poverty rate they may be paying off. Although I'll admit it's been more than a year since I last studied Mexico's data in public policy in detail so I would really need to study to give you what I'd feel would be a responsible opinion on the issue .
Caterina
It's been a bit since I've read up on these particulars myself and even then I don't get into it anywhere close to the way you must. Economics isn't my thing to say the least. I only force myself to read about these things because I care and need to know what's going on. Give me philsophy any day. Yeah, it was an old article I just didn't feel like digging. You obviously know a lot about economic policy whereas with me it's in one ear and out the other and so damn dry. I'll just have to take what you've said as a well informed opinion and read up some more. Cheers
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
It's been a bit since I've read up on these particulars myself and even then I don't get into it anywhere close to the way you must. Economics isn't my thing to say the least. I only force myself to read about these things because I care and need to know what's going on. Give me philsophy any day. Yeah, it was an old article I just didn't feel like digging. You obviously know a lot about economic policy whereas with me it's in one ear and out the other and so damn dry. I'll just have to take what you've said as a well informed opinion and read up some more. Cheers
Nevermind the date of the article, just pointing that things could have changed. Sorry, if I sounded too much like an economist, sometimes I can't help it since I am one; even though for the past 2 years I've been surrounded by sociologists in my job
Nevermind the date of the article, just pointing that things could have changed. Sorry, if I sounded too much like an economist, sometimes I can't help it since I am one; even though for the past 2 years I've been surrounded by sociologists in my job
Cheers to you too
Caterina
Oh, no need to be sorry. You were talking about the subject in depth and with knowledge to back it up. I'll have to do some required reading now. I have so much piled up that I WANT to read and then there's the list of what I NEED to read. :) I have been neglecting my political reading lately for some new interests and it shows.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
That is interesting. I can't give you the percent I give. Hell, I don't even keep a balanced check book. I've never been good with keeping track of money. I will say I live pretty simply and don't splurge too often at all. I even buy used clothes at thrift shops often, hand wash my dishes and save plenty of other ways that help me be able to give more and pay my bills. It's not cheap to live here either.
Hopefully you didn't think my point was to question your charity. I think it's wrong to question anyone's charity.
The point of the link was to demonstrate that ALL of us on here are wealthy.
I personally think that until you're living on rice and beans, sleeping only the bare minimum and spending the rest of your hours donating your money and time to help others less fortunate, then you have NO BUSINESS questioning others' giving habits.
I'm definitely no where close to that myself.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Hopefully you didn't think my point was to question your charity. I think it's wrong to question anyone's charity.
The point of the link was to demonstrate that ALL of us on here are wealthy.
I personally think that until you're living on rice and beans, sleeping only the bare minimum and spending the rest of your hours donating your money and time to help others less fortunate, then you have NO BUSINESS questioning others' giving habits.
I'm definitely no where close to that myself.
I think that's too extreme and don't share that view. I brought it up because a few have been questioning lately. Maybe I don't give enough for some of you to think I should say anything. All I know is I give when and what I can.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Hopefully you didn't think my point was to question your charity. I think it's wrong to question anyone's charity.
The point of the link was to demonstrate that ALL of us on here are wealthy.
I personally think that until you're living on rice and beans, sleeping only the bare minimum and spending the rest of your hours donating your money and time to help others less fortunate, then you have NO BUSINESS questioning others' giving habits.
I'm definitely no where close to that myself.
even if you do that you have no business questioning others giving habits. not to mention you won't have time.
The issue here is not really about expecting people to give away their wealth. The issue is the system through which this wealth distributed.
Yes, there's plenty of Mexicans living of slums still, but I don't think it like that due to NAFTA. There's plenty of bad politics involved in that; Mexico has serious corruption issues. However if you look at statistics you'll see that Mexico's poverty rate has decreased in the past decade. Population in poverty situation for 1989 was: 47.7% while for 2005 was: 35.5%. Of course it is a lot, but there's been improvement. (Source: http://www.eclac.cl/publicaciones/xml/0/27480/PSE2006_Cap1_Pobreza.pdf)
However, I'm confused 'cause NAFTA only includes Mexico, USA and canada. Perhaps, you're thinking about CAFTA, which is the trade agreement between USA and Central America, that has not entered into effect yet and I'm not sure if it will, 'cause if I'm not mistaken Bush's Fastrack powers to pass such legislation are about to expire, or have already expired, and with a Democratic Congress I don't see the Fastrack being renovated... Anyways, CAFTA is very tricky 'cause it could be either the salvation or the final shot for Central America.
another part of nafta and similar agreements is say canada has a certain environmental law, can't a us or mexican (the 3 countries are interchangeable throughout) can sue for lost profits? and now wanting to open the highway up to truckers from mexico and canada straight through?? well a toll road, but still....
have any countries come out of debt after having to deal w/ the world bank or imf?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
another part of nafta and similar agreements is say canada has a certain environmental law, can't a us or mexican (the 3 countries are interchangeable throughout) can sue for lost profits? and now wanting to open the highway up to truckers from mexico and canada straight through?? well a toll road, but still....
Hi, I'm not sure I understand your question...anyway, if you're asking me if a member of NAFTA can sue another one, the answer is I don't know, I would have to read the agreement (which I did while I was at the University, but that was in 1996). However, I might add that since NAFTA is a trade agreement (unlike say the European Union) negotiations are bilateral: each pair of countries has an agreement (USA with Canada; Mexico with USA; and Mexico with Canada). Of course there is a broad common ground for the 3 countries but I really couldn't tell about the suing part and neither about the road.
have any countries come out of debt after having to deal w/ the world bank or imf?
Yes some have, for instance Argentina and Brasil cancelled their entire debts with the IMF last year.
Just to clarify something (which I hope won't be interpreted as a defense of the Bretton Woods institutions, because I seriously consider both need major reforms). Usually when countries have to resort to either the IMF or the WB it is because any other credit possibilities have been exhausted. See, not all public debt is foreign debt, in many countries the large share of their public debt has been locally ontracted. So, while the IMF and the WB are at fault, especially the IMF for trying to dictate public policy whitout taking into account the particular traits, the context and political environment of each country (the IMF used to have a basic pack of measures to be implemented) countries have some responsabilities as well for mis-managing resources, at least that's the case for Latin America.
Anyway, sometimes countries have to contract debt to engage in major investments, the problem is when debt payments are unsustainable, which was the case of some Central America countries (i.e. Nicaragua) and African countries, which were part of the Highly Endebted Countries, but their foreign debts have been condoned. Why debt becomes unsustainable (when public debt represents a large share of a country's GDP), reasons are almost infinite, but in most cases there's usually an irresponsible government involved.
I'm not sure if I've answered properly your questions; if I haven't please let me know
If I had the money I'd love to start a free daycare here in my small town so that these families could go to work and make a better life for themselves. And also the children would be in a better place than being left alone or not cared for properly. I've had this idea for the longest time. It has nothing to do with personal gain...it has to do with wanting to give and help out where I've noticed a problem. Surely this world isn't filled with people who only do great things for personal gain.
ya know... you could make this happen. Just because you don't personally have the money doesn't mean that it can't be done.
There would be lots of begging and pounding the pavement but it doesn't seem impossible. Could you find someone to donate the space for a year? A local strip mall that is having vacancy issues? (it could be a big write-off for them) Exactly how small is your town? Is it close to a large town? Do you know anyone involved in fundraising? maybe you could talk to FoxyMop about getting Wishlist on board. I read on their website that they donated over 45,000. to NWCCFA from the profits of those pick shirts... would 45 grand cover a years expenses?
Lot's of questions but it seems like a great cause. I posted a link about how people are more willing to give when they trust the person in charge and they know exactly how their money is being used. I wonder what the costs would be for something like that...
ya know... you could make this happen. Just because you don't personally have the money doesn't mean that it can't be done.
There would be lots of begging and pounding the pavement but it doesn't seem impossible. Could you find someone to donate the space for a year? A local strip mall that is having vacancy issues? (it could be a big write-off for them) Exactly how small is your town? Is it close to a large town? Do you know anyone involved in fundraising? maybe you could talk to FoxyMop about getting Wishlist on board. I read on their website that they donated over 45,000. to NWCCFA from the profits of those pick shirts... would 45 grand cover a years expenses?
Lot's of questions but it seems like a great cause. I posted a link about how people are more willing to give when they trust the person in charge and they know exactly how their money is being used. I wonder what the costs would be for something like that...
Thanks for all the info.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
My daughter did a huge project at school on an Illinois woman named Ellen Gates Starr... her involvement with Jane Addams on something called Hull House here in Chicago back in 1889.
They did amazing things, turning nothing into something.
google it, its right up your alley.
let me know if you get something off the ground... I will send you some $.
My daughter did a huge project at school on an Illinois woman named Ellen Gates Starr... her involvement with Jane Addams on something called Hull House here in Chicago back in 1889.
They did amazing things, turning nothing into something.
google it, its right up your alley.
let me know if you get something off the ground... I will send you some $.
I wish I could and I'll keep this in mind but there's just other personal issues right now (some big ones) that would keep this from happening at the moment.
Thank you again. That was very nice of you to show so much interest.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
even if you do that you have no business questioning others giving habits. not to mention you won't have time.
The issue here is not really about expecting people to give away their wealth. The issue is the system through which this wealth distributed.
i still don't understand distributing wealth. why should i work for some layabout? like i said; when they start taking from the rich to give to the poor; i'll stop earning money; take the free cash; and go fishing.
this thread has really gotten rediculous. if someone walked up to any of your doors and demanded 10% of your income because you had more than them; how many of you would just hand over 10%?
Hi, I'm not sure I understand your question...anyway, if you're asking me if a member of NAFTA can sue another one, the answer is I don't know, I would have to read the agreement (which I did while I was at the University, but that was in 1996). However, I might add that since NAFTA is a trade agreement (unlike say the European Union) negotiations are bilateral: each pair of countries has an agreement (USA with Canada; Mexico with USA; and Mexico with Canada). Of course there is a broad common ground for the 3 countries but I really couldn't tell about the suing part and neither about the road.
Yes some have, for instance Argentina and Brasil cancelled their entire debts with the IMF last year.
Just to clarify something (which I hope won't be interpreted as a defense of the Bretton Woods institutions, because I seriously consider both need major reforms). Usually when countries have to resort to either the IMF or the WB it is because any other credit possibilities have been exhausted. See, not all public debt is foreign debt, in many countries the large share of their public debt has been locally ontracted. So, while the IMF and the WB are at fault, especially the IMF for trying to dictate public policy whitout taking into account the particular traits, the context and political environment of each country (the IMF used to have a basic pack of measures to be implemented) countries have some responsabilities as well for mis-managing resources, at least that's the case for Latin America.
Anyway, sometimes countries have to contract debt to engage in major investments, the problem is when debt payments are unsustainable, which was the case of some Central America countries (i.e. Nicaragua) and African countries, which were part of the Highly Endebted Countries, but their foreign debts have been condoned. Why debt becomes unsustainable (when public debt represents a large share of a country's GDP), reasons are almost infinite, but in most cases there's usually an irresponsible government involved.
I'm not sure if I've answered properly your questions; if I haven't please let me know
Caterina
didn't brazil refuse to pay the imf and world bank anymore b/c more than 1/2 the population lived below the poverty line and were in such bad trouble they didn't feel paying the imf and world bank would actually improve anything for brazilians and NOT paying it couldn't make it that much worse???
i'm sure brazil ha some corruption, but having more than 1/2 the population living below the poverty line doesn't seem like the imf and world bank improved much of anything.
i don't think defaulting on your payments to the imf and world bank qualifies as the world bank and imf helping the country get out of debt.
it seems like they come in and say we will give you some help but they require things like the privatization of resources and such
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
didn't brazil refuse to pay the imf and world bank anymore b/c more than 1/2 the population lived below the poverty line and were in such bad trouble they didn't feel paying the imf and world bank would actually improve anything for brazilians and NOT paying it couldn't make it that much worse???
Hi there
I'm not sure about the time period you're referring to, but last year both Brazil and Argentina cancelled their entire debt with the IMF, meaning they wired cash to an IMF account.
i'm sure brazil ha some corruption, but having more than 1/2 the population living below the poverty line doesn't seem like the imf and world bank improved much of anything.
Brazil has a LOT of corruption. I'm not trying to defend neither the IMF nor the WB; what I'm trying to point out is the fact that the specific problem with the IMF was that policy measures included in the loan packages were for the most part inadequate 'cause they failed to take into account the particular traits of each country; they recquired a huge degree of fiscal responsability and transparency in government actions, and that's something that few countries can provide in Latin America. I don't think I've ever said that the IMF has improved the social situation. I'm just trying to say that the guilt is shared 'cause politicians in Latin America -there are exceptions like Chile and Costa Rica- have failed big time in managing public funds and designing and executing good, sound social policies.
OK, I did not read the article, but I assure you that Argentina last year paid around USD 9,000 millions to the IMF, which amounted to its total debt. I'm 100% sure about this as I used to work at the deparment of the Ministry of Economics that handled the whole operation (and it was all over the news). Argentina defaulted its public debt (both domestic and foreign) but not with the IMF or the WB. The debt with the WB is relatively small and has actually been very helpful to fight poverty, given that the WB loaned the money to fund a massive cash-transfers program for the unemployed and their families (Plan Jefas y Jefes de Hogar Desocupados).
i don't think defaulting on your payments to the imf and world bank qualifies as the world bank and imf helping the country get out of debt
OK, I must add that they were not created to help countries getting out of debt. IMF was created to be a lender of last resort for countries and the WB, to fund infrastructure. So there's a lot of things to blame them for, but helping countries to get out or debt is not their duty; actually as I said before- countries has to resort to them when they've exhausted all other possibilities, which means that the debt already is large. What the IMF usually does is they lend a country money to help it cope with large debt payments...
What is the power of one when that one happens to be a John D. Rockefeller or a Bill Gates? If history is a guide, the answer is, quite a lot. I'm speaking not only about the power to reshape an industry like oil or personal computers but also about the ability to improve the world through philanthropy. Rockefeller proved that giving away money is much more than charity. It can be transformative. And if today's billionaires were to pool their resources, they could outflank the world's governments in ending poverty and pandemic disease.
A century ago, Rockefeller decided to put his vast fortune to public use, offering to endow a federal institution to fight disease, poverty and ignorance. Hotheads attacked him, claiming that he was just trying to buy a good name, and Congress demurred. So, instead, in 1913, Rockefeller set up the Rockefeller Foundation with two initial gifts totaling $100 million. No institution did more in the 20th century to further the cause of international development. It led the way in the eradication of hookworm in the U.S. South, helping pave the way for the region's economic development. It supported the Nobel-prizewinning work that created the yellow-fever vaccine. It helped Brazil eliminate a malaria-transmitting strain of mosquito. And perhaps most stunningly, it funded the Asian Green Revolution, the transformative agricultural success that enabled India and other countries to escape endless cycles of famine and poverty.
Now Bill and Melinda Gates, backed by more than $30 billion of their own funds and an additional $31 billion of Warren Buffett's, can do the same. Like the Rockefeller Foundation, the Gates Foundation rightly looks to technology for the breakthroughs that can end extreme poverty on a global basis. Its original focus has been on health technologies, but now the foundation is expanding to agriculture, water and other areas that are also critical in the fight against poverty.
Of course, Bill and Melinda Gates are not alone in contemporary transformative philanthropy. George Soros' support for brave truth tellers in Central Europe and the former Soviet Union helped catalyze the peaceful end of communism. The Google guys, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, are out to prove how information technologies can bring about major change. They have recently posted satellite imagery of Darfur, Sudan, in order to raise awareness and technical support for solutions in that violence-ravaged region. The dynamism of social entrepreneurship makes a mockery, alas, of our political leadership. The Gateses, Buffett, Soros, Page and Brin have left George W. Bush and the rest of Washington in the dust. U.S. international aid is at a pitiful 0.17% of national income (just 17¢ per $100), with much of that squandered as failed "reconstruction aid" in Iraq.
According to Forbes magazine, there are some 950 billionaires in the world, with an estimated combined wealth of $3.5 trillion. Even after all the yachts, mansions and luxury living that money can buy have been funded many times over, these billionaires will still have nearly $3.5 trillion to change the world. Suppose they pooled their wealth, as Buffett has done with Bill and Melinda Gates. By standard principles of foundation management, a $3.5 trillion endowment would have a 5% payout of about $175 billion a year, an amount sufficient to extend basic health care to all in the poorest world; end massive pandemics of AIDS, TB and malaria; jump-start an African Green Revolution; end the digital divide; and address the crying need for safe drinking water for 1 billion people. In short, this billionaires' foundation would be enough to end extreme poverty itself. All in all, it's not a bad gig for men and women who have transcended the daily economic struggle faced by the rest of humanity. They might also take note of the admonition of America's first megaphilanthropist, Andrew Carnegie, who wrote in 1889 that "the day is not far distant when the man who dies leaving behind him millions of available wealth, which was free for him to administer during life, will pass away unwept, unhonored, and unsung." Fortunately, plenty of new heroes seem ready for a different legacy.
i still don't understand distributing wealth. why should i work for some layabout? like i said; when they start taking from the rich to give to the poor; i'll stop earning money; take the free cash; and go fishing.
this thread has really gotten rediculous. if someone walked up to any of your doors and demanded 10% of your income because you had more than them; how many of you would just hand over 10%?
I wouldn't. But if a homeless person came to my house and asked for my help, I'd let him in, let him clean up, give him some of my clothes and cook him a meal and let him sleep in the guest room. And I'd do a lot more.
Wouldn't you? edit: Nevermind, I just read you said you were selfish and greedy, so I guess you wouldn't help him.
I wouldn't. But if a homeless person came to my house and asked for my help, I'd let him in, let him clean up, give him some of my clothes and cook him a meal and let him sleep in the guest room. And I'd do a lot more
Right, and that's exactly why we should leave this up to private initiative.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Right, and that's exactly why we should leave this up to private initiative.
I don't think they should be forced to give their money away. I just think they're greedy and selfish scum. I know some you will criticise me for my opinion, so be it.
I don't think they should be forced to give their money away. I just think they're greedy and selfish scum. I know some you will criticise me for my opinion, so be it.
i actually did something similar for years. every saturday night my cousin and i would find a few deserving people and buy them dinner. they ranged from hookers to the homeless. but in the mid 80's the people changed. they now tried to steal from us. they acted like we owed them everything we gave plus more. then i had my aneurysm and i got help from NOBODY.
so yes; now i'm a selfish greedy bastard until a person proves themself to me. if you're my friend; anything i have is yours. but until you prove loyalty; if you only have a nickel i'll find a way to take it from you.
The Secret Givers
These big-time contributors try to share their wealth while shunning the spotlight
The country's most secretive philanthropist avoided the world of private Gulfstreams and bespoke tailors, of society columns and personal attendants, in favor of flying coach and buying his clothes off the rack. It wasn't that the publicity-shy mogul wanted to hoard his stash for his children -- or that he feared losing it all and having to sell sandwiches out of a basket, the way he did when he was a scholarship kid at Cornell University.
Rather, his frugality -- the plastic bag that served as a briefcase, the drugstore reading glasses, his $15 plastic watch -- stemmed from an urgent desire to take the fortune that he sacrificed years of his life making and give it, nearly every cent, away. For nearly 15 years, this entrepreneur and silent benefactor wasn't even working for himself anymore: He had secretly transferred his share of the company that he co-founded and ran to his offshore foundation. It would become one of the biggest and most unusual philanthropic feats in history. But it came with one ironclad caveat: that no one should ever know his name.
To keep his identity secret, he went to obsessive lengths, incorporating his charitable foundation in Bermuda and attaching highly lawyered confidentiality agreements and cabal-like vows of secrecy to his foundation's grants. After the cashier's checks cleared, there were no black-tie galas, no self-effacing speeches.
It seemed like something out of Charles Dickens. Yet for more than a decade, New Jersey-born airport-gift-shop magnate Charles F. Feeney pulled it off, even concealing the fact of his giving from his longtime business partner. It was only when his Duty Free Shoppers was sold, in 1997, that the full extent of his largesse became clear. The shares that he had transferred 13 years earlier fetched $1.6 billion when the company was sold. Because Feeney, now 72, donated his stake in the company nearly 20 years ago, he doesn't qualify for inclusion in our ranking, although a gift of $1.6 billion today would land him at No. 4 on this year's list of the most generous philanthropists.
Chuck Feeney may be an extreme case, but he's far from alone in wanting to shield himself from the public's view. Operating alongside philanthropic superstars such as William H. Gates III and George Soros is a seldom-glimpsed group of contributors -- people who prefer to remain in the shadows rather than having their names carved in stone.
To give without a speck of recognition in a culture that worships self-celebration is seen as refreshingly, almost Biblically, altruistic. Indeed, anonymous gifts are one of the most ancient and esteemed philanthropic practices the world over. Christians, Jews, and Muslims have long considered blind donations the highest form of giving. That's because the donor gets no self-enriching ego dividend, no chance at reaping political or social favor -- and the receiver no sense of shame-ridden indebtedness. "Anonymity dissolves the power imbalances in these relationships," says Georgetown University philanthropy professor James Allen Smith. Organizations, meanwhile, don't carry the burden of having to put on thank-you galas or commissioning a bust of the donor.
This year, BusinessWeek sussed out a handful of these secret Medicis. They include such people as Tulsa oil-and-banking baron George Kaiser. At No. 22 on our list, this son of World War II refugees gave $287 million to early antipoverty programs but refuses all public accolades, including inductions into the Oklahoma and Tulsa Halls of Fame. There's also Maurice "Chico" Sabbah at No. 48, who pledged $100 million of the fortune he made in reinsurance to fund the country's first-ever non-Orthodox Jewish boarding school, the American Hebrew Academy in Greensboro, N.C. He managed to keep his philanthropy hidden until September 11 imperiled his fortune and outed his giving in the process. The terrorist attacks hit his company, Fortress Re, hard. Since then, Sabbah has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in North Carolina by a Japanese insurance company, which alleges that Sabbah and his partner deceptively siphoned off millions from the insurance pool, a claim Sabbah denies.
The Simple Life
Many of our stealth givers are united in an utter distaste for publicity and a rejection of life as an acquisition spree. Some lead lives that are a striking foil to the consumption culture that surrounds them. Sabbah lives in a modest ranch house. Kaiser, who made his fortune in energy, banking, and real estate, described himself in a rare interview with Tulsa People Magazine as "anti-materialistic" and "uncomfortable and guilty about receiving recognition." For years, he tooled around town in a company beater. When he finally bought his first new car, in 1999, he splurged on a no-frills, two-door BMW. Feeney wonders aloud about the need for more than one pair of shoes. When he's in New York, he likes to eat the $10.95 chicken pot pie at Annie Moore's tavern. "It has always been hard for me to rationalize a 32,000-square-foot house or someone driving me around in a six-door Cadillac," says Feeney in his soft New Jersey staccato. "The seats are the same in a cab. And you may live longer if you walk."
Then there are other people for whom the full extent of their giving is still unknown. Fred Eychaner, founder of media company Newsweb Corp., remains an elusive force in Chicago charity circles. But he hasn't been shy about pledging more than $73 million over the years to Chicago-area causes, including AIDS, arts institutions, and Northwestern University's Medill Innocence Project, which helps free wrongly convicted death-row inmates. He is also one of the biggest contributors to the Democratic Party. Or Univision Communications (UVW ) Inc. CEO A. Jerrold Perenchio, one of Los Angeles' most generous invisible patrons and political donors. He has given heavily to the University of California at Los Angeles, although he keeps his name off lists of benefactors and, according to Los Angeles Magazine, insists that his wide-ranging circle of famous and influential friends keep mum when queried by the press.
If anything, giving in secret is even harder than just giving. Sometimes the sheer size of the gift makes anonymity impossible. After all, it's hard to move millions of dollars around without attracting attention. "That was not an option my son had," says Bill Gates Sr., co-chair of Gates's foundation.
Anonymity may help donors to blend into their communities and shield them from a barrage of requests and pleas, but it can bring its own set of problems, says Georgetown University's Smith. Secret gifts can undermine the social bonds that rise up between the giver and recipient. Anonymous givers can't become leaders who inspire other people with their charitable behavior, and they deprive foundations of the chance to use the gift as leverage to attract other donors.
All the problems of anonymous giving eventually came to bear on Chuck Feeney. When he first transferred to his foundation his 39% stake in a small, privately held chain of airport shops in 1984, hardly anyone noticed. After all, the shares were unpriced, and the company unremarkable. It was only when Duty Free Shoppers was sold 13 years later that Feeney drew attention. He should have been America's newest billionaire, but his $1.6 billion stake belonged to Atlantic Philanthropies. After long ago bestowing modest sums on each of his five children, Feeney is now worth just $1.5 million. Meanwhile, thanks to his astute management on behalf of Atlantic, the foundation's assets have ballooned to $3.7 billion, far too much to go undetected.
Feeney gave a single interview in 1997, then clammed up and disappeared again -- disappeared until recently, that is, when he showed up on our radar thanks to a little-noticed announcement by his foundation. At a time when other charities were resisting pressure from lawmakers to dispense more than the usual 5% of their endowments annually, Atlantic made an astonishing declaration: It planned to spend itself out of business over the next 12 to 15 years, giving away $350 million annually to four causes: disadvantaged children, aging, health, and human rights.
Feeney knew the announcement would eventually bring on the media. Besides, the requirement to protect his anonymity was causing greater and greater hardship for grantees. After months of interview requests, Feeney was finally ready to talk, confirming to BusinessWeek his gifts and philanthropic endeavors. His remarkable story, as well as those of our other philanthropists, show that whether it's done quietly or as a call to arms, the tradition of giving in America still runs deep.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
i relate to that. i had a friend that had to have a new bmw every year and a new harley. 3 or 4 different boats; and wanted everyone to know he was rich. he still has to work to pay for his lifestyle. that's what it comes down to; lifestyle. success isn't getting what you want; it's wanting what you have.
By standard principles of foundation management, a $3.5 trillion endowment would have a 5% payout of about $175 billion a year, an amount sufficient to extend basic health care to all in the poorest world; end massive pandemics of AIDS, TB and malaria; jump-start an African Green Revolution; end the digital divide; and address the crying need for safe drinking water for 1 billion people. In short, this billionaires' foundation would be enough to end extreme poverty itself. All in all, it's not a bad gig for men and women who have transcended the daily economic struggle faced by the rest of humanity.
What utter crock. Does the wrieter understand that a lot of peoples money is tied up doing things like employing others? If they were to just pull out that money what would we do wth all the unemployed? My biggest investments, property, sure don't generate a 5% cash return annually. All they do is appreciate in value. It makes me look richer on paper and that's it. The majority of most peoples real, cash wealth is only derived upon selling the asset and not from any sort of annual return. Selling the assets to generate cash flow would see a quick end to this endowment fund.
There is only one long term and lasting solution, fair trade policies and education. Money hand outs nad subsidies are just band aid solutions meant to stiop the slaughter in the short term.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
What utter crock. Does the wrieter understand that a lot of peoples money is tied up doing things like employing others? If they were to just pull out that money what would we do wth all the unemployed? My biggest investments, property, sure don't generate a 5% cash return annually. All they do is appreciate in value. It makes me look richer on paper and that's it. The majority of most peoples real, cash wealth is only derived upon selling the asset and not from any sort of annual return. Selling the assets to generate cash flow would see a quick end to this endowment fund.
There is only one long term and lasting solution, fair trade policies and education. Money hand outs nad subsidies are just band aid solutions meant to stiop the slaughter in the short term.
dude; i am so impressed i'm speachless. that is spot on.
i actually did something similar for years. every saturday night my cousin and i would find a few deserving people and buy them dinner. they ranged from hookers to the homeless.
That's really cool, man.
but in the mid 80's the people changed. they now tried to steal from us. they acted like we owed them everything we gave plus more.
That's twenty years ago, give people another chance.
then i had my aneurysm and i got help from NOBODY.
So wouldn't it have been nice if someone had actually helped you? How did you feel when nobody reached out to you? And how would you have felt if someone did?
When I see a homeless person I always try to buy them something to eat or give them some money. Ever since I started doing this there have only been 2 or 3 people who asked for more after I had given them something, who were not thankful. There will always be people who want more and don't appreciate what you've done for them but in my experience there are so many more who are grateful, who light up when you help them...
so yes; now i'm a selfish greedy bastard until a person proves themself to me. if you're my friend; anything i have is yours. but until you prove loyalty; if you only have a nickel i'll find a way to take it from you.
What utter crock. Does the wrieter understand that a lot of peoples money is tied up doing things like employing others? If they were to just pull out that money what would we do wth all the unemployed? My biggest investments, property, sure don't generate a 5% cash return annually. All they do is appreciate in value. It makes me look richer on paper and that's it. The majority of most peoples real, cash wealth is only derived upon selling the asset and not from any sort of annual return. Selling the assets to generate cash flow would see a quick end to this endowment fund.
I can't say I know much about financial stuff... so I'm going to believe you on this, but you know when I look at the lifestyles of some of these super rich and then think about all the people living in poverty, starving to death... I get pissed.
Perhaps they can't banish poverty from the world. But they could make a very significant difference and they don't, only a few do.
Seriously, who needs a plane, let alone two or nine, one of which has gold plated furniture and solid gold sinks and a crystal sink too and two helicopters? And 5000 extremely expensive cars?
I can't say I know much about financial stuff... so I'm going to believe you on this, but you know when I look at the lifestyles of some of these super rich and then think about all the people living in poverty, starving to death... I get pissed.
Perhaps they can't banish poverty from the world. But they could make a very significant difference and they don't, only a few do.
Seriously, who needs a plane, let alone two or nine, one of which has gold plated furniture and solid gold sinks and a crystal sink too and two helicopters? And 5000 extremely expensive cars?
That's twenty years ago, give people another chance.
So wouldn't it have been nice if someone had actually helped you? How did you feel when nobody reached out to you? And how would you have felt if someone did?
When I see a homeless person I always try to buy them something to eat or give them some money. Ever since I started doing this there have only been 2 or 3 people who asked for more after I had given them something, who were not thankful. There will always be people who want more and don't appreciate what you've done for them but in my experience there are so many more who are grateful, who light up when you help them...
That's very sad, imo.
i know you're right and i really don't like being this way. but let me give you an example. there was a kid (22 yrs old) and i had a 2001 dodge truck. balls to the walls. it was worth $26K but i sold it to this kid for $12K at $200.00/month. no money down. he just started as a hot shot fighting forest fires and makes almost a grand a week when he's in the fires. when he's not he's a fireman in town. so it seemed like a good bet. i haven't seen a penny since march and i'm trying to hunt him down to reposess the truck.
it just doesn't pay to help people when it bites you in the bum.
Comments
What I've always found is ... once you are the change you want to see, you see it a lot more in the world. Go be that change and come back with a better, clearer view of the world and it's people.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
All lives, not just human lives.
I have changed my life in extreme ways.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
It's been a bit since I've read up on these particulars myself and even then I don't get into it anywhere close to the way you must. Economics isn't my thing to say the least. I only force myself to read about these things because I care and need to know what's going on. Give me philsophy any day.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Nevermind the date of the article, just pointing that things could have changed. Sorry, if I sounded too much like an economist, sometimes I can't help it since I am one; even though for the past 2 years I've been surrounded by sociologists in my job
Cheers to you too
Caterina
Oh, no need to be sorry. You were talking about the subject in depth and with knowledge to back it up. I'll have to do some required reading now. I have so much piled up that I WANT to read and then there's the list of what I NEED to read.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Hopefully you didn't think my point was to question your charity. I think it's wrong to question anyone's charity.
The point of the link was to demonstrate that ALL of us on here are wealthy.
I personally think that until you're living on rice and beans, sleeping only the bare minimum and spending the rest of your hours donating your money and time to help others less fortunate, then you have NO BUSINESS questioning others' giving habits.
I'm definitely no where close to that myself.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I think that's too extreme and don't share that view. I brought it up because a few have been questioning lately. Maybe I don't give enough for some of you to think I should say anything. All I know is I give when and what I can.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
even if you do that you have no business questioning others giving habits. not to mention you won't have time.
The issue here is not really about expecting people to give away their wealth. The issue is the system through which this wealth distributed.
another part of nafta and similar agreements is say canada has a certain environmental law, can't a us or mexican (the 3 countries are interchangeable throughout) can sue for lost profits? and now wanting to open the highway up to truckers from mexico and canada straight through?? well a toll road, but still....
have any countries come out of debt after having to deal w/ the world bank or imf?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Hi, I'm not sure I understand your question...anyway, if you're asking me if a member of NAFTA can sue another one, the answer is I don't know, I would have to read the agreement (which I did while I was at the University, but that was in 1996). However, I might add that since NAFTA is a trade agreement (unlike say the European Union) negotiations are bilateral: each pair of countries has an agreement (USA with Canada; Mexico with USA; and Mexico with Canada). Of course there is a broad common ground for the 3 countries but I really couldn't tell about the suing part and neither about the road.
Yes some have, for instance Argentina and Brasil cancelled their entire debts with the IMF last year.
Just to clarify something (which I hope won't be interpreted as a defense of the Bretton Woods institutions, because I seriously consider both need major reforms). Usually when countries have to resort to either the IMF or the WB it is because any other credit possibilities have been exhausted. See, not all public debt is foreign debt, in many countries the large share of their public debt has been locally ontracted. So, while the IMF and the WB are at fault, especially the IMF for trying to dictate public policy whitout taking into account the particular traits, the context and political environment of each country (the IMF used to have a basic pack of measures to be implemented) countries have some responsabilities as well for mis-managing resources, at least that's the case for Latin America.
Anyway, sometimes countries have to contract debt to engage in major investments, the problem is when debt payments are unsustainable, which was the case of some Central America countries (i.e. Nicaragua) and African countries, which were part of the Highly Endebted Countries, but their foreign debts have been condoned. Why debt becomes unsustainable (when public debt represents a large share of a country's GDP), reasons are almost infinite, but in most cases there's usually an irresponsible government involved.
I'm not sure if I've answered properly your questions; if I haven't please let me know
Caterina
ya know... you could make this happen. Just because you don't personally have the money doesn't mean that it can't be done.
There would be lots of begging and pounding the pavement but it doesn't seem impossible. Could you find someone to donate the space for a year? A local strip mall that is having vacancy issues? (it could be a big write-off for them) Exactly how small is your town? Is it close to a large town? Do you know anyone involved in fundraising? maybe you could talk to FoxyMop about getting Wishlist on board. I read on their website that they donated over 45,000. to NWCCFA from the profits of those pick shirts... would 45 grand cover a years expenses?
Lot's of questions but it seems like a great cause. I posted a link about how people are more willing to give when they trust the person in charge and they know exactly how their money is being used. I wonder what the costs would be for something like that...
Thanks for all the info.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Are you going to try?
My daughter did a huge project at school on an Illinois woman named Ellen Gates Starr... her involvement with Jane Addams on something called Hull House here in Chicago back in 1889.
They did amazing things, turning nothing into something.
google it, its right up your alley.
let me know if you get something off the ground... I will send you some $.
I wish I could and I'll keep this in mind but there's just other personal issues right now (some big ones) that would keep this from happening at the moment.
Thank you again. That was very nice of you to show so much interest.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
i still don't understand distributing wealth. why should i work for some layabout? like i said; when they start taking from the rich to give to the poor; i'll stop earning money; take the free cash; and go fishing.
this thread has really gotten rediculous. if someone walked up to any of your doors and demanded 10% of your income because you had more than them; how many of you would just hand over 10%?
didn't brazil refuse to pay the imf and world bank anymore b/c more than 1/2 the population lived below the poverty line and were in such bad trouble they didn't feel paying the imf and world bank would actually improve anything for brazilians and NOT paying it couldn't make it that much worse???
i'm sure brazil ha some corruption, but having more than 1/2 the population living below the poverty line doesn't seem like the imf and world bank improved much of anything.
here is a complaint against the world bank by ppl in brazil:
http://forests.org/archive/brazil/bankcomp.htm
has some good info in it regarding the world bank not living up to it's obligations...it is from 95 but the point still stands
something on argentina defaulting on it's world bank/imf loans:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/bwi-wto/wbank/2002/1115arg.htm
i don't think defaulting on your payments to the imf and world bank qualifies as the world bank and imf helping the country get out of debt.
it seems like they come in and say we will give you some help but they require things like the privatization of resources and such
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Hi there
I'm not sure about the time period you're referring to, but last year both Brazil and Argentina cancelled their entire debt with the IMF, meaning they wired cash to an IMF account.
Brazil has a LOT of corruption. I'm not trying to defend neither the IMF nor the WB; what I'm trying to point out is the fact that the specific problem with the IMF was that policy measures included in the loan packages were for the most part inadequate 'cause they failed to take into account the particular traits of each country; they recquired a huge degree of fiscal responsability and transparency in government actions, and that's something that few countries can provide in Latin America. I don't think I've ever said that the IMF has improved the social situation. I'm just trying to say that the guilt is shared 'cause politicians in Latin America -there are exceptions like Chile and Costa Rica- have failed big time in managing public funds and designing and executing good, sound social policies.
OK, I did not read the article, but I assure you that Argentina last year paid around USD 9,000 millions to the IMF, which amounted to its total debt. I'm 100% sure about this as I used to work at the deparment of the Ministry of Economics that handled the whole operation (and it was all over the news). Argentina defaulted its public debt (both domestic and foreign) but not with the IMF or the WB. The debt with the WB is relatively small and has actually been very helpful to fight poverty, given that the WB loaned the money to fund a massive cash-transfers program for the unemployed and their families (Plan Jefas y Jefes de Hogar Desocupados).
OK, I must add that they were not created to help countries getting out of debt. IMF was created to be a lender of last resort for countries and the WB, to fund infrastructure. So there's a lot of things to blame them for, but helping countries to get out or debt is not their duty; actually as I said before- countries has to resort to them when they've exhausted all other possibilities, which means that the debt already is large. What the IMF usually does is they lend a country money to help it cope with large debt payments...
Why We Should Share the Wealth
By Jeffrey Sachs
What is the power of one when that one happens to be a John D. Rockefeller or a Bill Gates? If history is a guide, the answer is, quite a lot. I'm speaking not only about the power to reshape an industry like oil or personal computers but also about the ability to improve the world through philanthropy. Rockefeller proved that giving away money is much more than charity. It can be transformative. And if today's billionaires were to pool their resources, they could outflank the world's governments in ending poverty and pandemic disease.
A century ago, Rockefeller decided to put his vast fortune to public use, offering to endow a federal institution to fight disease, poverty and ignorance. Hotheads attacked him, claiming that he was just trying to buy a good name, and Congress demurred. So, instead, in 1913, Rockefeller set up the Rockefeller Foundation with two initial gifts totaling $100 million. No institution did more in the 20th century to further the cause of international development. It led the way in the eradication of hookworm in the U.S. South, helping pave the way for the region's economic development. It supported the Nobel-prizewinning work that created the yellow-fever vaccine. It helped Brazil eliminate a malaria-transmitting strain of mosquito. And perhaps most stunningly, it funded the Asian Green Revolution, the transformative agricultural success that enabled India and other countries to escape endless cycles of famine and poverty.
Now Bill and Melinda Gates, backed by more than $30 billion of their own funds and an additional $31 billion of Warren Buffett's, can do the same. Like the Rockefeller Foundation, the Gates Foundation rightly looks to technology for the breakthroughs that can end extreme poverty on a global basis. Its original focus has been on health technologies, but now the foundation is expanding to agriculture, water and other areas that are also critical in the fight against poverty.
Of course, Bill and Melinda Gates are not alone in contemporary transformative philanthropy. George Soros' support for brave truth tellers in Central Europe and the former Soviet Union helped catalyze the peaceful end of communism. The Google guys, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, are out to prove how information technologies can bring about major change. They have recently posted satellite imagery of Darfur, Sudan, in order to raise awareness and technical support for solutions in that violence-ravaged region. The dynamism of social entrepreneurship makes a mockery, alas, of our political leadership. The Gateses, Buffett, Soros, Page and Brin have left George W. Bush and the rest of Washington in the dust. U.S. international aid is at a pitiful 0.17% of national income (just 17¢ per $100), with much of that squandered as failed "reconstruction aid" in Iraq.
According to Forbes magazine, there are some 950 billionaires in the world, with an estimated combined wealth of $3.5 trillion. Even after all the yachts, mansions and luxury living that money can buy have been funded many times over, these billionaires will still have nearly $3.5 trillion to change the world. Suppose they pooled their wealth, as Buffett has done with Bill and Melinda Gates. By standard principles of foundation management, a $3.5 trillion endowment would have a 5% payout of about $175 billion a year, an amount sufficient to extend basic health care to all in the poorest world; end massive pandemics of AIDS, TB and malaria; jump-start an African Green Revolution; end the digital divide; and address the crying need for safe drinking water for 1 billion people. In short, this billionaires' foundation would be enough to end extreme poverty itself. All in all, it's not a bad gig for men and women who have transcended the daily economic struggle faced by the rest of humanity. They might also take note of the admonition of America's first megaphilanthropist, Andrew Carnegie, who wrote in 1889 that "the day is not far distant when the man who dies leaving behind him millions of available wealth, which was free for him to administer during life, will pass away unwept, unhonored, and unsung." Fortunately, plenty of new heroes seem ready for a different legacy.
naděje umírá poslední
I wouldn't. But if a homeless person came to my house and asked for my help, I'd let him in, let him clean up, give him some of my clothes and cook him a meal and let him sleep in the guest room. And I'd do a lot more.
Wouldn't you? edit: Nevermind, I just read you said you were selfish and greedy, so I guess you wouldn't help him.
naděje umírá poslední
Right, and that's exactly why we should leave this up to private initiative.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I don't think they should be forced to give their money away. I just think they're greedy and selfish scum. I know some you will criticise me for my opinion, so be it.
naděje umírá poslední
i actually did something similar for years. every saturday night my cousin and i would find a few deserving people and buy them dinner. they ranged from hookers to the homeless. but in the mid 80's the people changed. they now tried to steal from us. they acted like we owed them everything we gave plus more. then i had my aneurysm and i got help from NOBODY.
so yes; now i'm a selfish greedy bastard until a person proves themself to me. if you're my friend; anything i have is yours. but until you prove loyalty; if you only have a nickel i'll find a way to take it from you.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_48/b3860610.htm
The Secret Givers
These big-time contributors try to share their wealth while shunning the spotlight
The country's most secretive philanthropist avoided the world of private Gulfstreams and bespoke tailors, of society columns and personal attendants, in favor of flying coach and buying his clothes off the rack. It wasn't that the publicity-shy mogul wanted to hoard his stash for his children -- or that he feared losing it all and having to sell sandwiches out of a basket, the way he did when he was a scholarship kid at Cornell University.
Rather, his frugality -- the plastic bag that served as a briefcase, the drugstore reading glasses, his $15 plastic watch -- stemmed from an urgent desire to take the fortune that he sacrificed years of his life making and give it, nearly every cent, away. For nearly 15 years, this entrepreneur and silent benefactor wasn't even working for himself anymore: He had secretly transferred his share of the company that he co-founded and ran to his offshore foundation. It would become one of the biggest and most unusual philanthropic feats in history. But it came with one ironclad caveat: that no one should ever know his name.
To keep his identity secret, he went to obsessive lengths, incorporating his charitable foundation in Bermuda and attaching highly lawyered confidentiality agreements and cabal-like vows of secrecy to his foundation's grants. After the cashier's checks cleared, there were no black-tie galas, no self-effacing speeches.
It seemed like something out of Charles Dickens. Yet for more than a decade, New Jersey-born airport-gift-shop magnate Charles F. Feeney pulled it off, even concealing the fact of his giving from his longtime business partner. It was only when his Duty Free Shoppers was sold, in 1997, that the full extent of his largesse became clear. The shares that he had transferred 13 years earlier fetched $1.6 billion when the company was sold. Because Feeney, now 72, donated his stake in the company nearly 20 years ago, he doesn't qualify for inclusion in our ranking, although a gift of $1.6 billion today would land him at No. 4 on this year's list of the most generous philanthropists.
Chuck Feeney may be an extreme case, but he's far from alone in wanting to shield himself from the public's view. Operating alongside philanthropic superstars such as William H. Gates III and George Soros is a seldom-glimpsed group of contributors -- people who prefer to remain in the shadows rather than having their names carved in stone.
To give without a speck of recognition in a culture that worships self-celebration is seen as refreshingly, almost Biblically, altruistic. Indeed, anonymous gifts are one of the most ancient and esteemed philanthropic practices the world over. Christians, Jews, and Muslims have long considered blind donations the highest form of giving. That's because the donor gets no self-enriching ego dividend, no chance at reaping political or social favor -- and the receiver no sense of shame-ridden indebtedness. "Anonymity dissolves the power imbalances in these relationships," says Georgetown University philanthropy professor James Allen Smith. Organizations, meanwhile, don't carry the burden of having to put on thank-you galas or commissioning a bust of the donor.
This year, BusinessWeek sussed out a handful of these secret Medicis. They include such people as Tulsa oil-and-banking baron George Kaiser. At No. 22 on our list, this son of World War II refugees gave $287 million to early antipoverty programs but refuses all public accolades, including inductions into the Oklahoma and Tulsa Halls of Fame. There's also Maurice "Chico" Sabbah at No. 48, who pledged $100 million of the fortune he made in reinsurance to fund the country's first-ever non-Orthodox Jewish boarding school, the American Hebrew Academy in Greensboro, N.C. He managed to keep his philanthropy hidden until September 11 imperiled his fortune and outed his giving in the process. The terrorist attacks hit his company, Fortress Re, hard. Since then, Sabbah has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in North Carolina by a Japanese insurance company, which alleges that Sabbah and his partner deceptively siphoned off millions from the insurance pool, a claim Sabbah denies.
The Simple Life
Many of our stealth givers are united in an utter distaste for publicity and a rejection of life as an acquisition spree. Some lead lives that are a striking foil to the consumption culture that surrounds them. Sabbah lives in a modest ranch house. Kaiser, who made his fortune in energy, banking, and real estate, described himself in a rare interview with Tulsa People Magazine as "anti-materialistic" and "uncomfortable and guilty about receiving recognition." For years, he tooled around town in a company beater. When he finally bought his first new car, in 1999, he splurged on a no-frills, two-door BMW. Feeney wonders aloud about the need for more than one pair of shoes. When he's in New York, he likes to eat the $10.95 chicken pot pie at Annie Moore's tavern. "It has always been hard for me to rationalize a 32,000-square-foot house or someone driving me around in a six-door Cadillac," says Feeney in his soft New Jersey staccato. "The seats are the same in a cab. And you may live longer if you walk."
Then there are other people for whom the full extent of their giving is still unknown. Fred Eychaner, founder of media company Newsweb Corp., remains an elusive force in Chicago charity circles. But he hasn't been shy about pledging more than $73 million over the years to Chicago-area causes, including AIDS, arts institutions, and Northwestern University's Medill Innocence Project, which helps free wrongly convicted death-row inmates. He is also one of the biggest contributors to the Democratic Party. Or Univision Communications (UVW ) Inc. CEO A. Jerrold Perenchio, one of Los Angeles' most generous invisible patrons and political donors. He has given heavily to the University of California at Los Angeles, although he keeps his name off lists of benefactors and, according to Los Angeles Magazine, insists that his wide-ranging circle of famous and influential friends keep mum when queried by the press.
If anything, giving in secret is even harder than just giving. Sometimes the sheer size of the gift makes anonymity impossible. After all, it's hard to move millions of dollars around without attracting attention. "That was not an option my son had," says Bill Gates Sr., co-chair of Gates's foundation.
Anonymity may help donors to blend into their communities and shield them from a barrage of requests and pleas, but it can bring its own set of problems, says Georgetown University's Smith. Secret gifts can undermine the social bonds that rise up between the giver and recipient. Anonymous givers can't become leaders who inspire other people with their charitable behavior, and they deprive foundations of the chance to use the gift as leverage to attract other donors.
All the problems of anonymous giving eventually came to bear on Chuck Feeney. When he first transferred to his foundation his 39% stake in a small, privately held chain of airport shops in 1984, hardly anyone noticed. After all, the shares were unpriced, and the company unremarkable. It was only when Duty Free Shoppers was sold 13 years later that Feeney drew attention. He should have been America's newest billionaire, but his $1.6 billion stake belonged to Atlantic Philanthropies. After long ago bestowing modest sums on each of his five children, Feeney is now worth just $1.5 million. Meanwhile, thanks to his astute management on behalf of Atlantic, the foundation's assets have ballooned to $3.7 billion, far too much to go undetected.
Feeney gave a single interview in 1997, then clammed up and disappeared again -- disappeared until recently, that is, when he showed up on our radar thanks to a little-noticed announcement by his foundation. At a time when other charities were resisting pressure from lawmakers to dispense more than the usual 5% of their endowments annually, Atlantic made an astonishing declaration: It planned to spend itself out of business over the next 12 to 15 years, giving away $350 million annually to four causes: disadvantaged children, aging, health, and human rights.
Feeney knew the announcement would eventually bring on the media. Besides, the requirement to protect his anonymity was causing greater and greater hardship for grantees. After months of interview requests, Feeney was finally ready to talk, confirming to BusinessWeek his gifts and philanthropic endeavors. His remarkable story, as well as those of our other philanthropists, show that whether it's done quietly or as a call to arms, the tradition of giving in America still runs deep.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
There is only one long term and lasting solution, fair trade policies and education. Money hand outs nad subsidies are just band aid solutions meant to stiop the slaughter in the short term.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
dude; i am so impressed i'm speachless. that is spot on.
That's really cool, man.
That's twenty years ago, give people another chance.
So wouldn't it have been nice if someone had actually helped you? How did you feel when nobody reached out to you? And how would you have felt if someone did?
When I see a homeless person I always try to buy them something to eat or give them some money. Ever since I started doing this there have only been 2 or 3 people who asked for more after I had given them something, who were not thankful. There will always be people who want more and don't appreciate what you've done for them but in my experience there are so many more who are grateful, who light up when you help them...
That's very sad, imo.
naděje umírá poslední
I can't say I know much about financial stuff... so I'm going to believe you on this, but you know when I look at the lifestyles of some of these super rich and then think about all the people living in poverty, starving to death... I get pissed.
Perhaps they can't banish poverty from the world. But they could make a very significant difference and they don't, only a few do.
Seriously, who needs a plane, let alone two or nine, one of which has gold plated furniture and solid gold sinks and a crystal sink too and two helicopters? And 5000 extremely expensive cars?
naděje umírá poslední
Absolutely.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
i know you're right and i really don't like being this way. but let me give you an example. there was a kid (22 yrs old) and i had a 2001 dodge truck. balls to the walls. it was worth $26K but i sold it to this kid for $12K at $200.00/month. no money down. he just started as a hot shot fighting forest fires and makes almost a grand a week when he's in the fires. when he's not he's a fireman in town. so it seemed like a good bet. i haven't seen a penny since march and i'm trying to hunt him down to reposess the truck.
it just doesn't pay to help people when it bites you in the bum.