There are a bunch of fine reasons to be low-to-medium excited about the Giving Pledge instead of totally amped, but Dorfman's argument - that they might not spe

There are a bunch of fine reasons to be low-to-medium excited about the Giving Pledge instead of totally amped, but Dorfman's argument - that they might not spend it that well- is a pretty stupid one. First, Gates and Buffett are, in two very different ways, reinventing the rules of how to spend it: Gates by going all in and running his foundation full time, Buffett by saying "forget having my name on things" and giving it to the person he thinks can spend it best. Zuckerberg is already in this category of smarter giving with his $100mm Newark gift. And there's lots of good reasons to think that the era of the $billion ballet gift is over. Second, Dorfman runs a center that works to make philanthropy better, but for some reason, instead of being a leading voice in the best strategies for spending it effectively, he's become the leading voice in shitting all over the commitments. Smart. Not. @dcaldwell's points about the significantly higher amount of annual philanthropy that comes from individuals of average means than from the ultra wealthy is a much better reason to have tempered excitement. For my money, the most exciting part of this is the precedent that Moskovitz and Zuckerberg are setting to start this incredibly early in their lives. That means we get not only hundreds of millions and billions of dollars, but at least part of their time and attention for decades and decades.