3 ms·

I am very suspicious of people who say they enter Wall Street to save the world. That said, I also believe most charity events are very economically inefficien

I am very suspicious of people who say they enter Wall Street to save the world. That said, I also believe most charity events are very economically inefficient. Rather than get a dozen musicians together for a discounted concert at a small concert hall, wouldn't it be more efficient to ask them all to donate one days worth of sales from performing at arenas? Rather than get a hundred bankers together for a $250/head dinner, wouldn't it be more efficient to ask them to donate what they'd make in 2 hours? (Although the dinner does have social purposes) You can like Warren Buffett or hate him, but the best thing he can do for society is earn money and then efficiently give it away to solve big problems. That would be much better than him working full time for the peace corps, or a non-profit.

scott_s 13y ago
I believe that what you are suggesting is what the first subject of the article is doing.
- mathattack 13y ago
  Exactly. But I'm still leery of when people join Wall Street for altruistic reasons. :-)
dragontamer 13y ago
On the other hand, only Bill Gates has had the vision to lead his charity into wiping out polio from the planet. (only 3 countries left, and only because terrorists keep shooting at volunteers before they can administer cures IIRC). Sure, money helps charities. But a brilliant leader, like what Gates has been to the Gates Foundation, is a force multiplier to that money.
- mathattack 13y ago
  I'm on the fence with him. Here's why... Answer 2 questions: 1) Could somebody else have figured out how to apply that level of thinking on these topics, and been able to convince other to donate? 2) Could he have made another ten or twenty billion by staying at Microsoft? If the answers are "Yes" and "Yes" then he should have stayed at Microsoft. The answers might be "No" and "No" in which case you are spot on. My dogma says the former, but I think you're right. I'll accept him as the exception that proves the rule. :-)
- lasonrisa 13y ago
  The Rotary have been a driving force behind the eradication of polio a lot longer than the B&G Foundation.

scott_s 13y ago

I believe that what you are suggesting is what the first subject of the article is doing.

mathattack 13y ago
Exactly. But I'm still leery of when people join Wall Street for altruistic reasons. :-)

dragontamer 13y ago

On the other hand, only Bill Gates has had the vision to lead his charity into wiping out polio from the planet. (only 3 countries left, and only because terrorists keep shooting at volunteers before they can administer cures IIRC). Sure, money helps charities. But a brilliant leader, like what Gates has been to the Gates Foundation, is a force multiplier to that money.

mathattack 13y ago
I'm on the fence with him. Here's why... Answer 2 questions: 1) Could somebody else have figured out how to apply that level of thinking on these topics, and been able to convince other to donate? 2) Could he have made another ten or twenty billion by staying at Microsoft? If the answers are "Yes" and "Yes" then he should have stayed at Microsoft. The answers might be "No" and "No" in which case you are spot on. My dogma says the former, but I think you're right. I'll accept him as the exception that proves the rule. :-)
lasonrisa 13y ago
The Rotary have been a driving force behind the eradication of polio a lot longer than the B&G Foundation.