Daniel Suchenski
February 12th 2014
Philanthropy
in America seems as commonplace as one might think to talk about “liberty” or
“freedom fries”, indeed, the very nature of American philanthropy has helped
make that the country that it is today. Oliver Zunz a professor at the
University of Virginia and author of the book Philanthropy in America
goes so far as to argue that American ‘giving allowed the country to export its
ideals abroad’ by providing an “open and sometimes controversial means to
foster independent investigation, problem solving, and the greater good.” Following the independent
investigation and problem solving attributes of philanthropist actions of the
past, Andrew Carnegie from the late 19th century and Warren Buffet
from the late 20th century will be compared and contrasted to try
and understand if there really are differences between major philanthropists.
Motivation for Giving
Carnegie:
For
Andrew Carnegie, the case for giving could be best seen in his article written
in 1889 called “The Gospel of Wealth”. Within its pages, he noted that in an
attempt to reach even greater levels of civilization, we had lost something of
our connection to the community and our proper ‘ties of brotherhood’. He further elaborates on
this by stating that those who have found themselves in wealth either by their
own brow or the grace of others have a moral and lawful obligation to use their
standing to “bind together the rich and poor in harmonious relationship.”
This,
then, is held to be the duty of the man of Wealth: First, to set an example of
modest, unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance; to provide
moderately for the legitimate wants of those dependent upon him; and after
doing so to consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust
funds, which he is called upon to administer, and strictly bound as a matter of
duty to administer in the manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to
produce the most beneficial results for the community--the man of wealth thus
becoming the mere agent and trustee for his poorer brethren, bringing to their
service his superior wisdom, experience and ability to administer, doing for
them better than they would or could do for themselves.
Outside
of the altruistic and moral argument that Carnegie makes for the betterment of
all, he also makes a self-interested and personal growth argument as part of
his article on wealth and the wealthy.
Man does not live by bread alone. I have known millionaires
starving for lack of the nutriment which alone can sustain all that is human in
man, and I know workmen, and many so-called poor men, who revel in luxuries
beyond the power of those millionaires to reach. It is the mind that makes the
body rich. There is no class so pitiably wretched as that which possesses money
and nothing else. Money can only be the useful drudge of things immeasurably
higher than itself. Exalted beyond this, as it sometimes is, it remains Caliban
still and still plays the beast. My aspirations take a higher flight. Mine be
it to have contributed to the enlightenment and the joys of the mind, to the
things of the spirit, to all that tends to bring into the lives of the toilers
of Pittsburgh sweetness and light. I hold this the noblest possible use of
wealth.
Buffet:
In the
creation of his Giving Pledge, Buffet cites the reason for having pledge, and
by proxy, why one should donate as thus:
We hope
that a group coming forward to be explicit about their intentions for giving
the majority of their wealth away will help:
o
Inspire
conversations, discussions, and action, not just about how much but also for
what purposes / to what end and
o
Bring
together those committed to this kind of giving to exchange knowledge on how to
do this in the best possible way.
We live in an exciting time for philanthropy where innovative approaches
and advances in technology have redefined what’s possible. Grassroots movements
are proving every day how a single individual, regardless of wealth, can make a
lasting impact on the lives of others.
When asked why he would
not leave his wealth to his children Buffet asserts that he wants to leave them
“just enough so that they would feel that they could do anything, but
not so much that they feel like doing nothing.” In
his philanthropic pledge that corresponds with the Giving Pledge, buffet noted
that having lived with the trappings of wealth he has little need for money
moving forward. However, this
“pledge does not leave me contributing the most precious asset, which is time. Many people, including -- I'm proud to say -- my
three children, give extensively of their own time and talents to help others.
Gifts of this kind often prove far more valuable than money. A struggling
child, befriended and nurtured by a caring mentor, receives a gift whose value
far exceeds what can be bestowed by a check. My sister, Doris, extends
significant person-to-person help daily. I've done little of this.” For Buffet, this
philanthropy is his giving back in the way that makes sense with his
bottom-line successes. “What I can do, however, is to take a pile of Berkshire
Hathaway stock certificates -- "claim checks" that when converted to
cash can command far-ranging resources -- and commit them to benefit others
who, through the luck of the draw, have received the short straws in life.”
Political Leanings and its Influence
Carnegie:
From a political perspective, Carnegie seemed as conflicted
as many of the early settlers of America from Europe. Carnegie seemed
emboldened and elated by the prospect of the new world and all its
opportunities. According to PBS, he was determined to “bring prosperity to his
family” and
ultimately himself, but this desire was tempered by the ‘radical’ political
views of his family. A belief in political egalitarianism was a mantra
inherited from his family. “Andrew's father, his grandfather Tom Morrison and
his uncle Tom Jr. were all Scottish radicals who fought to do away with
inherited privilege and to bring about the rights of common workers.
Troubled by the internal conflict of success and the shame from that success,
Carnegie sought refuge in his philanthropic endeavors as penance for his
sometimes greed, and self-aggrandizing ways. More specifically, Carnegie’s
political views which grew out of an “economic and political philosophy that
owed a lot to English classical liberalism and social theorists such as Herbert
Spencer” were instrumental in his
approached outlined in Carnegie’s public writings and ultimately on his
philanthropic tendencies.
Buffet:
According
to Tom Kershaw, Buffet has been a lifelong Democrat and as part of this a
champion of many social causes that he and his family find important. An Obama
supporter, Buffet has pledged that most of his wealth would “go to the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation. Also, Buffett has given–and pledged to give more–to
women’s reproductive health causes, proving that he’s a liberal and supporting
the pro-choice initiative.” In support of his family
and an oft cited Democratic social agenda, Buffet has made large donations to
his children’s foundations as well as the foundation in honor of his late wife.
Remaining funds went to four Buffett family foundations.
About 1.75 million shares worth slightly more than $200 million will go to the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation,
which was established in honor of Buffett's late wife. The foundation offers
college scholarships and runs an annual award to recognize 15 outstanding
public school teachers.
The other three foundations are all run by Buffett's
children and will each receive 1.22 million shares, worth about $140 million.
The Sherwood Foundation, run by
Buffett's daughter, Susan Alice Buffett, promotes equality and social justice
initiatives in the state of Nebraska. The NoVo
Foundation, run by Peter Buffett, aims to empower adolescent girls, end
violence against women, and promote local economies. The Howard G. Buffett Foundation focuses
on food and water security and conflict resolution in impoverished and
marginalized communities.
Family Influences: Interests, Causes, or Family Style
of Giving
Carnegie:
Andrew’s
father William Carnegie was born poor and remained poor throughout his life as
he and his family were lifelong hand loom weaver workers. William took it upon
himself to become educated and “as far as his meagre resources would permit,
saw to it that his children received an education as well.” Seeing his father pull
himself up by his boot straps and put a high value on education were influences
in his later philanthropic achievements. Despite the Carnegie family living a
modest, simple life, or perhaps because of it, the family had a politically
radical side to them. Andrew’s father was known
for being a militant political activist, and was “involved with those organizing
demonstrations against the "Corn laws". He was also a
"Chartist".”
It was not just Andrew’s dad that was involved in worker rights and liberalism,
his maternal grandfather Thomas Morrison was “one of the most persistent
campaigners for liberal reforms in Scotland” and, like William Carnegie, was
also self-educated.
Thomas Morrison wrote frequently to the press
and pamphlets arguing for the abolition of the Rotten Boroughs, reform within
the House of Commons, as well as “laws governing safety at work - that
eventually came about in the Factory Acts. Most radically of all however he
wanted the abolition of all forms of hereditary privilege, including all
monarchies.” While these political
movements were near and dear to the Carnegies poverty was always an
overbearing distraction and a subject of pressing and constrained thought. Disheartened
by his failure at being able to provide for his family, Andrew’s father and
mother put great pressure on Andrew to succeed them and helped lead to Andrew’s
“sense of determination to recoup their family's losses.” These egalitarian
political views from his family coupled with a profound passion for education
and the position it brings seem to have had a direct correlation to his later
philanthropic efforts in education and peace.
Buffet:
Having
clearly been influenced by his first wife and his children’s causes for charity
and social equality, Buffet does not come from a strong philanthropic
background. Instead his focus seems to have always been on making money and
specifically in his investments. His success let his family members and those close
to him spend their time in philanthropic and socially minded campaigns for
which Buffet himself seems to be a steadfast supporter. His personal
philanthropic efforts seem to come more from his profound love of family
themselves rather than an institutionalized approach to philanthropy or
specific passions of his own.
Connection between the Sources of Money and the Moneys
Recipients
Carnegie:
While
a frequent contributor to periodicals on labor
issues in the later years of his life, Carnegie did not directly return his
fortune to those that helped create his wealth. In keeping with his philosophy
of philanthropy that is not alms giving, he was chiefly concerned with one’s
own ability to do more for themselves and not rely on handouts for sustenance
be it physical or other. Starting in 1901 when he sold his companies to JP
Morgan and began his new career as a global philanthropist, he set out to build
institutions across the world that would allow the average man an opportunity
to reach higher and accomplish more without the subjugation of charity alone.
Starting in his hometown of Dunfermline, Scotland Carnegie began building
libraries. Public libraries that were homes to the literately curious, the
ambitiously hungry and the intellectually unsatisfied. By the time of his
death, Carnegie had erected more than 1600 libraries in the US alone and
“funded some 3,000 libraries, located in every U.S. state except Alaska,
Delaware and Rhode Island, as well as Britain, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, the West Indies and Fiji.”
Buffet:
Unlike
Carnegie, Buffet made his money in white-collar businesses where the people
working for him were well taken care of both financially and physically. This
is in contrast in some ways to Carnegie who’s operations were in a blue collar
operation that was not always equitable in terms of pay and advancement. Not
feeling the need to give back to people that were already well-established in
their lives as a by-product of working for Warren Buffet, and taking into
account that Buffet, the son of a US representative in congress was born in
better conditions than Carnegie it seems that Buffets major philanthropic
investment comes in the form of relative ‘need’ of the peoples of the world and
the challenges that his loved ones have identified as important causes that
they want to champion.
While not
directly a report on Buffet, a survey of the Giving Pledge donors revealed that
the “top industry of the Giving Pledge signers is
banking and finance: 29 percent of the givers made their money in banking or
finance. Tech and software came in second, with 24 percent, followed by
industrial manufacturing (13 percent) and retail (10 percent) and
entertainment/media (9 percent).”
As seemed consistent with
Buffets donation history the report also noted that “when it comes to favorite philanthropic
causes, health ranked first, followed by education, human services, and arts
and culture. Smith said these patterns mirror broader philanthropic giving in
America.”
Other Reasons why Donors Selected a Cause: why –
family, friends, exposure to issue, etc.
Carnegie:
Many
of the organizations that Carnegie founded with his money were the first of
their kind. Many of the influences for starting these organizations may simply
lie in being attuned to the issues of the day and the concerns and continued
harmony of the community that he seemed so intent on promoting and having
endure. Some of the reasons for his donations came from current affairs and
things that seemed to be affecting the nation at the time. For example, in
response to a cola mine disaster in Pennsylvania where two men went back into
the mine to rescue others and were themselves trapped and killed. To commemorate
and promote heroism and community affiliation, Carnegie established the Hero
Fund Commission. In the Deed of Trust for the commission, Carnegie writes, “the action taken in the recent Harwick Mine
accident, where Heroes Taylor and Lyle lost their lives, is an illustration.
The community first raised a fund of forty thousand dollars, which was
duplicated by me after waiting until the generosity of the community had full
scope.” While clearly a
by-product of a current vent and not specifically premeditated, this new
commission was in keeping with the aspects of Carnegie philosophy that he
wanted to instill in his philanthropic endeavors. Carnegie goes on to write to
the commission that why he waited on the community to respond to the coal
accident first before stepping in. “Here again the Commission should be
exceedingly careful, as in this case, not to deaden, but to stimulate employers
or communities to do their part, for such action benefits givers themselves as
well as recipients.” Since its
inception in 1904 the Commission has awarded “more than $20 million to such
“heroes of peace”” and it has grown to be a global phenomenon with similar
funds in many countries around the world.
Buffet:
In 2006 Buffet made clear
that his wealth should be donated at least 90% by the time of his death. Where,
at “the latest, the proceeds from all of my Berkshire shares will be
expended for philanthropic purposes by 10 years after my estate is settled.” Buffet is specific that
“nothing will go to endowments; I want the money spent on current needs.”
Upbringing and Personal Experience: How
to Improve the World around Them
Carnegie:
It
should be noted that in addition to his donation efforts, it seems clear that
Carnegie viewed his philanthropic efforts as equally if not less important than
his efforts in wealth creation. In his now famous article entitled the Gospel of Wealth, Carnegie asserts that
wealth and its non-universality is ultimately for the prosperity of all.
It is well, nay, essential for
the progress of the race, that the houses of some should be homes for all that
is highest and best in literature and the arts, and for all the refinements of
civilization, rather than that none should be so. Much better this great
irregularity than universal squalor. Without wealth there can be no Mæcenas.
The "good old times” were not good old times. Neither master nor servant
was as well situated then as to-day. A relapse to old conditions would be
disastrous to both--not the least so to him who serves--and would Sweep away
civilization with it. But whether the change be for good or ill, it is upon us,
beyond our power to alter, and therefore to be accepted and made the best of.
It is a waste of time to criticize the inevitable.
It
would seem that as part of his upbringing/experiences in life that the charity
as well as its creation, were ultimately viewed as in the better interests of
the community. If this is true that Carnegie was a philanthropist to society
long before 1901 and indeed the “American dream” in many regards would be as
commendable and as heartfelt as the time and energies he spent on distributing
his wealth in his later years. As an extension of this Carnegie believed that similar
to his own upbringing, the trappings of wealth were not those that should be
passed on. Indeed this was an essential journey that each must make on their
own as part of a community.
We are met here with the
difficulty of determining what are moderate sums to leave to members of the
family; what is modest, unostentatious living; what is the test of
extravagance. There must be different standards for different conditions. The
answer is that it is as impossible to name exact amounts or actions as it is to
define good manners, good taste, or the rules of propriety; but, nevertheless,
these are verities, well known although undefinable. Public sentiment is quick
to know and to feel what offends these. So in the case of wealth. The rule in
regard to good taste in the dress of men or women applies here. Whatever makes
one conspicuous offends the canon. If any family be chiefly known for display,
for extravagance in home, table, equipage, for enormous sums ostentatiously
spent in any form upon itself, if these be its chief distinctions, we have no
difficulty in estimating its nature or culture. So likewise in regard to the
use or abuse of its surplus wealth, or to generous, freehanded cooperation in
good public uses, or to unabated efforts to accumulate and hoard to the last,
whether they administer or bequeath. The verdict rests with the best and most
enlightened public sentiment. The community will surely judge and its judgments
will not often be wrong.
Many
of the ideas expressed in his article seem tied to his life experiences. Each
one relying on themselves to get what they want in this world instead of
relying on frequent handouts or pity as a means of sustenance. Seeing that
while the idea of wealth on some level was always a conflicted idea for a man
who came from such humble beginnings, but that without his enterprise he would
not have been able to provide opportunity both during and after his
professional days. All of these and more are Carnegie’s approach to both seeing
and improving and touching the world around him.
Buffet:
Also detailed in his writings and
reasons for the global Giving Pledge Buffet highlights that:
My
wealth has come from a combination of living in America, some lucky genes, and
compound interest. Both my children and I won what I call the ovarian lottery.
(For starters, the odds against my 1930 birth taking place in the U.S. were at
least 30 to 1. My being male and white also removed huge obstacles that a
majority of Americans then faced.)
My luck was accentuated by my living in a market system that sometimes
produces distorted results, though overall it serves our country well. I've
worked in an economy that rewards someone who saves the lives of others on a
battlefield with a medal, rewards a great teacher with thank-you notes from
parents, but rewards those who can detect the mispricing of securities with
sums reaching into the billions. In short, fate's distribution of long straws
is wildly capricious.
The reaction of my family and me to our
extraordinary good fortune is not guilt, but rather gratitude. Were we to use
more than 1% of my claim checks on ourselves, neither our happiness nor our
well-being would be enhanced. In contrast, that remaining 99% can have a huge
effect on the health and welfare of others. That reality sets an obvious course
for me and my family: Keep all we can conceivably need and distribute the rest
to society, for its needs. My pledge starts us down that course.
Peers and Donor Giving
Carnegie:
According
to PBS’s “The American Experience,” Carnegie had peer/rival philanthropists in
his day. Perhaps most notable among them was John D. Rockefeller. Making his
money in oil as opposed to Carnegies in steel, the two donated large sums of
money to causes they believed in and at the time this was something of a media
grab. Several newspapers of the time captured the ‘race’ between these two men
as they gave and gave. While only a snapshot of the sums donated, below is a
quick look at the friendly competition between these two men.
The
Box Scores
Year
|
Newspaper
|
Carnegie
|
Rockefeller
|
1904
|
The
Times of London
|
$21,000,000
|
$10,000,000
|
1910
|
The
New York American
|
$179,300,000
|
$134,271,000
|
1913
|
The
New York Herald
|
$332,000,000
|
$175,000,000
|
While
significantly less public in his philanthropic endeavors. It is important to
note that Carnegie and Rockefeller had another great American philanthropist in
their midst’s. Argued to be the ‘greatest anonymous donor’ of the era is
considered George Eastman. The founder of Eastman Kodak, Eastman is credited
with turning “photography from a profession with
prohibitively high startup costs into an affordable hobby for the middle class”
Coming in third in the era for monies given away, Eastman was a philanthropic
peer that still managed to give away about 125 million dollars in his lifetime.
Buffet:
Buffet
has had a long and storied relationship with other wealthy individuals around
the world. Similar to the words written oh so long ago in The Gospel of
Wealth, Buffet is a champion, not only in dollars donated but also in the
motivation of his fellow magnates to donate along with him. In addition to his fellow philanthropists Bill and Melinda Gates (with
whom he has gone into philanthropic business with as part of the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation), Warren Buffett “launched the Giving Pledge in 2010,
which encourages the world’s richest people to commit at least half their
wealth to charity while they’re still living, so that they can have more
control over how their fortunes benefit people in need. The initiative
currently has 114 signatories, including such noteworthy moguls as Mark
Zuckerberg, Michael Bloomberg and Richard and Joan Branson.”
Not to be outdone by his own donations Buffet himself, it should be noted, has
pledged, “More than 99% of my wealth will go to philanthropy during my lifetime
or at death.”
To add
perspective to the magnitude of the impact that Buffet has been able to illicit,
the Foundation
Center, which has launched "Eye on
the Giving Pledge” to research and analyze pledge givers and their
causes makes analysis for CNBC that the combined net worth of the signers
of Buffets pledge “is about $400 billion, so “the commitments made by the
signers could bring an estimated $200 billion or more to charity over time.” To
put that in context, all of the foundations in America have a current estimated
$646 billion in assets and give $46.9 billion a year.”
Effectiveness of Giving: Was or Might Still be
Carnegie:
While
the impact that Carnegie had on the philosophy of philanthropy as well as the
testaments in his writings and the subsequent impact on future leaders
propensity for giving, Carnegie’s impact and effectiveness in Philanthropy and
its efforts cannot be overstated. Indeed, The Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors
notes that Carnegie, through one of his “core element of his philanthropy—the
establishment of free public libraries—helped create the American library
system and is one of the best-known examples of effective philanthropy” A more quantifiable
interpretation of its impact might only be assumed or left to the imagination.
By and
large Carnegie is credited with being an expert business man and a prolific
supporter of society. His efforts and impact are far reaching. Including:
·
Donor involvement
·
Industrial Revolution
·
International law
·
International peace
·
Public education
·
Public libraries or free libraries
·
Steel industry and steel plants
Buffet:
In
some ways it is difficult to have any real sense of the long-term impact that
Buffets philanthropic endeavors might have on society and the world. Indeed, it
was only in 2006 that the announcement was made for the dissolution of his
wealth into social activism. Indeed the organizations that have been fortunate
to receive his attention certainly have benefited from the experience but since
there is no specific passion that Buffet wish’s to adapt, eradicate, or add to,
it would be difficult to judge if the intent of the philanthropy was in fact
achieved. Alternatively, in keeping with what seems to be the modus operandi of
Buffet, an argument could easily be made that the impact, the result is in fact
the giving itself. Bear in mind when Buffet launched his campaign to donate his
vast accounts, he did now establish or set forth to accomplish any task save
the disbursement of his means. That accomplished, the personal victory of Buffet
must be without equal. However, if the measure is something as esoteric as ‘the
betterment of society’ or the ‘growth of what could be’ then it could hardly be
disputed that the bringing together of philanthropic pursuits globally combined
with the fame and repute that Buffets name and privilege afford could easily be
the real lasting ‘impact’ and cause that Buffet leaves behind. In a similar
vein that might embolden and channel Carnegie, Buffet seems to be championing
the industry of philanthropy above all else, and to that end he, like Carnegie,
is making saves the likes of which may never been fully understood. One thing
is certain. The world will never be the same.
Lasting Legacy for Society & Future Social Impact
Carnegie:
According to Nicole Notario, the
level of philanthropy displayed by Andrew Carnegie during his lifetime has
earned him a place in the annals of history. His approach to philanthropy
helped create the cornerstone for modern day giving. It has been argued that
Carnegie’s approach to wealth and donations makes him the “father of American
philanthropy.”
Indeed, his endeavors began the “first efforts toward the modern day foundation or trust.
His reflections and call to responsibility or challenge to other affluent
people to give away their wealth drew the attention of many others to
do the same, including John D. Rockefeller and W.K. Kellogg,” and ultimately inspired
generations to follow suit. PBS’s documentary on Carnegie highlights the
controversy that his philanthropy had in his life, indeed,
Carnegie was often
frustrated by criticism of his philanthropic efforts. Nothing Carnegie had done
in business was as roundly criticized as the things he did "for the
benefit of all mankind." Although his gifts pleased many, conservatives
called him a socialist, and the general public frequently accused him of trying
to use his millions to prostitute universities-even science itself. Years
later, the public can look back more charitably. The foundations established by
Carnegie have given away close to $2 billion and have funded some of the
century's most significant initiatives.
Buffet:
Perhaps the
greatest legacy that Warren Buffet will leave on the world is the familial
philanthropic nature and the marked global efforts and publicity around
philanthropy.
One legacy of billionaire Warren Buffett
that his son, Howard G. Buffett, and grandson, Howard W. Buffett, are sharing
is that of philanthropy through a concept they have labeled "40
Chances." Howard G. Buffett,
a farmer and chairman of the Howard G. Buffett Foundation,
is working to help improve the standard of
living of impoverished people around the world with programs to aid hunger. He
wrote a book, "40 Chances: Finding Hope in a Hungry World," with son
Howard W. Buffett, a guest lecturer at Columbia University. Howard G. explained the concept for the book came from
what he saw as the roughly 40 productive years most people have to make a
difference in life.
Similarities & Differences of Buffet
and Carnegie: A Comparison
Approach to Philosophy of
Philanthropy:
In
many ways I see a certain similarity in these two men’s philanthropic efforts.
For each the need to give away all and leave nothing for the grave is absolute.
Additionally, they both were not keen to leave much for their offspring and
both found a passion in getting others to donate as much as they can get.
Albeit Carnegie viewed the giving as a moral imperative and Buffet conceives it
as a logical things that should simply be encouraged wholeheartedly.
Upbringings:
Here
is an area of wild difference. While they followed through on similar
philanthropic philosophies, their births and raisings were as different as they
come. Buffet was born into an established family with much repute where as
Carnegie was, not only born in another country, but also into abject poverty.
Industries:
This
may be well in keeping with as much the timing of their births and by that I
mean the time periods in which they lived as much as anything else. The big
money making industries in Carnegies time were largely and disproportionately
in blue collar industries and manual labor. Where as in Buffets time, finance,
banking and all things intangible seem keen to expand.
Histories
of philanthropy:
Neither
man came from backgrounds that encouraged philanthropy or giving on any large
scale but both were great influencers in their own right for others to carry on
a torch into the future. Carnegie is credited as being the father of American
philanthropy and perhaps being a bell weather for Buffets later donations.
Buffet in his own way, helped instill his philanthropic philosophy into his
children and at least a few dozen very wealthy and respected wealthy magnates
around the world.
Personal Reflection: Respect &
Admiration. Buffet or Carnegie?
While
I really appreciate all the differences between Buffet and Carnegie, I cannot
help but feel a closer kinship in the actions of these two men than I do for
Carnegie. Perhaps it is the rags to riches story. Perhaps it is the tangibility
of his creation. Perhaps it is even the immigrant in all of us that reminds me
of the better possibilities of tomorrow and the nature that the dream of this
country was established. I would also note that the idea and approach of
providing opportunities for individuals to better their own lives rather than
simply throwing money at situations and causes. The money, time, and passion
seems more real from Carnegie. The intent behind his philanthropy is almost
palpable. Both notable and impressive businessmen and philanthropers, these men
will always be unequal in mind. Having said that the excitement for Carnegie’s
philanthropy is passed and Buffet’s is only beginning. I look forward to what
he will do next in the way that we wait for some talk show hosts or movie
actors to say something outlandish or awe-inspiring.
