Pages

Monday, July 6, 2015

“Major Philanthropists: Is there really a Difference?”


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.”[3] 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’.[4] 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.”[5]

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.[6]

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.[7]

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.[8]

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.”[9] 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.”[10] 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.”[11]
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”[12] 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.[13] 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”[14] 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.”[15] 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.[16]

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.”[17] 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"[18].”[19] 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.[20] 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.”[21] 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.”[22] 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.”[23]

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).”[24] 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.”[25]
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.”[26] 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.”[27] 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.”[28] Buffet is specific that “nothing will go to endowments; I want the money spent on current needs.”[29]

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.[30]

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.[31]

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.[32]

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”[34] 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.”[35] 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.”[36]

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.”[37]

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”[38] 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.”[39] 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,”[40] 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.[41]

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.[42]

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.




[1] http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/images/main_middle.jpg
[2] http://www.warrenbuffett.com/warren-buffett-10-ways-to-get-rich/warren-buffett-tips-for-getting-rich.jpg
[3] Zunz, Oliver. Philanthropy in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 2012. Print.
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9513.html
[4] http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/rbannis1/AIH19th/Carnegie.html
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/rbannis1/AIH19th/Carnegie.html
[8] http://givingpledge.org/faq.aspx#faq10
[9] http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/world/rich-people-who-will-not-leave-their-wealth-to-their-children/
[10] http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/newsmakers/Warren_Buffett_Pledge_Letter.fortune/
[11] Ibid.
[12] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/sfeature/meet_andrews.html
[13] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/peopleevents/pande01.html
[14] http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/great_men_and_women/hall_of_fame/andrew_carnegie
[15] http://hollowverse.com/warren-buffett/
[16] http://www.mnn.com/money/personal-finance/stories/warren-buffett-donates-26-billion-to-gates-foundation-and-other
[17] http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/carnegie1.html
[18] http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/107706/Chartism
[19] Ibid.
[20] http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/carnegie1.html
[21] Ibid.
[22] Swetnam, George and Helene Smith. The Carnegie Nobody Knows. USA: McDonald/Sward Publishing, 1993. ISBN: 0945437072.
[23] http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/carnegie1.html
[24] http://www.cnbc.com/id/48590809
[25] Ibid.
[26] http://carnegiehero.org/about-the-fund/
[27] Ibid.
[28] http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/newsmakers/Warren_Buffett_Pledge_Letter.fortune/
[29] Ibid.
[30] http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/rbannis1/AIH19th/Carnegie.html
[31] http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/rbannis1/AIH19th/Carnegie.html
[32] http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/newsmakers/Warren_Buffett_Pledge_Letter.fortune/
[33] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/sfeature/p_carvrock.html
[34]http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/seven_myths_about_the_great_philanthropists
[36] http://givingpledge.org/Content/media/My%20Philanthropic%20Pledge.pdf
[37] http://www.cnbc.com/id/48590809
[38] http://www.rockpa.org/document.doc?id=58
[39] http://carnegie.org/about-us/foundation-history/about-andrew-carnegie/carnegie-for-kids/andrew-carnegie-legacy/
[40] http://learningtogive.org/papers/paper80.html
[41] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/sfeature/p_legacy.html
[42] http://www.newsmax.com/US/buffett-legacy-giving-charity/2013/10/23/id/532715

No comments: