Only In America
Those who have, get, goes the old saying. And one supposes there is more than a little truth to that, since money begets money. There are ample examples available to the casual observer and reader of news of money also begetting unease, discomfort and unhappiness. When people born to money experience few personal challenges, have no reason to exert themselves to become engaged in the world of work and business in order to ensure they have a reliable livelihood.
Nor does being in possession of a fortune ensure personal happiness with one's choices in a life lived, or with a suitable partner. Pursuing a hedonistic lifestyle because there is funding to spare for whatever quirky choices people make also leads on more than a few occasions to the wealthy leading lives of desperate misery. Dread disease may give the moneyed a leg-up on expert medical professionalism, and this may prolong their lives, but not necessarily as the ravages of some diseases cannot be held in abeyance forever.
For those people who have been born and bred into a society that views compassion and charity as necessary components to living balanced lives, fully engaged with their society and empathetic to the needs of others, it isn't such a long haul to see philanthropy as an attractive lifestyle, complementary to the fashioning of a personal fortune. Those that have, have the opportunity to become more charitable.
It is immensely gratifying, then, to read that dozens of American billionaires stand prepared to surrender large portions of their personal fortunes for the greater good of society. This is a humanely responsible decision. In a very practical sense when people become so wealthy that they will never in their lifetimes or those of their offspring require even a fragment of their wealth to enable them to live graciously, there is no useful need of acquiring more or holding on to a fortune.
Far better to retain financial gains sufficient to permit a lifestyle that satisfies the owner of the fortune, and to distribute the balance to charitable enterprises of one's choosing to attain greater satisfaction in life. Financial gain is attractive, but there comes a point when the sum is overwhelming and vastly redundant. And, there is something peculiarly, particularly American in the fact that billionaires in that country would respond to the call of their peers to join them in a massive philanthropic venture.
Microsoft founder Bill Gates and his friend and co-charitable companion Warren Buffett have pledged immense sums of their vast earnings to charitable causes. And they have undertaken to take it upon themselves as exemplars of charitable giving to approach their wealthy coevals, with the result that the well-recognized names of 42 American billionaires have joined them in distinguishing themselves for their generosity.
The United States, the wealthiest country in the world, is estimated to have about 403 billionaires. Roughly 10% have thus far agreed to divest themselves of significant portions of their great wealth, amounting to perhaps $150-billion to be distributed to the charities of their personal deliberation. They have joined a unique billionaires' club, called The Giving Pledge. This is utterly admirable. That old phrase "Only In America" peals loudly.
On the other hand, it is also worth noting that individual Americans, those in the general public, the ordinary person on the street, are far more charitable than citizens of most other countries. Even with the recession, ordinary Americans gave over $227-billion to charity in 2009, according to a Giving USA report by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.
The oil-rich Middle East states are undoubtedly wealthy, comparable to the treasury of the U.S. Does Saudi Arabia, with its vast oil resources and incoming state wealth fund charitable enterprises? Do any of the OPEC states? Does Dubai? Their single-source wealth leads them to ostentatious display, to enriching princelings who live lives of excess with little value added. Religious institutions are funded; madrasses and mosques, worldwide.
Poverty in Muslim countries is not alleviated by the generosity of their religious brethren; the wealth is held in the hands of the powerful and the entitled while the slum dwellers, the subsistence farmers and the vast populations of the oppressed have their needs overlooked. Charity comes from fanatic religious groups dedicated to violent jihad (former students of the madrasses), in their zeal to win the 'hearts and minds' of the impoverished and the disentitled.
Inhabitants of the same Globe, but worlds apart.
Nor does being in possession of a fortune ensure personal happiness with one's choices in a life lived, or with a suitable partner. Pursuing a hedonistic lifestyle because there is funding to spare for whatever quirky choices people make also leads on more than a few occasions to the wealthy leading lives of desperate misery. Dread disease may give the moneyed a leg-up on expert medical professionalism, and this may prolong their lives, but not necessarily as the ravages of some diseases cannot be held in abeyance forever.
For those people who have been born and bred into a society that views compassion and charity as necessary components to living balanced lives, fully engaged with their society and empathetic to the needs of others, it isn't such a long haul to see philanthropy as an attractive lifestyle, complementary to the fashioning of a personal fortune. Those that have, have the opportunity to become more charitable.
It is immensely gratifying, then, to read that dozens of American billionaires stand prepared to surrender large portions of their personal fortunes for the greater good of society. This is a humanely responsible decision. In a very practical sense when people become so wealthy that they will never in their lifetimes or those of their offspring require even a fragment of their wealth to enable them to live graciously, there is no useful need of acquiring more or holding on to a fortune.
Far better to retain financial gains sufficient to permit a lifestyle that satisfies the owner of the fortune, and to distribute the balance to charitable enterprises of one's choosing to attain greater satisfaction in life. Financial gain is attractive, but there comes a point when the sum is overwhelming and vastly redundant. And, there is something peculiarly, particularly American in the fact that billionaires in that country would respond to the call of their peers to join them in a massive philanthropic venture.
Microsoft founder Bill Gates and his friend and co-charitable companion Warren Buffett have pledged immense sums of their vast earnings to charitable causes. And they have undertaken to take it upon themselves as exemplars of charitable giving to approach their wealthy coevals, with the result that the well-recognized names of 42 American billionaires have joined them in distinguishing themselves for their generosity.
The United States, the wealthiest country in the world, is estimated to have about 403 billionaires. Roughly 10% have thus far agreed to divest themselves of significant portions of their great wealth, amounting to perhaps $150-billion to be distributed to the charities of their personal deliberation. They have joined a unique billionaires' club, called The Giving Pledge. This is utterly admirable. That old phrase "Only In America" peals loudly.
On the other hand, it is also worth noting that individual Americans, those in the general public, the ordinary person on the street, are far more charitable than citizens of most other countries. Even with the recession, ordinary Americans gave over $227-billion to charity in 2009, according to a Giving USA report by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.
The oil-rich Middle East states are undoubtedly wealthy, comparable to the treasury of the U.S. Does Saudi Arabia, with its vast oil resources and incoming state wealth fund charitable enterprises? Do any of the OPEC states? Does Dubai? Their single-source wealth leads them to ostentatious display, to enriching princelings who live lives of excess with little value added. Religious institutions are funded; madrasses and mosques, worldwide.
Poverty in Muslim countries is not alleviated by the generosity of their religious brethren; the wealth is held in the hands of the powerful and the entitled while the slum dwellers, the subsistence farmers and the vast populations of the oppressed have their needs overlooked. Charity comes from fanatic religious groups dedicated to violent jihad (former students of the madrasses), in their zeal to win the 'hearts and minds' of the impoverished and the disentitled.
Inhabitants of the same Globe, but worlds apart.
Labels: Economy, Human Relations, Particularities, United States
posted by Pieface @ 6:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home