The other night I had the pleasure of catching Bill G, his wife Melinda, and Warren Buffett on the Charlie Rose show. Some background, Warren B recently committed about $30 billion (current value) of Berkshire Hathaway stock to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the topic was primarily about philanthropy. It was very entertaining to see two of the world's richest men conversing on public TV like the good friends that they are (cracking jokes and the like).
Buffett talked about dynastic wealth and his belief towards giving away most of his assets to help those less fortunate than he. I suppose it's easier to be altruistic when you have $40+ billion in net worth. Nonetheless, it's commendable that's he giving away 2/3 of it. He also brought up another point about his wealth and his children. Strongly believing that children should have the means to do what they want in life but not to the point where they become irresponsible with money and lose sense of any reality (a la Paris Hilton). Pretty rational but I suspect Buffet's kids don't really have to work.
In the interview, it was fascinating to see how passionate and strategic Bill and Melinda (she's very articulate, more so than Bill I'd say) were about their efforts in fighting disease/poverty in developing countries, particularly focusing on areas and places that typically fall under the radar. Point being that why would you fund projects that already have lots of attention, support, and are already flush with lots of resources? Doesn't it make sense to fund those projects that live on the 'tail' and have little chance of success?
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Herman rocks.
Post a Comment