Billionaires Shouldn’t Give Their Wealth to Charity

There are few more wasteful, socially irresponsible things the wealthy can do than give away money

Warren Buffet, and other goofy, out of touch, guilt-ridden socialists have been pushing other billionaires to give away half of their money to charity.

But this would not be philanthropy. This would not be altruism. It would be a destructive blow against our society.


Because they would mostly be throwing that money down a black hole.

When, precisely, are Jerry’s Kids going to be cured? Jerry was panhandling for them halfway through the LAST century.

How about Red Cross? Why is it perennially struggling to make ends meat, when it managed to steal a billion dollars just from people giving to Katrina, Haitian Earthquake, and 9-11 victims?

Even the small percentage actually spent by a charity on the cause at hand just feeds existing needs. They spend the money and it’s gone. The problems remain. No charity has ever shut down because it solved its cause.

Those billionaires, on the other hand, have ALREADY given more to society than any, or in some cases, every charity combined.

Is Bill Gates worth sixty billion dollars? Then this reflects sixty billion other people voluntarily gave him, in return for software they must have valued at MORE than its asking price, otherwise they wouldn’t have bought it. Bill Gates, apparently, knows how to create wealth that benefits society…and every penny traded to him reflects that.

If he keeps the money and invests it in other wealth-creating ideas, he will do just that:

Create more wealth.

And THAT benefits society, more than all of the panhandling, anti-profit organizations ever do.

If he, or any other billionaire, wants to “give away” the money, then they should give it to ENTREPRENEURS.

The fool on Stossel right now, who says he’s giving away 75% of his six billion dollars, could simply hand out 4,500 one million dollar grants to the wildest, most unlikely, but serious and possible business plans and ideas they can find.

If just one percent of those ideas becomes a billion dollar company, he’s increased the benefit of his money to our society by TEN THOUSAND percent.

So he can toss it down the State-Mandated Non-Profit pit of poverty-enablement to be consumed by professional mendicants and vanish…or he can create a hundred times more wealth for our society, thereby permanently reducing poverty.

About kazvorpal
Polyamorous, libertarian heinleiner. ENTP, student of traditional Shaolin kung fu, writer, cunning linguist.

2 Responses to Billionaires Shouldn’t Give Their Wealth to Charity

  1. Peter Jensen says:

    Your argument is as simplistic as that of the hard core statist left. There are as many professional investment burning pseudo-entrepreneurs as there are “professional mendicants”.

    Further, benefits to society cannot always be quantified in terms of $ revenue. For example, how much would you estimate in $ the benefit of eradicating polio? What are the benefits in $ of Wikipedia? What is the benefit in $ of the support to veterans families provided by the likes of the Yellow Ribbon Fund?

    Condemning organizations such as the Red Cross because they occasionally get ripped, is as stupid as throwing free market principles under the bus because of Enron, WorldCom or Moodies.

    In other words, the Pavlovian “charity bad, profit good” reflex, is as ludicrous as the Pavlovian “profit bad, non-profit good”reflex.

    But perhaps more importantly, the likes of Bill Gates or Warren Buffet got rich by doing exactly what you describe. Both have proven what can be done in a profitable way. Both come to the conclusion that some actions require a different framework (there is no money to be made in eradicating malaria). Could it be that they have a better understanding of the world at large than you do?

    • kazvorpal says:

      The difference is that entrepreneurs have a CHANCE of truly benefiting society, and a metric that can be used to measure them, while charities are rudderless, often doing more harm to society than good.

      And, as any actual capitalist knows, you’re wrong about how to quantify benefit to society:

      The only objective, healthy measure is revenue…at least in a free market. And even in our market socialist economy, it’s the only thing even close to an accurate measure. Everything else is guesswork.

      This is one of the basic principles and values of capitalism over socialism: Revenues are a nearly instantaneous, accurate measure of needs and best solutions.

      I condemn the Red Cross and United Way, specifically, because they are ripoff organizations. They are scammers, hucksters, thieves who literally steal your money through fraud…

      But I dismiss charities in general because they are rudderless. There’s no way to determine the value difference between the good ones and the bad ones, other than guesswork. This is part of why the two worst, most fraudulent, most harmful charities are two of the most successful.

      The free market would take care of the Enrons and Worldcoms…but corporations in general are harmful today, because their structure is forced upon the economy by government regulation. There could be nothing like a public corporation, with its quasi-governmental powers and organization, in a free market.

      And, likewise, there would be nothing like the modern, leeching, “non-profit” charity in a free market…at least not successfully. But in today’s socialized economy, they simply do more harm than good, overall.

      You are beautifully wrong about Malaria, topping off your whole not-really-capitalist line of errors in general:

      Eliminating malaria would be a tremendously profitable venture, except that this sort of effort is nearly illegal, thanks to government intervention, both through regulation and coercive competing in the “disease prevention” industry.

      Hell, DDT nearly eliminated malaria…when it was banned, malaria was down to thousands of cases per year. It’s up to millions, now, because of the ban…the same reason bedbugs have returned to the US. And yet the actual science says the entire DDT scare was total fraud. It does not appear to be harmful to either the environment, or humans…unlike its replacements.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: