Bill Gates is the richest man in the world, helped create a revolutionary computer software company, and earlier this month collected an honorary degree from Harvard University. But he may not understand the vital role wealth creation plays in society.
In collecting his degree, Mr. Gates delivered a commencement address that focused not on the information age, the rise of personal computers or the relentless efficiency his software has brought to nearly every industry. Instead, he focused on his own personal philanthropy. His implicit theme was that so far what he has accomplished may have been good for him and Microsoft shareholders, but it has been no great contribution to society. He suggested that with a personal fortune of about $90 billion (including what he has transferred to his foundation) it is time for him to give something back.
I find this perspective hard to understand. By any reasonable calculation Microsoft has been a boon for society and the value of its software greatly exceeds the likely value of Mr. Gates’s philanthropic efforts.
. . .
Ironically, Mr. Gates’s inspiration to "give back" apparently comes from the world’s second richest person, Warren Buffett, who recently promised to donate much of his fortune to the Gates Foundation.
I say ironic because one can make a much better philosophical case for a give-back of Mr. Buffett’s $52 billion than for Mr. Gates’s $90 billion. Mr. Buffett’s money came mostly from being a good stock picker. Whether his fortune is the product of luck or skill, the social benefits are hard to pin down. These benefits have to derive from improving company management practices or investment decisions.
Of course, Mr. Gates is free to do what he wishes with his $90 billion. But I think he is kidding himself if he believes that the efforts of the Gates Foundation are likely to provide society anything like the past and future accomplishments of Microsoft.
For the full commentary, see:
(Note: ellipsis added.)
I never have understood this “give back” notion that successful folks sometimes affect. Perhaps they have difficulty reconciling the quasi-Marxist notions inculcated by modern society with the natural results of their genius and hard work.