This is an old post i came across, but i think it remains relevant. Here Carlos Slim says charity may not be worth it after all. I think that is not a realistic statement. What do you think?
Carlos Slim has always had a complicated relationship with philanthropy. I would not castigate him for that. It is his choice to spend his money however it pleases him.
The Mexican billionaire, who Forbes still lists as the world’s richest man, said in 2007 that he could do more to help fight poverty by building businesses than by “being a Santa Claus.” Santa Claus alone is not also the way to go. You should see your giving produce satisfactory results.
Mr. Slim’s signature also has been noticeably absent from the Gates-Buffett Giving Pledge. At a conference in Syndey, Mr. Slim said that charity accomplishes little. I do not agree here as I know the impact of such giving on ailments that could have ravaged Africa, where our leaders in governments have no regard for human life. The givers have successfully arm-twisted our governments to provide subsidized care for their citizens. HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis treatment, vaccines against common preventable diseases are free in Nigeria, thanks to charity. You won’t believe the multitude that benefit from this charity of medicines until you visit a public healthcare institution.
“The only way to fight poverty is with employment,” he said. “Trillions of dollars have been given to charity in the last 50 years, and they don’t solve anything.” Yes to fighting poverty with employment. No food for lazy man, even the bible corroborates this saying. Personally my alms supports those who I clearly see need help. Instead of giving a healthy beggar money on the road, I would dash a hustler in traffic more significant money and definitely far more than I would have given the beggar. If you think I am wrong, give a beggar in CMS bus garage money and wait around to see how he spends it.
As for the Giving Pledge, he said: “To give 50%, 40%, that does nothing,” Slim said. “There is a saying that we should leave a better country to our children. But it’s more important to leave better children to our country.” Would he rather employ children than provide the opportunity for them to get educated?
In a speech in Mexico City, he reiterated his point that the best way to fight poverty is to create jobs.
Now Mr. Slim isn’t un-charitable. He has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to his foundation and has funded millions of dollars in joint-venture projects with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
So he clearly isn’t against charity entirely. His point seems to be that society would benefit more if the wealthy channeled their creative energies and talents toward building job-creating businesses rather than doling out cash. It is the 21st century billionaire version of the old adage, “give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime.”
In these populist times, some might argue that Mr. Slim is being a selfish billionaire who’s simply justifying his own wealth accumulation. But he raises two good questions–ones I have heard from an increasing number of wealthy entrepreneurs:
Would Bill Gates and Warren Buffett be doing more for society by putting their time and money into new businesses rather than funding philanthropy? I think their giving will not impact as much if they choose to build businesses. It won’t trickle down to the poorest in the African and other third world villages.
Has philanthropy solved any major social problems in the past 50 years? I think it has. There have been some notable laudable initiatives that have resolved many social issues. From providing potable water, to lighting communities, to solving health issues, the impact of philanthropy can never be overemphasized.
What do you think? Please leave comments.
blogs.wsj.com
edited by Ugo Nganwuchu
No comments:
Post a Comment