In my AP English Class, I've noticed patterns in our curriculum that overlap with the topics we bring up in class discussion. In our Community unit, we are currently debating on the basis of ethics, morality, and what responsibility a citizen has in their environment among other things. The first passage I read was from Andrew Carnegie who based his economic decisions on a "Gospel Of Wealth" a philosophy that stated that those who are wealthy should be morally obligated to give back to worthy institutions who are less fortunate. Carnegie, in his day, reached an enormous amount of wealth by use of his steel company. Carnegie proposed that the best way of dealing with the new phenomenon of wealth inequality was for the wealthy to redistribute their surplus means in a responsible and thoughtful manner. This approach was contrasted with traditional bequest, where wealth is handed down to heirs. Carnegie argued that surplus wealth is put to best use when it is administered carefully by the wealthy. Carnegie also argues against wasteful spending in the form of extravagance, irresponsible spending, or self-indulgence, instead promoting the administration of said capital over the course of one's lifetime toward the cause of reducing the stratification between the rich and poor. As a result, the wealthy should administer their riches responsibly.
There is a similar philosophy, or rather it is a strategy, among billionaires today. The Giving Pledge is a campaign to encourage the wealthiest people in the world to make a commitment to give most of their wealth to philanthropic causes like Carnegie and the major money men of his day did. The campaign specifically focuses on billionaires and was made public in 2010 by Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. As of January 2015, 128 billionaire or former billionaire individuals and couples have signed the pledge. Many are concerned that this act of philanthropy on a large scale is just a way to have their mega-billionaires to have a legacy of philanthropy as Carnegie covered his scheming ways with a sheet of money. Others have argued that this project is ineffective as just imposing higher taxes on the rich would open up the flood gate to even more money going to the right organizations because less than 5% of the world’s billionaires agreed to this Giving pledge. This whole project has also been deemed as discouraging to the everyday denizen because it instills the belief that because these large money handlers are contributing to society, they don’t have to. Just because someone is not in the best financial situation, does not mean they cannot contribute at the local level and maintaining their responsibility in society.
The fact that these billionaires have dedicated their time and funds to this project is incredibly important even if it is being deemed today as a publicity stunt. It shows how important giving back is past absolute luxuries. Even though Warren Buffett's contribution of 99% of his wealth is a bit ridiculous to the everyday man, being an informed member of society who involves themselves by any means possible is the first step on a route to a stronger world.
I also find really interesting how we're essentially learning a very similar topic in APUSH, English, and Humanities, it definitely warrants a much better understanding of the subject and makes for better discussion. That being said I would argue that although the Giving Pledge is a nice sentiment, it is simply not enough. Not meaning that the billionaires who signed it are not giving enough, 99% is pretty hard to beat, but rather more people need to give. Rather than praising the select few who give billions, why not encourage the billions to just give a few? the same effect could then be achieved two fold and everyone could become part of the solution. On top of that, a quick fix to the all to less altruistic of billionaires would simply be a higher tax rate for the wealthy. And i'm not referring to the upper middle class wealthy, i mean the obscenely wealthy, the "I just hired my butler's butler a butler" kind of wealthy, because when you're at the point when the only thing you're really spending money on is ways to make more money, there is no reason why you should not be taxed more. Nevertheless hopefully more of the world's richest will turn down the path of Carnegie and Bill Gates so that all may live without the worries of financial instability.
ReplyDelete