What a pleasure to read Kimberly O. Dennis's "Gates and Buffett Take the Pledge"
(op-ed, Aug. 20). It's about time for a denouncement of the "give back"
ethos permeating our society. Prosperous people, including Bill Gates
and Warren Buffett, who have achieved prominence through their work
should be praised and, more importantly, thanked.
These people have taken
nothing from society. I am proud to celebrate their success and grateful
for all the wonders that they have created for our world.
David Hall
Kensington, Md.
Look at the failure of
the U.S. government's give-away programs which had great intentions, and
the failure of the war on poverty. Why learned men and women of great
wealth think giving their individual fortunes to NGOs or governments so
they can stop HIV-AIDS, illiteracy, drought, poverty or any other social
issue is amazing. The governments can't do it and the NGOs can't do it.
It is more a feel-good exercise for them. You, at least, present the
true alternative. These folks should keep doing what got them their
fortunes in the first place: Create goods and services that make life
better for all, including the employment of those who want to work.
Jake Easton III
Corona del Mar, Calif.
Ms. Dennis's paean to
business success and thinly veiled attack on anything, even private
philanthropy, that entails a whiff of redistribution is both myopic and
riddled with analytical flaws. She compares the social worth of engaging
in business with that of philanthropy, but the relevant comparison for
people nearing the end of their business careers is between philanthropy
and consumption.
Ms. Dennis also
challenges readers to "point to a single charitable accomplishment that
has been as transformative as, say, the cell phone or the birth-control
pill." Neither the cell phone nor the pill was created in a void by the
genius of industry; both depended heavily on advances in science funded
(through universities) by philanthropy.
Bill Gates, Warren
Buffett and the others who signed the "Giving Pledge" should be
applauded for their generosity, for having the vision to see the needs
of others and the potential of philanthropy, and maybe even for having
the humility to recognize that their wealth was created in no small
measure by the larger society of which they are a part.
Doug Melamed
Palo Alto, Calif.
I believe that the notion
of "giving back" should not be viewed as a response to something that
has been taken. Rather, it should be viewed as a statement of gratitude
for the special gifts that one has been provided, and for the good
fortune to be born at the right time and place for these gifts to be
fully leveraged for the good of society. Sometimes these gifts plus good
luck can result in great individual wealth. Nor is there a need to
compare the benefits of business investment and charitable giving. There
can be no question that many people of great wealth provide immense
good for society, but their contributions frequently do not impact those
in dire need. Charitable giving helps to fill this void and is
especially important in times of crisis and as a way to help the poor
and struggling to achieve a better status in life.
Richard K. Sprenkle
Pittsford, N.Y.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 