Omaha donations

Posted: 19 Jun 2007 06:30
Registered User Currently Offline	Posts: 16 Join Date: Feb 2007
Charity or donation of anything is always at the discretion of the individual. It’s an unfortunate state when any rich individual or affluent person has to almost expect to be berated for not giving away some money. In some way it is ingrained in our social make-up to be benevolent towards others and those that choose not to shed their excesses for the supposed grater good of others are assigned pariah status. This mechanism has ensured our survival and separates us from the apes – we fend for each other. However, Warren Buffett is not one of these social deviants who shuns and spits upon the less fortunate. It has been written that he supported local charities of the kind such as Boys Town. Last year, he assigned an enormous (the largest ever) sum of money to a charity that would (could) use it most optimally to benefit the largest group of people. Yet there are factions which say “well, why are we not good enough?” or “couldn’t he have given, at least, a small portion to us?” How, for instance, has Omaha benefited from Buffett? Although only 4 days long, Berkshire’s annual meeting attracts 20 thousand strangers to the city each and every single year – with calendar like consistency. Surely this benefit offered by Buffett to his home town, is better than - had he by a twist of fate - been born in Cleveland whereby we today would be referring to the Oracle of Ohio. Without needing the issuance of free shit, Omaha has been afforded a privileged status over other Mid-Western cities. But, there are special interests that do not benefit from this – even in Omaha. Why should any city at all benefit from the random location of any individual. Out of 2 million sperm, what if Howard Buffett snr had impregnated Warren's mother in Washington DC? Would they have any more claim than where Warren was born? Charity is not a cure for anything. At best it is the morphine which masks the patient’s underlying pain. Charitable organisations were historically conceived of as a means of sustenance while waiting for a cure to some socio-economic ill – a stop gap. However they persist and thrive even today in spite of the large economic, social, scientific and political advances making up present-day society. We’re trying to cure the patient by ordering larger and larger amounts of morphine. Warren Buffett represents something worth a thousand times more. He advocates the efficient structuring and operating of business enterprise, the singularly most important factor contributing to a better way of life. No Government or benevolent organisation has even come close to producing the same benefits that ethical and rational business practice does. Thus it is my opinion that affluent people should not be held to ransom for society’s ills. It is perhaps true that they are lucky and lead a luxurious lifestyle. But in true invisible-hand fashion, whilst already labouring for the betterment of society, they ARE being charitable and it is unfair to ask them to endure further burden. Scarborough

Posted: 19 Jun 2007 15:30
Registered User Currently Offline	Posts: 51 Join Date: Nov 2006
Scarborough, What an amazing post! Lot's of really thought provoking ideas... My favorite part: Quote: Charity is not a cure for anything. At best it is the morphine which masks the patient’s underlying pain. Charitable organisations were historically conceived of as a means of sustenance while waiting for a cure to some socio-economic ill – a stop gap. However they persist and thrive even today in spite of the large economic, social, scientific and political advances making up present-day society. We’re trying to cure the patient by ordering larger and larger amounts of morphine. -EJ

Posted: 15 Jun 2007 13:38
Registered User Currently Offline	Posts: 1 Join Date: Jun 2007
Since Warren Buffet is from Omaha, Nebraska has he ever given donations to this area? If so, what organizations are they? I live here in Omaha and we never see anything about his giving gifts to this city.

Posted: 18 Jun 2007 16:43 Last Edited By: EthanJones
Registered User Currently Offline	Posts: 51 Join Date: Nov 2006
Maybe we can expand the issue you raise into a bigger question... that is, what moral responsibility, if any, do wealthy individuals have to give charitable gifts to the cities in which they reside. I'm not even entirely sure it's accurate to say or suggest that Warren has never given a nickel to a local charity... but let's assume for a moment he hasn't. What would be the appropriate amount of charitable giving to the city of Omaha?