• 2445阅读
  • 1回复

谁才是最伟大的慈善家

级别: 管理员
Buffett's Gift Blazes New Trail That Few Are Likely to Follow

Even before Warren Buffett's decision this week to give the bulk of his wealth to the Gates Foundation, Bill Gates was frequently referred to as the "World's Greatest Philanthropist." Now, that's likely to become his epitaph.

But the title should really go to Mr. Buffett. Mr. Gates, after all, is following a well-worn path, in the footsteps of Carnegie, Rockefeller and Mellon. Mr. Buffett is blazing a new trail.

WALL STREET JOURNAL VIDEO



WSJ's Alan Murray discusses Warren Buffett's latest philanthropic actions and the reasons behind them.He is giving his massive fortune to another man's foundation, he's not asking for his name on the door, and he's insisting the money be spent as it comes in, rather than build up over generations to provide some intimation of immortality.

This is classic Buffett -- a hard-eyed investment decision, squeezed free of emotion and ego. He has gone to the foundation he thinks is best in its class to give away his money. And he has avoided the main problem of family foundations -- maintaining focus and purpose once the founders are gone (think Ford) -- by insisting the money be spent during the lifetimes of Bill and Melinda Gates.

TALKING BUSINESS



Email business@wsj.com and read reader comments Saturday at WSJ.com/TalkingBusiness.The logic here is crystal clear. He held onto his wealth as long as possible because he felt he could increase that pool of capital faster than anyone else could. Now he wants to spend it quickly, because he thinks Bill and Melinda Gates will spend it more wisely than any set of trustees he or they might choose for the future.

If others follow his path, it would revolutionize the world of philanthropy. Foundations would compete in a marketplace, with capital flowing to those that proved themselves most effective.

Will that happen? Mr. Buffett clearly hopes so. He said he'd like to encourage other very rich people to consider not setting up their own foundations, but rather looking for the best that are already up and running to handle their money.

Forgive me, amid this orgy of generosity, for having my doubts.

At Monday's news conference, a reporter raised the name of a man who might consider the Buffett approach: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Mr. Bloomberg has expressed an interest in selling the market-information company he built, and using the substantial proceeds for philanthropic pursuits. He shares many of the same global concerns as Messrs. Buffett and Gates.

But this is also a man whose company is named "Bloomberg." It sells a product called "The Bloomberg." When you walk into the company's impressive New York headquarters, you are assaulted by renditions of the name "Bloomberg," running horizontally, vertically and at sharp angles. In short, Mayor Bloomberg has spent a lifetime building monuments to himself. Does anyone really think he's going to miss the opportunity to create a foundation that preserves that name long after his death?

Not me.

Warren Buffett's self-denying act has made him a philanthropic revolutionary; my guess is he'll remain a lonely one.

Another surprising name that popped up at Monday's news conference was that of Joel Klein. Back before Bill Gates crossed the divide from sinner to saint, Mr. Klein was the Justice Department's point man for prosecuting the antitrust case against Microsoft. Today, he is the chancellor of New York City schools, and a recipient of Mr. Gates's largess.

Melinda Gates spoke warmly of her husband's former tormentor, and his efforts to raise graduation rates in city schools. "We are excited about partnering" with him, she said.

Still, it's worth asking whether Mr. Gates's indomitable drive to win all the marbles could create problems for the world of philanthropy, much as Mr. Klein once argued it did in the world of computers. The Gates Foundation, with Mr. Buffett's help, will be five or six times as large as its next largest competitor. Does the philanthropic world need a competition policy?

Not yet. While Gates may tower over other private foundations, its founder would need a squad of Warren Buffetts before he approached the clout of, say, the World Bank, with total assets exceeding $200 billion. And it would take a whole city full of Buffetts before he could begin to meet the overwhelming need. As Mr. Gates himself pointed out Monday, even with Mr. Buffett's money, the foundation's annual grants will add up to a little more than a dollar for every person living in poverty around the world.

Still, size does create its own challenges. And private organizations are not immune from the kind of bureaucratic sclerosis that drags down government efforts. Anyone waiting for Microsoft's new flagship "Vista" software, which has been plagued by delays, has certainly learned that lesson. Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffett need to be careful their foundation doesn't suffer the same disease.
谁才是最伟大的慈善家



在沃伦?巴菲特(Warren Buffett)本周早些时候决定把大笔财产捐给盖茨夫妇管理的基金之前,比尔?盖茨(Bill Gates)就经常被冠以“全世界最伟大的慈善家”的头衔。现在看来,这个荣誉头衔落在盖茨头上基本上已经盖棺定论了。

但实际上巴菲特得到这项殊荣才算是实至名归。毕竟,盖茨沿循的是卡内基(Carnegie)、洛克菲勒(Rockefeller)、梅隆(Mellon)等人的足迹,而巴菲特走的却是一条前无古人的道路。他决定把巨额财富捐献给另一个人的基金会,却没有提出任何冠名要求;他主张财富生不带来、死不带走,不应遗留给子女并以此来追逐某种形式的不朽之名。

这是巴菲特一贯的风格:冷静理性的决策。从中看不出任何心血来潮和追名逐利的成分。他把财富捐给了自己认定的业内翘楚。这样做使他不必受到名人在创建基金会时经常遇到的困扰,即如何在身故之后继续保持基金的重点和运作(想想福特(Ford)吧)。巴菲特坚称这笔财富要在盖茨夫妇的有生之年分配出去。

巴菲特的财富观已经一览无遗。先前他尽可能地积累财富,因为在这一点上其他人可能都不是他的对手。现在他决定分散财富,是因为他相信盖茨夫妇比他本人或者其他人更能有效地发挥捐款的用处。

如果巴菲特此举能够成为榜样,那么全球的慈善事业将迎来根本性的转变。慈善基金将向企业一样在市场上竞争,资金将流向那些最高效的慈善机构。

会有这一天吗?巴菲特显然希望如此。他说,希望自己的举动能够影响到其他超级富翁,说服他们不要热衷于创建自己的基金,而是把财富投向那些已经存在而且最能为慈善事业效力的基金。

不过,我对此表示怀疑。

在周一的新闻发布会上,有位记者提到了一个可能仿效巴菲特义举的人──纽约市市长布隆博格(Michael Bloomberg)。布隆博格已经表示,愿意把亲手创办的彭博资讯(Bloomberg)卖给他人,并把出售所得捐给慈善事业。他在一些全球性问题上与巴菲特和盖茨志同道合。

但毕竟企业以及产品的名称都是以布隆博格本人的名字命名。当你步入彭博资讯位于纽约市的总部大楼,率先闯入眼帘的便是“Bloomberg”标识,各式各样、无处不在。可以这么说,布隆博格已经在有生之年为自己树立了一座辉煌的纪念碑。真的有人相信布隆博格会错过这样一个机会吗--成立以自己名字命名的基金、从而在过世之后也能流芳百世?

不管别人怎么想,反正我不这样认为。

巴菲特淡泊名利的义举为慈善事业谱写了新的篇章。但依我来看,这样的高风亮节恐怕曲高和寡。

在周一的新闻发布会上还有一个人的出现让我倍感意外。他就是约尔?克莱茵(Joel Klein)。在比尔?盖茨由罪人变圣人之前,正是克莱茵领导著美国司法部针对微软(Microsoft)的反垄断调查。如今,作为主管纽约各所学校的教育局长,他又摇身一变成了盖茨夫妇基金会的受益者。

梅林达?盖茨(Melinda Gates)热情洋溢地评价著这位曾经给她丈夫带来麻烦的人,高度赞赏克莱茵提高学校毕业率所作的贡献。她说,“我们很高兴”能与他站在一起。

但是,值得一问的是,在盖茨不遗余力行善的同时,是否又要在慈善世界惹来麻烦,就像克莱茵当初指责他在电脑领域的所作所为一样。在巴菲特的资助下,盖茨基金会的规模将达到仅次于它的基金会的五到六倍。慈善领域是不是也需要引入竞争机制呢?

目前看来不会。虽然盖茨可以在私人基金会中傲视群雄,但要与世界银行(World Bank)超过2,000亿美元的规模相媲美,可能还需要一大帮巴菲特的支持。而在数不胜数的慈善需求面前,恐怕更需要整整一座城市的巴菲特来资助了。正如盖茨本人周一所说,即便获得了巴菲特的捐助,盖茨基金会每年所能提供的资助只不过相当于给贫困世界的每个人多发了一美元。

当然,庞大规模本身也可能产生问题。私人组织未必能够避免那些导致政府运作低效的官僚作风。对于这一点,那些对微软新软件Vista望穿秋水的人可能已经有所体会。软件的推迟发布惹得牢骚阵阵。不论是盖茨夫妇,还是巴菲特,恐怕都需要提防重蹈覆辙。
级别: 管理员
只看该作者 1 发表于: 2006-06-30
股神+盖茨:慈善基金推动科学

The spirit of Rockefeller is vital to scientific innovation

With the news that Warren Buffett will give $37bn (£20bn) to enable Bill Gates to run the world's largest philanthropic foundation, the business of philanthropy has come of age. Charitable giving is the coins we drop in the collector's tin, the modest cheques with which we support the favourite causes of our friends. Organised philanthropy is altogether different, a business of central economic and social significance.

A century before Mr Buffett and Mr Gates, John D. Rockefeller was the world's richest man. He founded Standard Oil. But he also founded the Rockefeller Foundation. While every schoolchild knows that antibiotics are the result of slovenly practice in Alexander Fleming's laboratory in Paddington in 1928, the reality is that despite the apparently obvious commercial potential of the discovery it advanced very little until the Rockefeller Foundation funded the Oxford scientists Howard Florey and Ernst Chaim to develop it in 1938. When war broke out, the British and US governments greatly expanded these resources. The outcome was the basis of the modern pharmaceutical industry.

The green revolution has made it possible to feed the explosive growth in population in south Asia since the second world war. Most of the hybrid plant varieties which are its basis were created at Norman Borlaug's research centre in Mexico, financedby the Rockefeller Foundation.The Ford Foundation chipped inas well. Rockefeller support turnsout to have been critical to the unravelling of DNA and the emergence of a biotechnology industry. The list goes on.

Modern information technology is the result of two main strands of development. The conceptual framework is derived from the work of Alan Turing, who showed how any operation - typing this article, taking a photograph, building a car - could be described digitally. Turing's insight was made possible by the expansive atmosphere of King's College Cambridge in the 1930s, its historic endowment multiplied by the efforts of its bursar, John Maynard Keynes.

IT hardware depends on the transistor, discovered in 1947 at AT&T. But Bell Labs were at once the least commercial and most intellectually fertile environment imaginable in a private company. The labs were the philanthropic output of a very rich corporation. Antitrust restrictions limited the ability of the parent company to exploit its discovery and other businesses would earn billions from inexpensively licensed transistor technology.

The market is not good at producing fundamental innovations where they are of general application rather than product specific - and hence not easily appropriable by an individual firm - or where the potential applications of the discovery may be a decade or more away, a problem aggravated by the modern emphasis on quarterly earnings reports. But governments are not good at promoting fundamental innovation either. "Picking winners" is a phrase greeted with derision.

Because philanthropic funding only requires that output be of benefit, rather than of benefit to a particular company, philanthropy supports innovations of economic significance that will not be undertaken by a private company. Because philanthropy is pluralistic, has long time scales and can readily accept that many projects will fail, it supports innovations of economic significance that governments would not and certainly did not finance. The government-funded research base in the US is productive in part because it is so fragmented. The university research base in the US leads the world by miles because this pluralism of public funding is massively enhanced by organised philanthropy.

In the past decade the Wellcome Foundation has become a far more important contributor to British science than the company that gave rise to it. It is not unlikely that, a century from now, Mr Gates and Mr Buffett will be better remembered for their foundations than for the businesses that made their fortunes.

The writer's latest book, The Hare and the Tortoise, is published by the Erasmus Press
股神+盖茨:慈善基金推动科学



新闻报道,沃伦?巴菲特(Warren Buffett)将捐献370亿美元,使比尔?盖茨(Bill Gates)得以运营全球最大的慈善基金会。这意味着慈善事业已发展壮大。慈善捐赠是我们丢在筹款人罐头里的硬币,或是我们支持好友壮举的小额支票。但有组织的慈善事业截然不同,它具有重要的经济和社会意义。

在巴菲特和盖茨之前一个世纪,约翰?洛克菲勒(John D. Rockefeller)是全球首富。他创立了标准石油公司(Standard Oil),还创立了洛克菲勒基金会(Rockefeller Foundation)。虽然每个小学生都知道,抗生素是1928年亚历山大?弗莱明(Alexander Fleming)在帕丁顿(Paddington)实验室中马虎操作的结果,但真实情况是,尽管这个发现具有显而易见的商业潜力,抗生素的研究并未取得多大进展,直到1938年洛克菲特基金会赞助牛津大学(Oxford)科学家霍华德?弗洛里(Howard Florey)和恩斯特?恰伊姆(Ernst Chaim)对其进行开发。战争爆发后,英国和美国政府大大扩充了这些资源。其成果就是现代制药业的基础。

二战后,南亚人口出现了爆炸式增长,绿色革命使得养活这些人口成为可能。杂交植物品种是绿色革命的基础,这些品种多数是在墨西哥诺曼?布劳格(Norman Borlaug)的研究中心里培育出来的,该中心得到了洛克菲勒基金会的资助。福特基金会(Ford Foundation)也进行了捐助。洛克菲勒基金会的支持,对于解开DNA的秘密和生物技术产业的兴起也至关重要。这样的例子还有许多。


现代信息技术是两个主要方向的发展结果。其概念框架来源于艾伦?图灵(Alan Turing)的工作,他揭示了任何操作――打字、拍照、制造汽车――如何能用数字方式进行描述。上世纪30年代,剑桥大学国王学院(King’s College Cambridge)慷慨的校风,使图灵的洞见成为可能。学院财务官员约翰?梅纳德?凯恩斯(John Maynard Keynes)的努力,大大增加了学院的捐款。

信息技术硬件依赖于晶体管,晶体管是由美国电话电报公司(AT&T) 的贝尔实验室于1947发明的。贝尔实验室是私人公司中商业气息最少、最有利于智力创造的环境,它是非常富有的母公司(美国电话电报公司)的慈善产物。反垄断限制约束了母公司利用其发明成果的能力,而其它企业从授权费用低廉的晶体管技术中赚取了巨额美元。

市场并不善于基础创新。原因在于,基础创新具有普遍应用价值,并不针对特定产品,因此不容易被个别公司独占。或者,基础创新的实际应用可能需要花费10年或更长时间,而现代金融市场的关注对象是“季度盈利报告”。但政府也不善于推动根本的创新。由政府“挑选赢家”已沦为笑柄。

由于慈善基金只要求成果有益,而不是对特定公司有利,因此慈善事业能够支持具有重大经济意义的创新,而私企是不会进行这些创新的。由于慈善事业是多元化的、长期的,并且能够接受许多项目会失败的事实,因此它会支持许多政府不会、也确实没有提供资金的具有重大经济意义的创新。美国政府资助的研究之所以有成效,部分原因正是因为这种研究体制的多元结构。美国的大学研究机构遥遥领先世界,因为有组织的慈善事业,对多元化的公共资助构成强大补充。

过去10年间,威康基金会(Wellcome Foundation)为英国科学所做的贡献,远远超过建立该基金会的公司本身。再过一个世纪,盖茨和巴菲特完全可能因为他们的基金会而被铭记,而不是让他们发财的企业。

本文作者的新书《龟与兔》(The Hare and the Tortoise)由伊拉斯谟出版社(Erasmus Press)出版。
描述
快速回复

您目前还是游客,请 登录注册