More than a medium of exchange

Bill Gates, Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett

So Warren Buffett pledged $31 billion at a ceremony at the New York Public Library. He will give this money to Bill Gates on one condition. Bill has to disburse $4 million a day, 7 days a week, on philanthropic causes in addition to what he is already spending through the Gates Foundation. The money will come in installments, a lump-sum of $1.5 billion annually. Buffett said in his speech that Bill Gates and his wife would do a better job dispensing this money. It was "a simple decision" for him.

Fair game for a man who started 50 years ago with $105,000 and turned it into $44 billion. Buffett considered he was just a man who was lucky enough to be born in the right place at the right time, with the "right kind of wiring" to be successful in the American system. He has finally resolved his inner conflict. Buffett, who spent his life amassing unimaginable wealth, felt "all the way along" that what he earned belonged to the society. Earlier he had announced that he was not going to bequeath his fortune to his three children for their personal use. Each of them will get roughly $1 billion to run a charitable foundation. That is it.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Bill Gates, who is worth $46.5 billion had sorted out his wealth long before Buffett. He will only leave a small fraction for his children and then donate the rest to health research, libraries, and education. Bill now operates small high schools in the US, supports worldwide health initiatives against HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, and sponsors rural development in sub-Saharan Africa. With the donation from Buffett, he is going to expand the scope of his foundation, and surrender some of his duties at Microsoft in order to spend more time on philanthropic activities.

That brings a new twist to the game of money. Why make money mostly by uncharitable means if one must give away in charity? May be, money-making is an addiction, which, once acquired, is hard to quit. It is possible that people under the excessive influence of affluence often feel guilty. That is when they give up their money to seek rehabilitation and recovery.

What about the rich kids, those who are raised on the nutrition of their fathers' wealth? Why have Bill and Warren decided not to leave everything for their children? They are going to give enough so that the children can live comfortably. But they are giving back most of it to where it came from. They believe that they heavily owe it to society, not their children.

It upsets the traditional sense of getting rich, which is an acquisitive habit to amass fortune and hand it over to the next generation. Most rich people use their money to satisfy their carnal needs, and pass it to their children so that they can enjoy their lives without hardship. One of the most intriguing thoughts of all time is how birth becomes destiny. Inheritance is no more accidental than earthquake or tsunami.

The reason why Warren Buffett or Bill Gates has drawn our attention is not that they have their phenomenal wealth. It is the quirky reflex with which they have denied the gravity of being wealthy men. They have agreed to give back what they have taken. Right or wrong is not the important question. Nobody would have blamed them if they had clung to their wealth for many more years and to their titles as the top two richest men.

Instead, they have turned our attention to something more important. Is it right to keep the fortune that is gained at social expense? This is not to say that the fortunes of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are ill-gotten. But most property is theft, as the French philosopher named Prodhoun once said. In one way or another, one man's gain is another man's loss. Accumulation of wealth is a function of ripping others off!

It reminds us of the Roman empire where affluent people used to eat and then throw up in the vomitorium so that they could eat again. It is a kind of sickness, a compulsive habit to acquire more than what is required. What Warren and Bill have done is show how much money they could live without. That gives a redundant margin which is left behind as inheritance. In some societies, there are legal provisions to absorb that margin into the state if there is no surviving heir. Socialism and communism were disposed to abolish it altogether.

If looked at closely, inordinate inheritance is the most ruinous of all human customs, which sets man against man in an endless cycle of conflict and retribution. Inheritance is idle fortune that creates idle generations, who seldom engage in anything more fruitful than blowing away their ancestors' fortune. These idle generations are like the sequels of a blockbuster movie, which are rarely as good as the original.

Children do not always inherit the good looks of their parents. Children do not always inherit the talent of their parents. Children do not always inherit the knowledge, wisdom, intelligence, courage, and charisma of their parents. Children do not necessarily inherit the temperament, judgment, and acumen of their parents. It is obvious that Nature does not have any intention to give to children what it gives to their parents.

Then why should parents give their wealth to children? Inheritance is the shifting gear on a runaway train. It can be used to escalate or slow down the mad rush for money that is knocking down the pillars of consideration and restrain. Money is more than a medium of exchange. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have proved it. Is there anybody who wants to follow them?

Mohammad Badrul Ahsan is a banker.