Don't Miss This VERY Special Black Friday Offer
CNN Reporter Says the Quiet Part Out Loud About Afghans and the National...
Do Something About Prices, Republicans, Or You’re Going To Lose
Democrats Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste
Zohran Mamdani's Still Begging Working Class New Yorkers for Money
'Closed in Its Entirety:' President Trump Issues Warning About Venezuelan Airspace
Being Thankful Also After Thanksgiving
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 296: What the Bible Says About Gifts
Democrat Leadership is Sinister, Not Misguided
Texas Authorities Arrest Afghan Immigrant Accused of Posting Bomb Threat Online
Northwestern to Pay $75M, Enact Major Policy Reforms Under Federal Anti-Discrimination Dea...
Audio Company Harman to Pay $11.8M for Evading U.S. Duties on Chinese Aluminum...
State Department Pauses Afghan Passport Visas After D.C. Terrorist Shooting
Colombian National Sentenced to 60 Months for Laundering $1.2M in Drug Proceeds
Pregnancy Resource Centers Should Be Able to Operate Free From Government Intimidation
OPINION

'Stingy' Jeff Bezos

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

Thursday, right before Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos announced he'd acquire Whole Foods for $13.7 billion, he tweeted a "request for ideas" for "philanthropy strategy." If you have suggestions re "helping people in the here and now... reply to this tweet."

Advertisement

Here's my reply: Don't do it, Jeff!

I understand why you asked.

Giving well isn't easy. Charities often squander donations.

Cancer Fund of America gave less than 5 percent of donations to charity. When I confronted its owner, James Reynolds, he blithely said, "True, if they give it to the telemarketer, they get 85-90 percent."

Charity-rating services try to separate good charities from bad, but they get conned, too. Measuring "charitable work" is hard. How should the CEO's first-class hotel expenses be classified?

Some charities perpetuate dependency -- rewarding passivity rather than effort.

Some perpetuate poverty -- destroying local businesses by forcing them to compete with "free."

Still, Jeff Bezos, you have $80 freakin' billion. Isn't it your moral duty to give more?

No.

I know, you've been called "stingy." A Slate article sneered that lemonade stands donate more.

Like much of what is in Slate, that wasn't true. You've given millions to various causes, including our alma mater. (Dumb -- Princeton doesn't need the money.) Still, you give less than .1 percent of your wealth.

Stingy as that sounds, I say that's good -- because you are not a normal person.

I give to charity. But I'm just a reporter. I don't create wealth like you do.

You employ more than 300,000 people. Amazon saves everyone time and money. You created that from nothing.

Advertisement

I bet soon you will find ways to improve food distribution, and your Blue Origin rockets will make space travel practical. Already, you are more efficient than NASA.

There's no doubt that you are a wealth creator.

So was Ted Turner. Nineteen years ago, the billionaire told me it was "appalling" how cheap rich people are. "I saw 'A Christmas Carol'," said Turner. "I assumed everybody with a lot of money gave it away, because they didn't want to be Scrooge! ... We should shame rich people into giving."

Shortly afterward, he announced that he would donate $1 billion to the U.N.

The press cheered.

But wait, the U.N. is famous for waste! It spends millions on bureaucracy, coddling dictators, sucking up to celebrity ambassadors, etc. I assume the U.N. squandered much of Turner's gift.

But Turner the entrepreneur created Turner Broadcasting, CNN and more. Today his companies employ thousands of people.

So I asked him, "Since the U.N. wastes money, while you have unique business skills, don't you and, say, Bill Gates, do more for the world by growing your companies?"

Turner didn't buy it. "What are you beating on me about? This is why people don't like newsmen ... I'm walking off the set."

And he did.

Today, Bill Gates spends his time giving money away. He's conscientious about it. He experiments, funding what works -- dropping what doesn't. He uses his business skills to save lives. Good for him.

Advertisement

But Gates was unusually skilled at bringing people better software. Had he continued at Microsoft, I bet he would have done even more for the world.

After the movie "The Social Network" portrayed Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg as selfish, Zuckerberg gave $100 million to Newark's schools.

But the problem with Newark's schools wasn't money -- Newark schools spend more per student than most private schools. The problem is unionization and government monopoly. Zuckerberg's money went down the drain.

By contrast, Zuckerberg is really good at using the internet to create wealth. He gave us new ways to keep in touch. That's a wonderful thing. He should do more of it.

I'm no entrepreneur. I'm not likely to create a zillion jobs. So I should give to charity, and I do. I donate to the Doe Fund, Central Park Conservancy and other charities I can watch, so I see if they spend my donations well.

But Bezos, Zuckerberg, Gates and all you entrepreneurs, stop feeling guilty. You, by pursuing profit honestly, do much more for the world than charities do.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement