How to spread wealth and generosity

Carlos Alberto Montaner

Carlos Slim thinks he is a better philanthropist than Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. He has just declared that poverty is not fought by just handing out money. In fact, Gates' foundation, to which Buffett has donated a good part of his fortune, does not hand out money. It vaccinates and cures extremely poor children in various parts of the world, even in the United States, while it tries to educate them.

Slim is the world's third-richest man. He is a Mexican engineer, 66, the son of a hard-working Lebanese immigrant. He is reportedly worth about $49 billion. He has donated $4 billion to his own philanthropic foundation. He's not doing badly. At the rate his fortune grows -- a fortune derived mostly from communications, which he exploits as a monopoly -- it is likely that next year he will rank first and that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett will occupy second and third place, respectively.

Absurd discrepancy

Evidently, having that much money does not prevent someone from talking nonsense. Ever since Abraham Maslow ranked human needs in his famous pyramid, we know that the basic needs are to be alive, eat, drink and be protected from the cold and disease. It is true that poverty is fought not by distributing money but by generating the conditions for people to work and create wealth, but to reach that stage it seems indispensable to be alive. And then we can worry about what will happen later.

Aside from this absurd discrepancy, there is another notable difference between Slim and Gates: the way in which Mexicans and Americans judge the rich. In general, Latin Americans have a very bad opinion of moneyed people, while people in the United States venerate them. Perhaps that is related to the system in which the former and the latter have made their fortunes.

Although Slim did not invent corruption, he presumably became rich by the rotten rules of the game of Mexican capitalism, shielded by power, where cronyism, bribes and kickbacks are part of every negotiation.

Gates, in turn, competed in the market with a novel software -- an operating system for computers -- and managed to create an emporium. It is true that in the process he attempted to ruin competitors and elbowed his way to the top, but the general perception is that he did everything according to the rules, and in the Anglo-Saxon culture that is the indispensable requirement for recognition: to observe the rules of ``fair play.''

Anyway, it is very convenient that Slim will dedicate part of his fortune to help his fellow humans, although in a proportionally small amount. In Latin America, his behavior is rare. It is said that in that continent that it's easier to find an elephant than a philanthropist like Maecenas. Why? Probably because , in traditionally Catholic societies, charity was dispensed through the Catholic Church. The rich gave part of their wealth to the church, and the church distributed it. When the church was deprived of its possessions and stopped being the major philanthropic factor, nothing replaced it. Either that, or it was replaced by a thoroughly incompetent state.

But there is another element. In Latin America, the act of giving does not imply any prestige, and we know that -- on the Maslow scale -- social recognition is an important motivation. Why sacrifice part of one's fortune when doing so attracts scant applause and admiration from others?

Favorite charity

It is a lamentable affair. In a cultural space like Latin America, with so many gaps at every level, a good dosage of private philanthropy would be very useful. It's unimportant if some donate their money to fight AIDS while others do it to save Italian opera or the Central American tapir. While half of Italy starved, the Medicis sponsored the great artists of the Renaissance out of their own pockets.

There is no need to ask the rich to abide by the Maslow pyramid. It's enough that they open their purses and choose at will the object of their compassion. Even if no one thanks them. That's called helping for the love of the art. It may be the most open-handed way to be generous.

March 20, 2007

Imprimir esta página