I love the “fabulously” wealthy, rich people who earned their stripes working from the ground up to build business empires. The modern business is truly a study in the success and failure of human groups.  So it is no surprise to see some wealthy people patting themselves on the back for a job “well” done.  And it is no surprise that there are those amongst their very ranks who tend to spank themselves for the wealth they have created and/or amassed over time.

A recent article in the NY Times interviews several business executives considered to be at the “pinnacle” of wealth.  There were those who compared their gains to the efforts of the early American industrialists (Carnegie, et al.) while the authors made no effort to diminish these comparisons. The oddity that struck me is how wealthy industrialists of the modern era appear to be largely mixed in their opinions regarding the re-distribution of their wealth.  Some feel that they should be taxed more. Others feel they should be taxed less. Yet still others think the current system is just fine.

What I found odd is that Warren Buffet seems to take a conflicted stance. As many books and lore about the guy state: he’s a simple guy who likes simple things who lives a simple life – and he never gave his kids any of his money. None of Warren Buffet’s money is going to his kids – instead he’s giving it all away to the Gates Foundation. The confusing part? He feels that (from my impression of the article) we need to distribute the income after it is earned. Redistribution is essentially a forceful method of taking one’s wealth and giving it to others.   In much the same way he wouldn’t give his children any money – they had to earn it independently, why should he give it to someone else? On either hand, you’re giving your money away so what does it matter whether it is your children or others? Neither group (family or government) earned it within the marketplace.