Anyone really serious about being humble would pay his laywers big money to make sure he never appears on the WSJ. I mean seriously this is what they call "substract to add". You give the impression that you dont care for material goods, although ou have spent a lifetime acquiring them. aS a result you become even more famous and richer.
Quite the contrary. Only someone who was serious about appearing humble would try to prevent publicity. While the article might not make him appear humble, true humility does not require the appearance of humility.
I consider W. Buffett humble. Leaving in the same house you purchased when you were not even a millionaire, let alone the second richest person on earth. Seriously there is not one person on earth who needs more than 5 million to survive. I say pledge the remaining 2.995 billies. And finally is it truly humble to say that you stay in 5 star hotels across the planet.
yeah, those people with 4 million have it pretty tough.
you can live very comfortably the rest of your life off of 500,000 even in some of the richest counties in the US if you know how not to squander money.
Does he ever claim to be humble? He only claims to be sensible -- owning a house is a waste of time and effort when you're rich enough to stay in a different hotel suite every week.
Meh. I think that spreading the meme of reducing consumption, if you believe it, is worthy of the article. Maybe it isn't about impressing everyone by seeming humble--maybe it's about spreading a better way of thinking about wealth.
If you call living in high class hotels reducing consumption then I totally agree with you, And they simply said he is letting his houses, cars... go, but they are not saying he is giving them away. Want to impress? Commit half of your fortune to charity NOW and the second half gradually for the next n years. 3 billion? End Malaria, Darfur or something. In my opinion having 3 Billion in the bank or tied up into businesses doesn't make you so different then having cars, houses and boats that are worth 3 billion.
giving away money doesn't solve problems. in the best case scenario it removes roadblocks to other people solving them. in the worst case scenario it is simply a stop gap that leaves the people you're trying to help in the exact same situation once the money runs out.
I think the point I was making that he isn't necessarily trying to impress. In my book, conspicuous consumption is wasteful, and making a stand against it is worthwhile.
