Does the 'Giving Pledge' work?

I'm not sure why, perhaps the random scrutiny on Bill Gates of late. But, recently, I've been seeing a lot of articles popping up questioning the success of the 'Giving Pledge'. This basically an informal pledge some billionaires have made to giving away the majority of their wealth during their lifetime. 

 The two arguments against I've read are:

1. They aren't getting less rich.
2. They are often still controlling the money.

If the purpose of the pledge were to become less wealthy or to give up control of your assets in the process, then they have indeed, categorically failed.

But, I don't think that is the criteria. In fact, I don't think there is any such criteria in the pledges made. At all. And, if you look at the motives, or at least the narratives, that isn't the goal of those who have made the pledge either. 

For the most part, the objective is simple; to use a sizable portion of their wealth to improve the world. And that may be even harder to quantify. But, I don't think it is particularly hard to qualify. The Gates Foundation has made numerous donations and investments which have helped numerous people both directly and indirectly. There is little doubt that people have been aided and that the source of the funds is primarily, if not entirely sourced from philanthropists. And primarily those who have made the pledge, such as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates.

Can I quantify the degree to which they have helped? No.

As to the original arguments though. I even have things there to debate. Firstly, and most obviously, the is a simple problem with being a billionaire. It is incredibly hard to become one and simultaneously be dumb enough to actually lose money at an appreciable rate without being reckless. Being reckless with money is as likely as anything to make matters worse.

Most of us will never see such sums of money in our lives. But, to paint a picture... right now it is quite easy to find quality investments yielding 6% or more. If you had a billion dollars invested in such funds you would gain $6B/year. By doing nothing. And that isn't accounting for potential gains in the value of the underlying stocks.

Now, on top of that... a billion dollars is an amount of money rarely used to address anything except government issues affecting million of people or multi-national corporate buyouts. In short... I think people underestimate how difficult it is to spend even $1B. Let alone spend more and the money it is likely earning you.

So, to me, it is rather disingenuous to assert that the pledge is a failure simply on the basis that its membership hasn't universally become poorer. In fact, again, I'm going to stick with Bill Gates as an example. According to Google, he has given away over $45B. He currently has a net worth of $112B. And, if he has in fact amassed wealth over this period since he started, it means he would have donated somewhere in the ballpark of half the wealth he started with. 

Definitely NOT an inconsequential amount. That is the GDP of an entire country like Belarus of Lebanon. And, his annual contributions to charity exceed some smaller countries annual GDP.

I'm not really sure what the root behind the "they are still getting richer" argument is which might negate the good in what they're doing. But, it just seems like a misleading statement.

The other argument was about managing the money themselves. With the exception of Mackenzie Scott. The argument is that if they are so hands on with the money they are basically being self serving first, and helpful second. But, I don't see it that way. Admittedly, that is just my own perception. But, as I said earlier, blindly throwing away billions of dollars is as likely to cause problems as resolve them. 

Not all charities are well managed, and not all causes have a reputable charity. I sincerely doubt that even Scott gave money away blindly and suspect she did a lot of diligence into the charities she supports. It is certainly notable that she gives money with no strings attached. But, that doesn't ensure that her donations are more beneficial to people in general or better at draining her wealth (not that I understand why that is a relevant metric).

Perhaps the most important point above is the absence of reputable charities. Not all problems facing humanity are equal. And some already have adequate support. Finding novel problems with no one supporting them is more likely to yield significant results. I can't speak to the other "signatories" (not sure if actual signatures exist) of the pledge, but the Gates Foundation seems to do exactly this. Seek out large problems which aren't being addressed or aren't being effectively addressed. So, sure, Bill and Melinda's Foundation manages the projects and money. But, there would also be no viable candidate to donate too which would address the issue effectively.

Furthermore, one's time is an asset. In that respect, what Bill and Melinda Gates do is actually a greater investment than just their money. And, those receiving donations have no right to make demands of others simply because they donated money. Specifically, what right do we as society have to take away something from the likes of people if it is what they enjoy if it harms no one, and in fact benefits many? After all... the foundation is effectively how Bill and Melinda Gates choose to spend their time. Why should it count against them that they are involved in their philanthropy.

IF, AND ONLY IF, the nature of their increasing work WAS the foundation might someone be able to make an argument against their growing wealth or be concerned with their involvement. But, that simply isn't the case. They are the primary contributors to the foundation. Even if they make money on paper, they are effectively paying themselves out of their own pockets. It is a less than zero sum game.

And that is the root of this for me. The growing wealth is not a function of their charity work nor their involvement with it. They are legitimately donating money. And people are legitimately benefiting from it. Are there better ways to address the world's problems? Probably. But, clearly we are either unaware or unwilling.