Pigs in Space

Is there a more perfect symbol of the excesses of global capitalism than Charles Simonyi's 13-day joyride into outer space? Simonyi, a Hungarian-American software programmer who made his fortune at Xerox and Microsoft before launching his own start-up, paid $20 million to be escorted to the Kazakh steppes, packed into a Russian Soyuz rocket and blasted towards the international space station. En route, he'll enjoy a meal of roasted quail, duck breast confit with capers, shredded chicken parmentier and rice pudding with candied fruit -- all carefully selected by his girlfriend, Martha Stewart. (Martha, whatever happened to astronaut ice cream and Tang?) No word yet on the threadcount of his sheets or if there's 24-hour concierge service in orbit.

The whole saga is Dickens for the new millennium, but without the other half. So it's up to us scolds at The Nation to point out the obvious. Simonyi might have spent his money fighting AIDS, or building housing for Hurricane Katrina survivors, or providing clean water to developing nations, or mosquito netting and medicine for malaria patients, or musical instruments for needy, photogenic, musically-gifted inner city school children or...well, depressingly, the list goes on and on. But picking on the follies of the rich is easy, and in this case, not particularly fun. Just think of the carbon footprint a Soyuz rocket leaves!

But the next time the bards of capitalism sing the praises of Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and the outstanding generosity of the mega-rich in the age of extreme wealth (and extreme poverty), I'll trot out Charles Simonyi's space odyssey as counter-example.

Indeed, Simonyi's spending habits are a window into how the world's wealthiest citizens consume and contribute. Worth about $1 billion, Simonyi's no Scrooge McDuck. He's endowed a chair at Oxford and funded the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. In 2003, Simonyi finished 23rd in the Slate 60, the annual ranking of largest American charitable contributions, when he gave $47 million to start the Charles Simonyi Fund for Arts and Sciences. But for each act of noblesse oblige, there's an extravagance. In Simonyi's case, not only is he the 5th space tourist ever, he also owns the world's 39th largest yacht, which is so big that one could, as Power and Motoryacht Magazine tell us, "easily mistake her for a military vessel."

Simonyi's 2003 donation represents less than 5 percent of his net worth. According to Gregg Easterbrook's survey of billionaire philanthropy, this puts Simonyi well behind Buffett, who donated the vast majority of his fortune, and Bill Gates, who's given away about 1/3 of his. But Simonyi fares better in comparison to most billionaires, who on average contribute slightly more than 1 percent of their net worth. As Easterbrook points out, that rate is only marginally better than Americans as a whole, who annually give away about 0.5 percent of their net worth. And it pales in comparison to the 78 percent that Andrew Carnegie gave away in his lifetime.

As the philosopher Peter Singer pointed out in an article for the New York Times, if the rich and superrich gave away at morally responsible and entirely reasonable rates (say, 33 percent of earnings for those in the top .01 percent and sliding downward), wealthy Americans could generate $808 billion annually for global development -- six times more than what the UN estimates it needs to meet its Millennium Development Goals and 16 times more than the shortfall between what's needed and what donor nations currently contribute.

But that might mean giving up duck confit in outer space.

Comments (31)

1. There's Give-away and there's Give-away.

   While I applaud Simonyi's philanthropy, and the philanthropy of all that can give large amounts of money to worthy causes. There are those that give only to see their wealth displayed with only the intention of having their name associated with an art collection in which the ownership remains their family. While being able to view works of fine art is a great intangible asset to those that have the opportunity, it does not cure AIDS, Malaria, Autism, or restore people from crippling diseases.

   Recently the SuperBall Lotto was at $128 million and my son asked me what I would do with all that money. I thought, then I told him that there is only so much money a person can really deal with. Some one like myself could live very happily on the return on investment of say $5 million, more than that I don't think I could handle. I told my son that I'd give most of it away. I would take care of all my family's debts, I would insure the education of my son and my grandson. I would set aside accounts for them to be able to buy a house for them and their families. Whatever was left over would go to help others. I don't need the 38th largest yacht to be one up on Simonyi. Maybe a nice 48' motorsailer would be nice for crusing around in the Florida Keys. A new fast car (I've always had fast cars), Audi R6 maybe.

   But the rest, to help others. My wife grew up poor and when she was four, her brother who was three was playing with matches and she in one of those cute crinoline dresses of the day (early '50's)managed to put her in flames. The family was very poor and she wasn't given any chance of survival due to the small town she lived in. The family was waiting with her to pass when the hospital administrator came in and said that all her medical care would be fully covered by an anonymous benefactor. She was sent to a burn center and underwent numerous surgeries and skin grafts to restore the massive burn area on her right side, leg and chest. She survived and is the mother of my son.

   I would love to be able to repay that anonymous benefactor by paying it forward. I owe it whomever that was that helped that poor little four year old girl to live.

   "No man stands as tall as when he stoops to help another" - My Dad

   Posted by COProgressive at 04/07/2007 @ 8:14pm

2. Mr Kim....do you spend ANY money on luxuries?

   $500 on a new computer, when the old Pentium-II you got in 1998 still works? That $500 could provide schooling for a dozen kids in Ethiopia.

   $1000 for a trip, even something more modest than orbital flight, like the Bahamas or Vermont for the fall leaves? That grand could provide an entire village in Guatemala with every innoculation they need.

   or even as much as $3000 for a trip to Europe or something like that? That $3000 could provide ...what? Something that could provide dozens, maybe hundreds of lives with something we take for granted here in the West.

   "No the same thing"? Sure it is. It's a matter of RATIOs.

   You have a salary of (let' say) $50,000 a year. You spend $10,000 on luxuries and are VERY generous and donate $5-7000 to charity.

   Simonyi is worth a billion... spends $47 Million on charity, and $24 Million on his life-long dream of space flight.

   And I'll bet that his charity (and the one you give to) operate at a MUCH lower bureaucracy level than any governmental or United Nations one.

   And ultimately, unless you are a radical egalitarian (and you may be)...they'll ALWAYS be some level of "super-rich" that SOMEBODY won't like and will want to take away part of it for what THEY think is "fair".

   After all, that guy in Ethiopia or the Congo no doubt thinks of YOU, Mr Kim, as "super rich"....he may just consider that new computer or trip to Europe badly spent and a "folly of the rich".

   Posted by Mask at 04/07/2007 @ 8:49pm

3. Oh, and one other point....

   Simonyi ISN'T going into space EVERY year...but I'll bet his charity foundation will operate for many years.

   How many vacations will YOU take over the next 30 years, Mr Kim?

   Posted by Mask at 04/07/2007 @ 8:53pm

4. But Maskie, Mr. Simonyi's $24 million goes to the Russians. The ones that Deputy Leader tells us are a threat to our security. Undoubtedly, some of the money will even make its way to the Russian military. Surely you object to Americans giving money to the military of our adversaries. Doncha Maskie?

   Posted by masquerade at 04/07/2007 @ 8:58pm

5. Posted by MASQUERADE 04/07/2007 @ 8:58pm

   A minor point at best but....Simonyi is keeping the Russian space program in somewhat of an "operating" sense. Space tourism could be a good money source for it.

   Another good source (without space tourists like Simonyi) would be...

   selling rocket technology and know-how to ...oh...I don't know...the North Koreans, Iranians, etc.???

   Posted by Mask at 04/07/2007 @ 9:10pm

6. So you are saying that you have no problem with Americans giving money to our military adversaries? I am surprised. I thought that you supported America, maskie.

   Posted by masquerade at 04/07/2007 @ 9:24pm

7. Posted by MASQUERADE 04/07/2007 @ 9:24pm

   I'm for "cutting and running" in Iraq....you SHOULD be surprised!

   Posted by Mask at 04/07/2007 @ 10:21pm

8. How 'Bout a list of The Nation's staff and contributors, their salaries, and their cash charitable donations last year?

   I didn't think so.

   Posted by davebarlett at 04/08/2007 @ 12:26am

9. This is rediculous. Philanthropy is a voluntary enterprise. No matter how much he gives to worthy causes, "He could have given more" is an argument that can be used ad infenitum, with no amount of generosity ending up as good enough. And by the way, it doesn't only apply to the very rich. How many of us could live in a smaller house or apartment, drive a cheaper car, and own fewer toys, thereby giving all of that excess money to the charity of our choosing? The answer is all of us. So this guy has a lot of money and wants to go into orbit? It's his money. I say have fun, and thank you for your past, present, and continuing charitable contributions.

   Posted by homerjelwood at 04/08/2007 @ 05:07am

10. Posted by HOMERJELWOOD 04/08/2007 @ 05:07am

    Well spoken...whats next? Quotas for giving on "rich" guys? If he wants, he could take his wealth, turn it into cash, and burn it...crazy? yup, but his right to do so regardless of the blood suckers here.....Aaffirmative action quota on a % basis some had to give based on what they earned? Stupid story at best....

    Ride,Simonyi,Ride!!!!

    Posted by john maasch at 04/08/2007 @ 07:19am

11. What a ridiculous argument to make, that just because a guy is successful he can't enjoy his money the way he wants to.

    What about you Mr. Kim? Have you ever eaten at a fancy restaurant? That's disgusting. Instead you should only eat at cheap dives and donate the difference to charity. What about those clothes you wear? You probably spend several times the GDP per capita in some countries updating your wardrobe every year. How much money do you spend on your living space. Probably an expensive apartment in trendy Greenwich Village huh? Why not spend less and move to Spanish Harlem and donate more to help native Incas grow wool in Peru? Now that I think about it I must have missed that article bashing the new MOMA building in New York saying that that money would have been better spent fighting AIDS in Thailand.

    We weren't put here on this planet to just merely exist. People like to eat fancy foods, travel the world, spend money on entertainment, appreciate beautiful architecture etc... ie. everything that makes us human. Look in the mirror Mr. Kim. The real pig, might just be you.

    Posted by Zeddmen at 04/08/2007 @ 10:27am

12. I gotta tell you, if I had his cash, I'd be riding on that rocket too. Going into space would be the ultimate adventure ride.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 04/08/2007 @ 1:45pm

13. Just think of the carbon footprint a Soyuz rocket leaves!

    And just what exactly is the percentage of greenhouse gasses released that actually come from billionaires launched into space?

    Seriously, this is a great story. A man, born in Hungary, emigrates to the U.S. with nothing, works hard all his life, and is able to afford being launched into space.

    I wish everybody could orbit the Earth a few times. Maybe then, people will begin to realize just how small this planet is, and just how much of a global community we really are.

    Posted by bluegoon at 04/08/2007 @ 3:56pm

14. This is all rather silly. The obvious come back is that the money Mr. Simonyi spent is his; nagging another for failing to use his property as you would wish is silly. Now, if Mr. Simonyi would tell you, Mr. Kim, how to utilize your property I could see your point as valid.

    Another obvious come back is that space tourism hurts no one, provides jobs, creates wealth and so on.

    Also worthy of note is that all goods used by lower and middle-class people today were luxury items once available only to the rich and super-rich.

    Posted by BDunbar at 04/08/2007 @ 4:09pm

15. Mr. Kim,

    I strongly suggest for your reading the recent book by P.J. O'Rourke titled 'On the Wealth of Nations'.

    It's not terribly long and Mr. O'Rourke does a great job condensing and explaining Adam Smith's work.

    Posted by BDunbar at 04/08/2007 @ 4:18pm

16. It's a matter of RATIOs.

    Posted by MASK 04/07/2007 @ 8:49pm

    Exactly. It's also a matter of everybody being free to spend their money as they see fit. If someone were rich enough to afford a Nation cruise [nationcruise.com] for instance, why shouldn't he be allowed to go on one?

    Posted by Amsterdam69 at 04/08/2007 @ 4:34pm

17. I strongly suggest for your reading the recent book by P.J. O'Rourke titled 'On the Wealth of Nations'.

    It's not terribly long and Mr. O'Rourke does a great job condensing and explaining Adam Smith's work.

    Posted by BDUNBAR 04/08/2007 @ 4:18pm

    Does he have his sense of humour back? O'Rourke always was my favourite journalist and I've read pretty much everything he's published, but Peace kills was a big disappointment. He's gone all serious since 9/11, while still desperately trying to be witty. I guess it's difficult to write anything funny when one's forgotten how to smile...

    Posted by Amsterdam69 at 04/08/2007 @ 4:48pm

18. Mr. Kim, You probably have no idea how tedious, stereotypical, and ludicrous your arguments appear to a space advocate, so thank you for this opportunity to air an issue that gets far too little attention.

    First, let me begin by asking why you've singled out Simonyi for paying $20 million to see and experience what only a few in history ever have, while thousands of rich people spend far more on yachts and corporate jets simply to travel in comfort. Is his "offense" worse for stemming from a sincere wish rather than banal indulgence in luxury? To judge such a thing more harshly than meaningless luxuries is to take an egalitarian approach to human happiness, and condemn a triumph of the human spirit for not being universal. Shall we smash all our works of beauty until nothing in the world is ugly? Shall we say to all the peoples of the Earth "You may not hope for anything more until all the world's problems are solved"?

    To dream such lofty dreams and succeed may seem like a terrible contrast with lacking basic needs, but I would suggest your criteria are misguided. Does the combined satisfaction of a million people not having to worry for a year add up to something greater than one person, to the admiration and hope of far more, taking to the sky and saying to them "The stars shall be yours"? Are the only legitimate expressions of the human spirit acts of self-sacrifice to directly limit the suffering of others, and all other manifestations of idealism offensive? I submit to you that life is far more than a quest to limit suffering, and any philosophy that views it is as such is intrinsically moribund.

    Moreover, the tiresome mantra that we should "solve problems down here first" is unspeakably ridiculous. In one breath, people who say this have dismissed all migration and all technological development in the history of mankind. Tell the ancient horse breeder, "Why breed horses when there are starving people?" Tell the ancient farmer, "Why sow the ground with seeds that could feed the hungry NOW?" Tell the Greek mariner, "Why seek to found new cities in far-away lands when your home city has needs?" Tell the Spanish to sell their galleons and spend the money oppressing people at home. Tell the pilgrims to stay in England and reform the religious culture from within. Tell the pioneers to care for known wilderness instead of looking to exploit new ones. Tell the homesteaders to just work harder and buy land on the East Coast. Tell the aerial flight pioneers to sell their shops and donate the proceeds to medical research, etc etc. Unfortunately, if any of these suggestions had been taken, none of the people mentioned afterward would ever have existed.

    The purpose of life is to grow and create more life, just as the purpose of consciousness is to grow and develop more of itself, and pain is not optional in this process. We can and should do more to bring all the people's of the world into the realm of prosperity, but we can and should also do more to expand the human sphere outward and find new wonders, new places to live and grow, and yes, new places to suffer out in the infinite.

    Posted by Space Duck at 04/08/2007 @ 5:26pm

19. It's not terribly long and Mr. O'Rourke does a great job condensing and explaining Adam Smith's work.

    Posted by BDUNBAR 04/08/2007 @ 4:18pm

    Does he have his sense of humour back? O'Rourke always was my favourite journalist and I've read pretty much everything he's published, but Peace kills was a big disappointment. He's gone all serious since 9/11, while still desperately trying to be witty. I guess it's difficult to write anything funny when one's forgotten how to smile...

    Posted by AMSTERDAM69 04/08/2007 @ 4:48pm

    I'm not sure - it's a good read with bits of O'Rourkean wit tossed around but he's explaining a really long and dry read so he doesn't have a lot to work with. Normally your straight man is playing along but Adam Smith does not have much truck with 'funny'.

    Posted by BDunbar at 04/08/2007 @ 7:06pm

20. he also owns the world's 39th largest yacht, which is so big that one could, as Power and Motoryacht Magazine tell us, "easily mistake her for a military vessel."

    What 'Power and Motoryacht' wrote was not that she was so large that she could be mistaken for a military vessel but that

    You could easily mistake her for a military vessel, given the large "9906" that's painted on her hull in block lettering and the grey paint scheme. The numeric code was her project number while she was under construction, and the paint color was chosen because it's easier on the eyes than "wedding cake" white.

    Not size but looks. There is a picture on her wikipedia page - the paint scheme does like the US Nav's 'haze gray' but the marked lack of deck guns and her lines mark her as a pleasure boat.

    Posted by BDunbar at 04/08/2007 @ 7:13pm

21. Yes, if billionaires gave away 33 1/3% of their net worth, we could out-fund the U.N.; and if pigs could fly, none of us -- and not just one billionaire -- would need rocket ships.

    Personally, I am not offended that a billionaire who donates 5% of his net worth to charity also chooses to fulfill his dream of going into space. He earned the money; he has the right to spend a good portion of it on roast duck and rocket ships, if that's what he wants to do. Who decides what percentage is sufficient? Certainly not the editorial board of the Nation. Would the Gates be "pigs" if they gave away 20% of their megabucks instead of 40%?

    Nobody who donates the amount to charity that this guy has donated is a "pig." He probably gives away a higher portion of his money than do the editors of Nation and most Americans. Kudos to him, and I hope that he enjoys the ride.

    Posted by rctobin at 04/08/2007 @ 7:13pm

22. Is he Martha's Link Hogthrob?

    Is MASK really Dr. Julius Strangepork?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/08/2007 @ 7:15pm

23. Posted by AMSTERDAM69 04/08/2007 @ 4:34pm

    Good point....I wonder if Ms vanden Heuvel and the "Nation" guys going on that cruiser are aware of the WASTED FOOD that occurs on a cruise liner...or how much CO2 their gas turbine engines produce....or how many starving kids in Africa the $3000 per person verandah staterooms could feed?

    Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 09:35am

24. Is MASK really Dr. Julius Strangepork?

    Posted by CRABWALK 04/08/2007 @ 7:15pm |

    If THIS is the best that CRAB can come up with to defend this "Eat The Rich" story from Mr Kim.....well, it's about average for everybody else, but it IS "the best" that CRAB can come up with.

    hehe

    Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 09:36am

25. Ladies and Gentlemen...after a long absence...please welcome back to the Nation.com...WOOD...YEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by Announcement at 04/09/2007 @ 09:43am

26. As I was saying...

    Posted by woodyee at 04/09/2007 @ 09:43am

27. Thank you and it's great to be back. I've been overseas and got back and moved, so it's been a busy time. What kind of article is this by Mr. Kim???? Nothing in it addresses solving problems or eradicating poverty.

    Posted by woodyee at 04/09/2007 @ 09:44am

28. How much is your boss Katrina giving to charity????

    Posted by woodyee at 04/09/2007 @ 09:44am

29. I'm sorry, but if the man wants to spend his money going into space, which by the way alot of people would do if they could, then so be it! The wonderful part about this country, is that you can spend the money you earn in almost any way you want to (as long as you pay taxes and don't participate in illegal activities.)

    We are not a communist country!!!! He already donated 5%, which is alot more than I can say most people donate from their pocketbooks!

    Posted by Moderate08 at 04/09/2007 @ 6:49pm

30. I seriously hope Mr Kim reads these posts...and the NOTICIBLE lack of support for his position...

    and doesn't do anything like this again. It's embaressing.

    Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 8:51pm

31. Wow, Richard. I'm a little surprised that you went there, and then published it. But first, I think you need to back up and step out of Ms. Pollitt's ass so you can both take a deep breath and relax. I can't find fault in Simonyi for living the dream. Not just going into space, but building up his wealth from nothing and then getting this great opportunity. I mean, the poor guy's sleeping with Martha Stewart so he's doing his penance for something, Richard. Going into space is currently a once in a lifetime opportunity and for a one time fee of 20 million paid for out of this guy's own pockets doesn't bother me. Sure, it would be nice if he just handed me the money, but this is America, man, and going into space doesn't hurt anyone and it's not against the law to chose not to help someone else with your cash. Don't be jealous, Richard - you and Simonyi made different decisions in life and valued different things. If you want to make millions of dollars and give it away instead of taking a space trip, I suggest you start brainstorming and keep your hands out of the pockets of others.

    Posted by DrJamesBarry at 04/09/2007 @ 10:38pm