I rather admire George Soros for the fact that, like a handful of billionaires, he's putting lots of his money where his mouth is when it comes to trying to make the world a healthier, safer, more democratic place. (Bill Gates is a more well-known example of that; Canada's Jeff Skoll a slightly less well-known example.)
In a recent essay in The New York Review of Books (sorry: it's behind the NYRB' paywall), Soros talks about his philanthropy and engages in an interesting discussion of how his foundations/endowments will continue to work on his philanthropic causes after he's gone.
But up near the top of his essay, there's a couple of paragraphs that gave me pause:
I occupy an exceptional position. My success in the financial markets has given me a greater degree of independence than most other people. This obliges me to take stands on controversial issues when others cannot, and taking such positions has itself been a source of satisfaction. In short, my philanthropy has made me happy. What more could one ask for? I do not feel, however, that I have any business imposing my choices on others.
I have made it a principle to pursue my self-interest in my business, subject to legal and ethical limitations, and to be guided by the public interest as a public intellectual and philanthropist. If the two are in conflict, the public interest ought to prevail. I do not hesitate to advocate policies that are in conflict with my business interests. I firmly believe that our democracy would function better if more people adopted this principle. And if they care about a well-functioning democracy, they ought to abide by this principle even if others do not. Just a small number of public-spirited figures could make a big difference.
I, for one, would very much like an example where Soros' public and philanthropic interests where in conflict with his business interests. He does not give one on this essay though he may have elsewhere. What did he do in that situation? Did he divest of of the 'unethical' business interest or did he double down on the investment and make a killing? And, perhaps I'm naive, but why shouldn't business leaders and investors who are so inclined be able to invest and carry on business that is in line with their ethics and whatever it is they perceive to be the public interest? Just askin' …