Bill Gates: Philanthropist

Gates Aims Billions to Attack Illnesses of World's Neediest

Free registration to NY Times needed to read the article.

I've known about Gates' philanthropy efforts for several years now. Color me very impressed with the results so far...his foundation has made very smart decisions, preferring to go after the less sexy research avenues (mosquitos, infrastructure, etc.) and organisations. I wonder if he has read "Parasite Rex"? His decisions remind me of "back to basics" regarding global health.

Forget Microsoft...his philanthropy will eclipse it soon enough, like it has already eclipsed all the big donors of the past.



More praise:


The three page article places credit on Bill Gates' alone, but I really think that his wife, Melinda, really deserves the credit. I mean, how many single, unattached guys make donations?

Either way, it's a very interesting read.

The subject interests me.

Frankly, I have long considered Gates among the least public-spirited of the super-rich.

I am under the impression that he is far from approaching the status of a Rockefeller, or a Soros, whether it is the amount of money, or the quality of his thinking on such issues.

BTW, I think improving PC operating systems so they are not klutzy and unreliable, and gateways to crime, spam, and general babble, would be a great contribution to humanity's welfare.

Damn, I may finally have to register with The NY Times.

> Frankly, I have long considered Gates among the least public-spirited of the super-rich.

Which is odd, considering he's probably donated more money to charity than any other person.

When he gives it ALL away, then I'll be impressed.

You first.

I was under the impression he'd been funding the provision of computers to "economically deprived" people (or whatever term is applied.)

The lack of computers and associated skills has almost nothing to do with the real poverty in the world.

And I am not aware of his thinking questioning the issues of monopolistic corporations, and distortions in social values congruent with their hegemony.

Hence my jaundiced view.

I will sign up for the article!

On multiple occasions, Bill has pledged to do almost exactly that before he dies - he doesn't want his children to inherit huge sums of money from him, so the plan is to giveaway almost all of his fortune to his foundation and other charities over his lifetime I believe.

This is what the Packard family did. I went to college with Julie Packard, who was a pretty down-to-earth person. IIRC the family wanted the kids to stand on their own two feet. All they were supplied with was the opportunity. Julie wanted to run an aquarium when she grew up, so after getting her degrees in marine biology the Packards built Monterrey Bay Aquarium for her to run. She makes her own money and I suppose could be bounced if she screwed up royally.

I'm really surprised by this information. Good for Bill!


I'll have to register and read the entire article.

The Gates Foundation is well known in non-profit circles for very precise demands for performance. Unlike most non-profits, that distribute the money and hope for the best. the Gates Foundation takes an extremely hands-on approach to its investments and carefully monitors the results. Those that underperform don't get more money. It's a very mercenary form of running a charity and it works incredibly well. The success achieved by the organization is amazing. I'm hoping they try to tackle a major disease one of these days. I'll forgive Bill for the blue screen of death if he wipes out cancer!

OK, I gave $100 to the Augusta Humane Society this month. I'm done. Your and Bill's turn.

And that was all of your money? Every cent you had to your name? That was the criteria.

Paul, he's probably living paycheck-to-paycheck.

Like I'm the only one. I can honestly say, that after paying all my bills this month, without selling my house, car, or HT rig, I have no money left at the end of most months. If you want me to roll up my pennies that are in the spare change jar I will, but could you please send me some rollers?

any philanthropic act deserves praise. doesn't matter who it is or how much.

i'm glad to see him donating his money to (what he feels is) a good cause. i didn't realize he's spent six billion so far. that's just way cool.

i also heard he plans on giving away most of his money when he passes on.

It's great that Gates is giving away some money, but I am not impressed at all. Since 1995, Gates has donated approximately $800 million. But, a major portion of these donations encompasses free software donated to schools. While this does help the schools, a major side effect is the spread of his Microsoft monopoly. In addition, Gates is worth something like $34 to $55 billion (depending on where the market prices close). Giving away $800 million over 8 years comes to $100 million a year. Assuming a low number of net worth ($34 billion), Gates gives away money at a rate of 1:34000 (charity to net worth). Considering an average American of modest net worth ($70,000), they must give a little over $2.00 a year using Gates' donation ratio. Granted, using exact numbers considering Gates' incredible wealth is never perfect. But, the point remains the same. Considering his giant wealth, Gates needs to improve mightily upon his philanthropic donating.

justin1 -

according to the article, he's given away over 6 billion dollars in under four years - seems pretty decent to me. where do you get 800 million from? if he's worth 55 billion, then what percentage of his wealth is that? it's certainly more 1:34000.

regardless, he doesn't have to give away a single penny if he doesn't want to. 800 million is better than nothing. sure, some of it may go towards self-promotion, but who cares. the schools still benefit...isn't that a good thing?

i think you're being wayyy too harsh on the guy.

Anti-Gates sentiment runs rampant again. Until you post here what YOU donate and its proportion to your net income, I will not see where you are coming from with the above statement.

To the Gates family, keep up the good work.

Hmmm. I've finally read it.

In a world of woe : disease, unemployment, and many corrupt kleptocratic governments - more lives saved by bio-engineering (eliminating malaria?) could be a double-edged sword.

What the wretched of the earth really need is productive, morale enhancing work.

Billionaires do not often show great interest in what might enhance their opportunity to enjoy that.

I mentioned George Soros earlier because he does want to deal with the structural issues involved in the poverty and backwardness that prevails in many parts of the world. Ralph Nader tried to discuss this with Mr Gates, apparently unsuccessfully. I understand Mr Gates has attended Davos Forum meetings in recent years, and maybe he needs some time to gain understanding, but so far, he seems to me to be an immensely rich geek with naive faith in technology for THE WAY AHEAD.

Finally, for all those who still assume Bill Gates is an innocent and well meaning individual, and particularly admirable, try a Google Search on "Foundations and Tax Avoidance".

That said, it is perhaps good to see that Mr Gates wants to leave some legacy other than Windoze

i must be in an irritable mood today, cuz i'm defending stuff i normally wouldn't give more than a few posts thoughts too.... again, so what? he gets a tax break, schools get pc's. what's the problem here? it sorta sounds like a win-win situation to me.

taking this down to it's lowest common demoninator...at least bill gates is giving his own money to some cause. he should be applauded for that.

Why are some people focusing on his donations to schools? And, from what I read in the article, technological solutions aren't the only things the foundation is working on, although in the current political climate there would be public furor over perceived meddlings in an affected country's culture. It's a lot easier to provide clean needles to South Africa than it is to put up posters encouraging abstinence and condom usage, which would be considered as an affront to their culture!

Don't forget that the article mentions a donation to organisations devoted to efficient distribution of needed supplies, as well as basic biological research.

The point is that the Gates Foundation is very active with the organisations it works with, and actually serves as a consistent benchmark to keep charities in line and accountable! Currently, no government or global organisation exists, that I know of (does the WHO do anything?), that ensures the accountability of charities: are they embezzling? How efficient are they -- ie. what percentage of donations go into administrative costs? Which charity actually tries to solve the problem instead of dressing the wounds?

The fact of the matter is, if the Gates Foundation says a charity is effective, then they are probably right.

I think you're either mixing up Gates with Microsoft (a common mistake) or just being plain vindictive.

From Bill Gates bio on microsoft.com:


Their foundation is approximately 5 years old BTW.

Bill Gates' Foundation money isn't sitting in a bank somewhere waiting to be given away in grants, it's invested almost exclusively in stock. And while you may think there's nothing wrong with this, the SEC thinks differently, especially since the Foundation is under investigation for being invested in stocks strategic to maintaining Microsoft's monopoly – something that could result in the Foundation losing its tax-exempt status. For example, Microsoft, in a deal to persuade Cox Communication to use Microsoft software, bought $500 million in the company's stock. Almost half of the money used to purchase the stock came from the Gates Foundation, for no other apparent purpose than to further Microsoft's corporate goals. Additionally, a substantial portion of the money his Foundation claims to have “granted” to drug companies for immunization research is simply drug company stock which the Foundation purchased, owns, and can sell at any time. This would be like any one of us claiming publicly that our 401(k) investments are philanthropic grants. The Foundation has earned far more in these stock holdings than it has dispersed in actual grants.

But there is some genuine good that comes from the Gates Foundation. It's too bad that much of it is tainted. Recently in India, Gates wanted to give $100 million to India to fight the spread of AIDS, and $400 million to supply India's schools with Microsoft software. On the face of it, this was a very good thing to do, and the New York Times ballyhooed about it and chalked up another $500 million (Half a BILLION!) to all the good that the Foundation has done. But something the New York Times failed to mention was that 80% of that half-billion dollar grant was in MS software, which Bill gets for pennies, but writes off at full retail value. So this $500 million grant is really $100 million and change, not half a billion. This is true for most of his grants, drastically diminishing, if not their true value, their actual cost to the Foundation.

Still, $100 million to fight AIDS is a VERY good thing, and nobody will argue with that.

Nobody, that is, except Bill Gates. When India refused the software portion of the grant, Bill took back his offer to help with the AIDS crisis. Public outcry made him quickly change his mind, but he still refused to give the Indian government the whole $100 million all at once. Instead, he's giving India $10 million a year over the next ten years. Not if there are strings attached, and not if it serves to advance Microsoft's monopoly across the globe. Gates and Microsoft would like nothing better than to get India, a billion-member democracy, hooked on Microsoft software. India recognized the hideous long-term cost of signing up for Microsoft's monopolistic, proprietary software treadmill, and said, “no thanks,” even though it meant losing the $100 million in its fight against AIDS. The Indian government, in its wisdom, recognized that free software for schools in this context is NOT a good thing and was willing to turn away $100 million just to avoid having the MS monopoly invade its country and sap the country's long-term wealth.

Make no mistake, the Gates Foundation does a LOT of good. I will never be able to do anything as good or contribute as much to people's lives, and I don't begrudge Bill at all. He's played a significant individual roll in saving lives, so Bravo for him. But it also appears that the Gates Foundation won't spend a dime if it isn't done in concert with Microsoft's corporate goals. Consequently, the good that comes out of the Gates Foundation seems to be made possible only by the insane amount of money involved, and not because of Gates' philanthropic tendencies.

I think that's a little harsh. Strings or no strings, it is hard to argue that Gates' action is purely driven by business goals. He's okay in my book.

Hmm interesting. I think it would be best if the Gates Foundation distanced itself from Microsoft, perhaps by altering its charter to prevent conflicts of interest, and allow a third party to ensure it follows the new rules. This would keep the foundation in a good light, and prevent the wrangling we've been seeing with India.

BrianW, do you have a link to an article discussing this controversy over India? Hopefully the more people know about this, the more incentive the Gates Foundation has for staying transparent.

Fluff article about the technological aspect of Gates' grant to India:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2447285.stm

Article about Bill's cultural falling out caused by his desire to help:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4544487,00.html


Article about the Foundation's grant's entanglement with MS corporate goals and many the strings attached:
http://www.expresscomputeronline.com...indcomp1.shtml

Pertinent Quotes: Editorial, with opposing feedback, about more entanglements and motives:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/28063.html

There's more, but I gotta get some sleep.

Again, I'm not saying that Gates' Foundation is worthless or that it doesn't do any good in the world. It clearly does a lot of good. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that the Foundation exists, despite the good it does, primarily to further Microsoft's corporate goals and to ultimately increase Bill's bottom line. Disentanglement from Microsoft's corporate goals is simply not possible.

Edit: Okay, here's another link about India's response to Bill's gift:
http://mm.gnu.org.in/pipermail/fsf-p...er/000000.html

Pertinent quote:
I realize this thread has gone two pages now, and that this additional information probably won't be seen by most, but goven the flow of this conversation, I didn't think it belonged anyplace but here.

You just can't please some people.

The schools issue is in part that corporations are inserting their products and ideologies (computers, cola, whatever) into resource starved public systems.

And, surprise, surprise!!, part of the resource scarcity problem stems from tax system policy, of which foundations that allow corporate or private wealth to avoid taxes in ways not accessible to less sophisticated citizens, is one element. (A little googling today found an article wherein Bill Gates Snr was opposing moves by America's President Bush to further reduce taxes on the wealthy. )

As for school needs, more and/or better teachers, plus books, would give kids a better chance at a good education, than just computers and the internet.

As far as holding charities and non-governmental organizations or God forbid, UN organizations, accountable for efficiency and effectiveness, that certainly sounds good.

BTW this quote from am interesting article in 2000 came up today when I used Jeeves Search engine.

"Microsoft boss Bill Gates has renounced the machine that has made him the world's richest man. In a startling proclamation, Gates has announced that computers can do little to solve the planet's gravest social ills.
'The world's poorest two billion people desperately need healthcare, not laptops,' he said.
The declaration represents a major personal transformation for Gates, and has sent shockwaves through America's high-tech business community. Had the Pope renounced Catholicism, the surprise would not have been greater.
Speaking in Seattle at a conference on using computers to help the Third World, Gates said he still had faith in the ideal that technology could bring about a better world, but added that he doubted that computers - or global capitalism - could solve the most immediate catastrophes facing the world's poorest people."

Perhaps he is not so unaware as I used to think.

If a greedy, selfish corporation wants to donate software and computers to a school, I fail to see the problem. The school doesn't have to accept the donations nor do they have to use it. If they do decide to use it, then the donation clearly was meaningful.

There's nothing wrong with social capitalism in a free market society. If you don't like the donation, don't accept it.

An analogous situation exists with GM foods. A lot of third-world nations have refused to accept gifts of GM seeds out of concern over long-term IP issues.

"Bring on the dancing Trojan horses"