Bill Gates: Philanthropist - Page 2

Is this what you think I’m saying? I’m not saying his motivations are purely business. I’m saying that Gates’ actions are driven only in part, and in some cases primarily, by business goals. Even Gates is capable of doing something good for Goodness’ sake, and I don’t begrudge him when he does. Don, even if you’re talking about a greedy, selfish charitable foundation instead of a greedy, selfish corporation, I couldn’t agree more. Apparently, the government of India feels the same way. One thing, though: If a school accepts the software donation, then it does have to use it, often exclusively (meaning they at least can’t use anything else), under the terms of the charitable offer. Most of these offers also contractually obligate the schools to periodic upgrades, albeit at significant discounts. But you’re right – having these strings attached to charitable offers is not a problem since the offers can always be turned away. But it definitely does speak to the motivations of the giver. Chris, are you talking about me, about the Indian government, or about the SEC? Because if you’re talking about me, then I’ve definitely given the wrong impression. So I’ll repeat what I’ve said in every post in this thread so far: The Gates Foundation has done many good things. It has done more good than anyone else in the world is even in a position to do. I will never in my entire lifetime be able to do a fraction of the good works the Gates Foundation has done in just the past six months. It is a GOOD thing, and I am very pleased, indeed. Bill Gates is a much better philanthropist than I will ever be.

My ONLY point is that we shouldn't be completely blind to the fact that the Gates Foundation, for all the enormous good it does, is also deeply committed to Microsoft’s corporate agenda.

[Edited to correct stupid grammar error and to add a link (and another link).]

brian - it's nice to see someone here present a solid argument and be able to back it up with documentation.

and i get what you're saying. gates is still a good guy, but he (may) have an ulterior motive.

but, i still say, free money is free money. i see nothing wrong at all with the foundation doing some corporate promotion "on the side" (or even on the sly) if they're still able to provide assistance. the indian government did what they felt was right - so be it.

someone mentioned soda companies. isn't there a big issue in the schools right now regarding soda companies and their vending machines. something about them donating tons of money to the school in exchange for exclusive vending machine rights? same story...different product.

i guess if i owned a multi-national corporation and was doing charitable work, i'd still like to see myself (or my product) recognized.

maybe gates isn't being purely altruistic, but you can't knock the guy.

Ted, thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. It seems that you and I are in complete agreement, but there is one more comment I’d like to make. Be careful, because even though this makes perfect sense at face value, the government, once again, may feel differently. Personally, I don’t mind this either. After all, Bill Gates should be allowed to spend as much of his personal money as he wants to promote his company and its corporate agenda, even if he never spends a single dime on charity. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. But spending this corporate-promotion money through his foundation is another matter entirely that makes the government take notice. If he spends too much of this coporate-promotion money through his charitable foundation, he will run afoul of regulations and run the risk of having the government declare his foundation as nothing more than a Microsoft PR machine in disguise, levy fines, and revoke his foundation’s tax-exempt status. I think Max’s solution is the best: The foundation should divest itself of all things Microsoft and devise a procedure in which grant proposals are submitted to a third party for conflict-of-interest analysis. That way, Bill Gates will still be able to spend as much of his money as he wants to promote Microsoft’s corporate agenda, but instead of being foundation money, it will be after-tax money straight out of his pocket, the way it should be.

Also, if I may, I’d like to comment on something I said earlier: With this comment, I implied that Bill Gates is incapable of doing anything purely philanthropic, which is untrue. Though I’m convinced the facts indicate that the Gates Foundation is deeply committed to promoting Microsoft’s corporate agenda, they also indicate that the foundation is capable of spending its money on purely selfless and altruistic programs. My comment was harsh and uncalled for, and I’d like to take it back, if you all will allow me.

ha...i knew this sentence would get ya. i do see the distinction and i don't condone gates/microsoft trying to pull a fast one...but heck, can't they just leave the poor guy alone?

Interesting thread. I've been informed on this topic by a reporter named Greg Palast and here's a brief article/opinion about Bill Gates' "fake philanthropy" by Greg Palast. I highly recommend reading his book, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy." A link to his website is at the bottom of this article:

[quote]BILL GATES': KILLING AFRICANS FOR PROFIT AND PR. MR. BUSH'S BOGUS AIDS OFFER
Monday July 14, 2003

Bring back Jayson Blair! The New York Times has eliminated the scourge of plagiarized journalism by eliminating journalism altogether from its front page.
Check this Sunday's edition: "Bill Gates is no ordinary philanthropist," gushes a Times reporter named Stephanie Strom, re-writing one of the digital diva's self-loving press releases. Gates has saved 100,000 lives by providing vaccines to Africans, gushes Stephanie, according to someone on the payroll of . Bill Gates. And he's making drugs for Africans, especially for AIDS victims, "cheaper and easier." Stephanie knows because she asked Bill Gates himself!

Then we get to the real point of this journalistic Lewinsky: "Those who think of Mr. Gates as a ruthless billionaire monopolist . may find it hard to reconcile that image with one of a humorously self-deprecating philanthropist."

Actually, that's not hard at all.

Stephanie, let me let you in on a little secret about Bill and Melinda Gates so-called "Foundation." Gate's demi-trillionaire status is based on a nasty little monopoly-protecting trade treaty called "TRIPS" - the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights rules of the World Trade Organization. TRIPS gives Gates a hammerlock on computer operating systems worldwide, legally granting him a monopoly that the Robber Barons of yore could only dream of. But TRIPS, the rule which helps Gates rule, also bars African governments from buying AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis medicine at cheap market prices.

Example: in June 2000, at the urging of Big Pharma, Bill Clinton threatened trade sanctions against Argentina for that nation's daring to offer low-cost drugs to Southern Africa.

Gates knows darn well that the "intellectual property rights" laws such as TRIPS - which keep him and Melinda richer than Saddam and the Mafia combined -- are under attack by Nelson Mandela and front-line doctors trying to get cheap drugs to the 23 million Africans sick with the AIDS virus. Gate's brilliant and self-serving solution: he's spending an itsy-bitsy part of his monopoly profits (the $6 billion spent by Gates' foundation is less than 2% of his net worth) to buy some drugs for a fraction of the dying. The bully billionaire's "philanthropic" organization is currently working paw-in-claw with the big pharmaceutical companies in support of the blockade on cheap drug shipments.

Gates' game is given away by the fact that his Foundation has invested $200 million in the very drug companies stopping the shipment of low-cost AIDS drugs to Africa.

Gates says his plan is to reach one million people with medicine by the end of the decade. Another way to read it: he's locking in a trade system that will block the delivery of cheap medicine to over 20 million.

The computer magnate's scheme has a powerful ally. "The president could have been reading from a script prepared by Mr. Gates," enthuses the Times' cub reporter, referring to Mr. Bush's AIDS plan offered up this week to skeptical Africans. The US press does not understand why Africans don't jump for Bush's generous offer. None note that the money held out to the continent's desperate nations has strings attached or, more accurately, chains and manacles. The billions offered are mostly loans at full interest which may be used only to buy patent drugs at a price several times that available from other nations. What Africans want, an end to the devastating tyranny of TRIPS and other trade rules, is dismissed by the Liberator of Baghdad.

We are all serfs on Microsoft's and Big Pharma's 'intellectual property.' If Gates' fake philanthropy eviscerates the movement to free Africans from the tyranny of TRIPS, then Bill and Melinda's donations could have the effect of killing more Africans than then even their PR agents claim they have saved. And for our own Republic, we can only hope that when the bully-boy billionaire injects his next wad of loot into the Bush political campaign, he uses a condom.

Greg Palast is author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Subscribe to his writings for Britain's Observer and Guardian newspapers, and view his investigative reports for BBC Television's Newsnight, at www.GregPalast.com.
[b]

Interesting. Makes Gate's lock on world computing seem relatively harmless.

The NY Times article is well described as "gush", thought it sounded like Times Lite when I actually registered.

If it's true that Gates is supplying drugs to Africa primarily to squelch opposition to WTO rules that help Microsoft maintain a global monopoly (paw in claw), then I may have to take back my take-back.

And I really, realy hate when I have to do that.

That's flat out wrong. IF $6B is 2%, that means his net worth is $300 billion. It ain't.
http://www.quuxuum.org/~evan/bgnw.html#Worth

I'm actually shocked that there is a Bill Gates Net Worth web page. If you scroll to the bottom, you'll notice many links.

There are self-serving interests on both sides of the fence. But, you won't get any arguments from me that democracy isn't bought.

Todd

Rain,

Very well put.

Rain, I LOVE YOUR POINT.

And I have no problem with Mr. Gates. I wish I could meet him just to shake his hand and say, "nice work".

ricardo - i was thinking the same thing. you can even tell by his writing style that there was something not quite right. his tone is too vindictive to be taken objectively.

I agree with you guys about Palast's writing style, and the need to take the info with a ton of salt. He does address issues that no one else is touching in the media, and I just use his claims as a springboard to do additional research. For those that want less abrasive opinions on economics and world affairs, try reading Noam Chomsky.

I don't think Noam Chomsky will go over well with these folks either.

Guess we all have to wait until the classic movie CITIZEN GATES gets made.

Here is an interesting article about the effect TRIPs has on the delivery/manufacture of drugs in Africa. It does protect drug manufacturers' IP rights, but the WTO has stated that it shouldn't be enforced to the extent that it has a detrimental effect on public health: Also, after doing some research, I can't see what TRIPs does to "guarantee Microsoft's monopoly" across the globe. All it really does, at least as far as I can tell, is make it illegal for WTO member countries to pirate Microsoft software and distribute it to its citizens. And this protection is presumably given equally to any company that exports IP to WTO member countries.

It is true that the Gates Foundation is heavily invested in the drug companies that are lobbying for potentially “deadly enforcement” of TRIPs in Africa (and it's also true that Bill has reprehensibly referred to these stock holdings as “grants” to the drug companies), but these are also the companies that manufacture the drugs that are so desperately needed in Africa. So I don't think that the Gates Foundation's stock holdings in these drug companies should be regarded as the “smoking gun” evidence that Gates is dead set against widespread distribution of cheaper drugs in Africa (and, by extension, a more competitive software marketplace across the globe through weakening of TRIPs enforcement).

I'm not saying I like the guy, or anything (), but I want whatever opinion I have about Bill Gates to be based on good, factual data.

-Brian

OT Rant on....

Gosh all this talk about Africa. What Africa needs is not high-tech drugs and computers. It needs clean water, housing, irrigation, modern agricultural technology, education. AIDS is not the problem in Africa; abject poverty is.

OT Rant off..

And I enjoy and recommend reading Chomsky also...

Has has anyone got any good links to anything Chomsky has said recently about Microsoft or Gates ?

I'm f***ed.

Way to get RIGHT to the point, Rain.

I hadn't read that! Good for him, becuase it's true, there is no real link between HIV and AIDS. For that matter there is no AIDS crisis in Africa, it's a fraud. The poverty crisis is very real, however. (conditions of poverty by coincedence lead to immune defficiency problems, and have throughout human history.) A Google search on AIDS dissent is quite educational. But this has little to do with Bill Gates' philanthropy or lack thereof so I'll shut up now....

Except to say that tying the business interests of his company to his phalanthropic (sp? - is that a word?) acts greatly taints the acts themselves.

As a supporter and user of GNU/Linux and other 'free' software, I have note that the Guardian, Register and the FSF users groups that you have quoted arent exactly objective when it comes to Gates and Microsoft. =)

Does his foundation do double duty promoting the business side? Silly to argue that it doesnt, its nice work if you can get it.

Are such foundations great tax shields? You better believe it, but if the results are as extraordinary as they claim, its worth it.

I like the idea of Gates as a Philanthropist exactly the reason why I liked the 'idea' of Perot as President. Put a business mentality in charge of those areas and see the entrenched guys sweat. Of course Perot had a lot of downers on his side, but other than the monopoly claims against him there isnt any reason why Gates cant be the biggest most effective philanthropist in human history. Ruthlessness can be an amazingly effective tactic.

I'm no Gates fanboy, but it is hard to argue with the guys success, he's shrewd, smart, and has his fingers in every imaginable pie. And if he backs the wrong horse or misses and opportunity, he's willing to buy or beat the winner on the second round. Just ask Quarterdeck or Stacker...



Thats partly true. Its MOSTLY true that those countries are holding out for health reasons as well. Nobody can tell what the long term effects of eating GM crops will be. If I offered you a GM Brontosaurus burger, would you eat it? =)

Sam

Posten, it’s really good to hear from you. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen (or perhaps just noticed) something from you in this branch of the forum. I’ll grant you that, even to the extent that you shouldn’t feel compelled to “smile when you say that.” As a GNU/Linux user/supporter myself, I know it’s true. But I’ll counter with the assertion that the relationship the New York Times has with Bill Gates goes to the opposite extreme. Nothing about Gates is looked at with a critical eye at the Times, and they have even published an article (that’s article, mind you, not editorial, press release, or letter to the editor) about Gates written by Gates himself. That’s about as unobjective and unhealthy as journalism can get. Knowing that FSF-friendly groups have a free software agenda (duh! ), I expect their articles to have a slant against Microsoft and Bill Gates, and I can take that into account when I read them. The New York Times, on the other hand, should be a paragon of objectivity. However, when it comes to Bill Gates, it’s clearly anything but.

Everyone has an agenda, it seems. My agenda, in case anyone is wondering, is that I want to believe that Bill Gates is evil incarnate. It’s just that I can’t find enough hard evidence to fully support that belief.

Re: Bill Gates: Philanthropist

I was originally hunting to see if anyone had started a thread on the NBC show the Philanthropist, but thought this was a good thread to resurrect when it suggested it. Especially since I wasn't here when this thread happened, so couldn't chime in!

Updates on the Gates Foundation:

Foundation Center - Top 100 US Foundations by Asset Size

In 2005, they became the largest private donor to vaccine research and distribution.

Re: Bill Gates: Philanthropist

What's the HTF record for the oldest resurrected thread?

Re: Bill Gates: Philanthropist

...Or should that be the largest private investor in vaccine research and distribution through the purchase of shares in Big Pharma? Judging by the old posts in this thread Gates's "Foundation" is really just an investment fund posing as a "philanthropic" organization for tax purposes.