Bill Gates: Philanthropist (1 Viewer)

[Max Leung]

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.

 

[BrianB]

He and his wife, Melinda, have endowed a foundation with more than $24 billion to support philanthropic initiatives in the areas of global health and learning, with the hope that as we move into the 21st century, advances in these critical areas will be available for all people.

Their foundation is approximately 5 years old BTW.

 

[BrianW]

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.

sure, some of it may go towards self-promotion, but who cares. the schools still benefit...isn't that a good thing?

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.

 

[Don Black]

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.

 

[Max Leung]

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.

 

[BrianW]

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:

The People and the Government of India should reject outright any grant or "investment" which is tied to such restrictive conditions whose sole aim is to perpetuate a monopoly and make a nation's software infrastructure so hopelessly dependent on one corporation.

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.

 

[Chris Lockwood]

You just can't please some people. :frowning:

 

[John Watson]

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.

 

[Don Black]

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.

 

[John Watson]

"Bring on the dancing Trojan horses" :frowning:

 

[BrianW]

You just can't please some people.

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).]

 

[Ted Lee]

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.

 

[BrianW]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Ted Lee]

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.

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?

 

[Max Leung]

No problem Brian.

 

[Ian H.]

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:

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.

 

[John Watson]

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.

:frowning:

 

[BrianW]

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.

 

[Todd Hochard]

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.

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]

Bill Gates builds a fortune from the ground up and gives away massive amounts of money.

And he is berated for it. He is criticized because he hasn't given it all away.

Princess Diana accumulates most of her fortune from British Taxpayers.

She is praised as though she is a goddess for her charitable efforts. She didn't give all of it away either.

Bill Gates is a bit of a geek. Princess Diana was charming and pretty and died in a car accident.

You do the math.