Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates Donates $258 Million to Fight Malaria
klubar writes to tell us that Bill Gates has donated approximately $258 million to fight malaria. From the article: "Malaria research accounts for about one-third of 1 percent of the total amount of money spent on medical research and development, even though it accounts for 3 percent of all the productive years of life lost to diseases, according to a report released Sunday." Gates was quoted saying "The report confirms what has been clear, and that is that the world isn't investing nearly enough in malaria R&D."
That'll buy a hell of a lot of DDT, which is the only thing you need to eradicate malaria.
Unfortunately, a bunch of overwrought environmentalists managed to get the use and manufacture of DDT severely restricted on the basis of some very bad science.
The malaria problem has already been solved. We just need to allow third world countries to use the same solution we used before some trashy 60's book that cried about DDT softening eggshells.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
"A lifetime of evil" is a huge stretch for Mr. Gates. Regardless of your opinions of his business practices, he has done little harm to people who can't handle it, and is dedicated to helping the poor of other countries. Not only has he already given away enormous amounts of money through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, but he shows no signs of stopping. Rather than just give away money to showy projects for the publicity, the Gates Foundation tries to increase the productivity and viability of the poor around the world through well-thought-out gifts. I for one am perfectly willing to deal with a Windows world, if it means that kids around the world will be able to survive malaria, or the poor in America have a better shot at a high-level technical education.
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
Melinda Gates must be one hell of a women. Until he got married, his charitable contributions were non-existent. Since then, his/their contributions have become sigificant.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
I hate how people seem to dislike most large corporations for the sake of them being large. I personally have no problem with places like Microsoft or Wal-Mart (I used to be an employee of Wal-Mart) and I'm glad that acts like this are shown to skeptics. I'll give you that they aren't perfect, and that some companies are not good companies. However, by virtue of being large, does not make a company bad. However, I fear that many people will point to this as a donation made to gain public support, which I admit is within the realm of possibility, but is in the realm of my doubts. I'll give you that we haven't heard much from ole Bill Gates recently (a bit in the shadow of Mr. Jobs) but this is about as good as thing as I could hear from him, I suppose.
-Da3vid-
After reading the article on steve jobs (http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/31 /0355254&tid=3) and now this on bill gates, I move that we should have two icons for each: good steve and bad steve, borg bill and... saint bill?
Does this make my brain look big?
See what I just posted.. This does look good, but why is it people are saying it is so philanthropic without checking into everything first? When Gates gave large sums to research in India, it was at the same time MS was spending 2x as much in advertising to try to drive India away from FOSS and toward Windows. Gates is shrwed, and has shown his first focus is always himself. While his Father is the administrator of the charity fund, Gates himself still puts his hand in and uses charity gifts as a way to force goodwill in areas where MS is pushing their software.
There's also the motivation factor. Often Gates makes sure big gifts from the foundation go to places where Microsoft is pushing their software.
Why are people so quick to speak without researching the situation first?
I'm glad he's making the gift, but don't make a judgement until you know all the facts.
...probably because Microsoft Senior Vice President Paul Martiz contracted the disease after a trip to his home in South Africa, eventually resulting in his retirement from MS.
Bill's munificence promotes the efforts of pharmaceutical companies who profit from the same intellectual property rules that made Bill a billionare. They profit because as a society, we have decided that the best way to promote progress is to accord these folks monopoly ownership of ideas. Not only of ideas, but also the manufacture and distribution of anything related to those ideas.
Not everyone agrees.
These rules eliminate the efficiency of a free market. Monopolists do not have to compete. In addition, monopolists can, and almost always do, maximize their profits by creating artificial scarcity.
I'm not so cynical to believe it's intentional, but nonetheless an insidious side affect of Bill's generosity is that it promotes a kind of starry eyed worship of an imperfect system. Oh what a wonderful wizard, look at the wonderful things he does!
We can do better. Bill's ability to be so generous comes at the expense of our economy. He accumulated his great wealth at the expense of free markets. Microsoft, and the pharmaceutical companies Bill promotes (he's not bequeathing millions to generic manufacturers now, is he?), contrary to popular mythology, epitomize anti-capitalism.
We could cure malaria a lot faster if we eliminated the the protectionist intellectual property racket that stifles free market capitalism. In particular, idea owners should not be given manufacturing or distribution monopolies. They should be compelled to license their ideas in an equitable fashion to all comers.
Bill did not want to get into the charity work till he retired. His mother had been after him since early on.
At this point, he is very involved in all the major decisions and directs them on a daily basis. Melinda is there much of thetime, as is Bill Sr.
Melinda goes on several trips a year to find out about the work that the foundation is doing, and the whole family has spent time in clinics in Africa.
As for the funding, it is a foundation, not a regular charity. All the money in the foundation comes from Bill and Melinda, and they are still giving. Do you remember that one time microsoft dividend at the beginning of the year? They gave the entire dividend to the foundation.
They really aren't in it to look good. The only tend to go public on their gifts when they want to bring attention to an issue.
Here's a start:
Bill Gates has sold almost half a billion dollar's worth of Microsoft stock this year [2002], and begun to invest heavily in big pharma. In the second half of this year he bought 2.5 million shares in Eli Lilly, manufacturer of Prozac, and also made major investments in Merck and Pfizer, notes Information Week.
The Gates Foundation's top five stock investments in pharmaceutical firms, in millions:
Merck $76.9
Pfizer $37.3
J & J $29.7
Wyeth $12.7
Abbott Labs $11.9
Read that last link closely. It alleges that the primary goal of the Foundation is to insure that third world companies stay as good customers to Gates' pharma companies so they don't break the world intellectual property treaties which would render BillG's pharmaceutical assets worthless (and maybe Microsoft too, if say Africa decided to legalize piracy of Windows).
The details of the Foundation's financial "grant" transactions are not available in their annual report, just the summaries. I will have to do a little more research, I've seen the whole scam laid out but I haven't been able to relocate the link.
Well said!
My girlfriend worked for the foundation for 4 years, and I got to see the passion that Bill and Melinda feel for these issues. They have held those AIDS babies in their arms in those clinics in Africa. They really do care.
I don't like how Bill got his money, but I have complete respect for what he is doing with it.
And what they'll find is every year the Foundation is richer than the previous. It makes a profit consistently from a combination of investment income and contributions. The unrestricted net assets for the last few years are roughly: 2001 = $23.3B, 2002 = $24.1B, 2003 = $25.1B, 2004 = $26.9B, the last year on record. Every year the Foundation takes in more than they distribute in grants.
I don't know what kind of philanthropy gives out less than it takes in and never more than ~5% of its net worth, but it's not a typical one and certainly not one to hold up as the embodiment of charitable acts.
It is nice and fancy that Bill Gates is giving money to fight malaria... but at the same time the U.N. is, and most of the countries in the world are, making the most effective Malaria prevention tool illegal, all because of bad science from reactionary enviornmentalist... and tens of millions are dying because of it:
. stm
p 3?&id=146
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3532273
This article addresses the Bill Gates absurdity directly:
http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/article.ph
Western governments could spend a fraction of the money they are spending now, and eliminate Malaria by at least 90%! The U.N., U.S., Canada, E.U. are esentially ensuring the death of millions in order to score a few token political points with the enviornmental lobby!
This isn't simply a matter of Western governments "not giving enough" to fight Malaria. Fighting malaria is cheap and easy, and most government can handle the problem with just a little help. This is a case of Western governments using their money and power to force policies on other countries that kill millions.
I commend Bill for his generosity, really. The Gates Foundation is the largest charity organization in the world, and it does many worthwhile things. It follows in the grand tradition of billionaire benefactors, like Rockefeller and Carnegie.
But keep in mind that Gates is the wealthiest man on the face of the planet, worth tens of billions of dollars. There's only so many mansions, exotic cars, yachts, priceless works of art, private jets, islands, and so forth he could purchase before they become ridiculous, if he were even into those things. And still he'd have billions left over.
To put it another way, suppose you've got $100,000 in assets (home equity, retirement savings, property, etc.) minus debt. Suppose Bill Gates is worth US$46.5 billion in 2005, according to Forbes. If you were to give away the same proportion of your ($100,000) net worth as Bill Gates just did in Africa, you'd need to cut a check for...$554.84
If I write a $550 check to charity every year, does that get me sainthood?
Again, I don't mean to minimize Gates' generosity, or the tremendous good that his money is doing around the world. Just to put it in perspective.
You have to be careful. The mafias, for example, would give money to local schools and events etc, to gain good publicity and to be liked in the community. How they actually got that money was another story though. I'm not comparing MS to a charity, just saying don't wear rose tinted glasses just because a fraction of their proceeds go to good causes.
I would agree that he may be looking at the larger picture. But he's still being generous - you can't fault him for that. Paul Allen spent $200 million on a yacht that has two helicopters. It costs him $20 million a year to keep the thing and he's never on it. Gates has given $20 billion to fight aids and now this to malaria. Of the two, who would you fault as the selfish bastard?
/. crowd crowing him as being a monster. At least he's doing hell of a lot more good than, say, Big Pharma or Wal-Mart.
Bill Gates. This is Slashdot, Brother.
It's literally impossible for Bill to do something constructive without
It's an interesting point that you bring up and I'll try to answer it.
How many times do you purchase Word? Or purchase Windows? I believe that Microsoft's products still constitute a pseudo-fixed cost scenario for most businesses (assuming that most businesses are small businesses), whereas gasoline costs constitute variable cost for virtually everyone, including businesses. Moreover, most of Microsoft's earnings were generated from selling it to the masses (directly or preinstalled). Sure, work could have purchased a machine with Microsoft software on it, but there's no technical reason why everyone and their grandmothers *needed* a computer (once critical mass was achieved, this fact changed). Gasoline is an energy source. Computers are an information source. Energy sources for the masses are more basic than information sources.
Still, your question pertains to your particular scenario:
The price of gas is hugely important because it is a variable cost for businesses and individuals. More importantly, most people in the United States commute to work and to other activities. Call it a failure of public transportation or whatever, but it's true for most cities in the US. A 50% rise in gasoline costs directly applies to most individual costs during some time period (say a week). And that's really the kicker: it's a tax levied across the board. Out of every dollar made or earned is a portion going to pay for gasoline. There is no amortization because it is a cost proportional to transportation activity (i.e. a variable cost). The end result is a lower net income. Perhaps the individual who has to pay an extra few bucks every week won't sweat it too much directly, but the cost will show up in products, in food. That is inflation because the consumer's buying power has reduced. As the dollar devalues, it affects exchange rates and therefore trading. Through that handy link, the world's largest economy (the US, at least by 2004 estimates) infects the rest of the world economy. The consumer becomes more economically conservative, which means there's a significant (as in the opposite of insignificant) reduction in charity donations.
In short, energy sources for the masses tend to be variable costs, which you want to minimize or at least never want to grow. Information sources for the masses tend to be fixed costs, which you want to be low, but it doesn't matter as much as a variable cost.
They simply don't have the same effect, so I don't believe that you have generated a parallel situation. And I still maintain that we've (a given diverse group) had the chance to do something important with that extra 10 bucks a week and that today is a direct result of those many decisions.
Preventing children from dying is great. On the other hand, it could be very short-sighted. If the death rate suddenly drops without an equivalent decrease in the birth rate, the result could be an even greater disaster.
this is philanthropy, pure and simple
If it was, then Gates would have donated the money anonymously, and he wouldn't be going out of his way to publicize it. I'm not saying that this is only about publicity, but you can't deny that it's an important consideration.
Although I admit I am no fan of Mr. Gates or his core business, I have to give him a nod on this one. In addition to malaria, his foundation is also funding research for a vaccine to hookworm, another tropical disease that is rampant in developing nations. Like malaria, it is easily contracted (directly through the sole of the foot), affects the poorest of the poor, and undermines the physical and mental development of children. It can be more effectively treated post-infection than malaria, but there is no current medication to prevent infection. There is no possible profit to be made by pharmaceutical companies because these people are - well - literally dirt poor (they can't even afford the most effective deterrent - shoes). And (check me if I'm wrong guys) I don't think DDT will kill it - unless you sew it into the soil or pour it down the throat of the victim. The only hope these people have for a somewhat healthier life is basic research supported by foundation grants.
Even as I post this from a M$ OS (not my choice because it's not my machine), I am a long time M$ skeptic, critic, and occasional basher (remember those heady days of DOS), as well as a Linux devotee and advocate. I quite often seethe with both anger and despair over the business antics of M$. But I find I have to hold my tongue when it comes to the Gates foundation. Subtle PR manipulation? Maybe. Only a small portion of an overall 5% of the foundation's endowment? Perhaps, but at least it's something.
"Fortune may favor the Bold, but Evolution favors the Winner."
1.) Halliburton, Bechtel and Exxon did not order the invasion of Iraq.
2.) As such, Halliburton, Bechtel and Exxon are not directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of over 2,000 American soldiers, and are most certainly not responsible for Iraqi civilian deaths.
3.) Not even Iraq Body Count claims "hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's dead. They arrive at figures between 26,797 and 30,163, and most of those are the result of car bombings and shootings by terrorists.