Gates Foundation Revokes Pledge to Review Portfolio

NewsCloud writes "After the LA Times reported that the Gates Foundation often invests in companies hurting the very communities Bill and Melinda want to help, the Seattle Times reported the foundation planned 'a systematic review of its investments to determine whether it should pull its money out of companies that are doing harm to society'. Shortly after that interview, the Gates Foundation took down their public statement on this and replaced it with a significantly altered version which seems to say that investing responsibly would just be too complex for them and that they need to focus on their core mission: 'There are dozens of factors that could be considered, almost all of which are outside the foundation's areas of expertise. The issues involved are quite complex...Which social and political issues should be on the list? ... Many of the companies mentioned in the Los Angeles Times articles, such as Ford, Kraft, Fannie Mae, Nestle, and General Electric, do a lot of work that some people like, as well as work that some people do not like. Some activities might even be viewed positively by some people and negatively by others.'"

Comments

Shock, Amazement

[drinkypoo]

"Bill and Melinda oversee the investment of the foundation's endowment. In giving guidance to the investment managers, they have chosen not to get involved in ranking companies based upon factors such as their lending policies or environmental record. There are dozens of factors that could be considered, almost all of which are outside the foundation's areas of expertise. The issues involved are quite complex...Which social and political issues should be on the list?"

To all of you who claimed that the Gates foundation was evidence that Billy boy had a heart after all - I wish I had been wrong, but I TOLD YOU SO. Look, Gates is not interested in philanthropy. He's interested in public relations. "We spend more than anyone!" Yeah, okay. But are you actually healing more harm than you're doing? If you were actually interested in keeping these people healthy you'd be attacking these very companies that you're investing in.

I think this fairly clearly proves that Gates' motivations are not altruistic.

Re:Shock, Amazement

[lbrandy]

I think this fairly clearly proves that Gates' motivations are not altruistic.

That's a joke, right?

Re:Shock, Amazement

[Yartrebo]

"Aren't you being a little too harsh on a person who spent more than 1/3rd of his life's savings in philanthropy"

Yeah, and stealing from the poor and middle class (via Microsoft) is a great way to get that money in the first place.

It also ignores the fact that he's wastes more resources on frivolous personal expenses than most people will ever see in a lifetime.

Re:SRI

[david.given]

if the Gates foundation isn't making money off of the evil corporations, someone will.

Perhaps we should legalise the murder of people over 65. After all, they're about to die soon anyway, so what's the harm?

Re:Why not?

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

Don't get everyone else to buy in, just do your own thing and go from there. Pick companies that are making money and working against hurting anyone. It's not like the market is an extremely limited commodity and there are only twenty stocks included. Buffett made his money picking companies that did things he could understand extremely well. Saying, "Oh gosh, this moral judgment thing is too hard and we can't figure it out despite having billions of dollars," is a complete cop out, and a statement about exactly what kind of approach it apparently takes to acquire said billions of dollars. While I'm completely aware of that being the way the world works, I don't feel that saying, "I think buying myself a clean conscience should be easier than it is, please stop pestering me about flaws in my plan," is a valid response to the assertion that you may be doing more damage than good when using the 'tried and true' methods you used to make money...