Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Socially responsible investing is essentially impossible. Public companies are almost always too large and complex to boil down into a single binary good/evil decision matrix, and if one could, if investing in the evil company (for little direct benefit to the company by the way) you could do 25% more really good things (say 25% fewer malria cases or more clean drinking water in Africa, the moral calculus becomes quite complicated.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Ideologies unable to capture and model complexity of real life -- News at 10.
Yawn.
The best way to accelerate a windows box is at 9.8 meters per second square.
One might say that they have enough money to do both. To invest in all causes and cancel out the 'bad' by fueling all of the good and bad together.
What level of abstraction is a foundation obligated to operate at? The Higher Goal, the Micromanaged Goal, or some blend in-between?
Which social and political issues should be on the list?
Perhaps the issues your foundation is ostensibly targeting? There might be some in-house expertise on those problems.
illegitimii non ingravare
I think this fairly clearly proves that Gates' motivations are not altruistic.
That's a joke, right?
Some activities might even be viewed positively by some people and negatively by others.
This is precisely the reason why it would be important that they made a clear statement on which activities they see as positive / negative.
One simple step
1) Start moving cash to companies that provide audits of their social actions.
Once the money moves you can bet companies are going to start acting.
As long as we say "it is not possible" and do not try it remains not done.
But the only barrier is a lack of will power to commit.
I'm sure the foundation could still put together some sort of panel to at least check off the companies invested in as "not 100% harmful" (or something along those lines). I'm sure some decisions regarding whether a company is doing enough good to outweigh the bad are too complex to bother with. But I do think some might not be too complex, and at the very least may reaffirm that the foundation's investments are admirable enough. Some companies, like BP, aren't pure evil. Some, like Sony BMG, totally are. (I don't actually know what companies the foundation invests in because I'm irresponsible like that.)
I like basketball!!1!
I hope that the Stephen & Melinda Gates Foundation approaches this issue with a little more responsibility.
And one would think that the power of being the largest endowed charity in the world would cause those in charge of it to question their results. I'm disappointed, but not surprised. How much of a surprise is it, really, that it requires a different personality and approach to be a good humanitarian instead of a good businessman? Business is complex, but there's an impartial judge at the end, in little black numbers at the bottom. People, generally, do not live by little black numbers. Successful businessmen often do, and one of the fundamental problems with our system is that living this kind of life does not mean you play well with others.
It is quite possible that the Gates Foundation, by being a completely passive investor with so much clout, will do more damage than good. Enough passive investment leads to completely profit-driven organizations, which tend towards running amok all over the people they get involved with.
I now consider this a foundation built upon unstable, rotten ground.
My little site.
Perfect example; Is a company that makes DDT good or bad?
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
He benefits the world more in spending his time on his endowments than on wasting that time micromanaging his investments. Even if he had the time - or wasted the money to hire the legal help to assist him - to weed out the 'bad' companies from his portfolio there is no way to make everyone happy. Everyone has a different moral threshold. But what **is** beneficial to everyone is the endowments, and that is what the Gates' should be focusing on.
Aren't you being a little too harsh on a person who spent more than 1/3rd of his life's savings in philanthropy>
His point, as many would point out here, is that it is very difficult for an investor to invest only in companies to do no evil.
Many of the evils, say pollution etc, might be offset by the same company by providing jobs/shelter for many of the localities and much more importantly, transference of knowledge to the poor.
If the same company decides to avoid doing evil and go completely green, then the competition, which has no such restrictions imposed on them, might destroy it. Then the company would have done disservice to their shareholders/employees and the native people and thereby would have committed evil.
I guess there is a lot of gray areas in the working of these, and it is unnecessarily harsh to lambaste someone who did the right thing, as he felt it.
rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
Isn't the point of an organization such as this to determine where the money should go? If big companies are too complex to figure out, invest in the smallest companies that meet your goals. GE doesn't need your philanthropy. A small pharmaceutical that tries to provide cost-effective drugs to those in need does.
The Gates foundation keeps many millions of dollars invested in public companies. But rather than riding the blue chips they could invest that money in local bonds or small companies that indirectly assist their goals.
Developers: We can use your help.
Socially Responsible Investing is not all together impossible. It just requires some work. If SRI is done, especially by as powerful a charitable organization as The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is, then companies would be forced to consider their ethical implications of doing business or face fleeing investors. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has the distinct possibility to do more than just charitable work but to become an industry watchdog for companies compromising ethics in favor of profit. Companies are concerned with their media and public image. Therefore, it would hurt public perception considerably if a well-respected charitable organization publicly refuses to invest because said company engages in harmful/unethical business practices.
I remember a small story in the Bible that goes something like this:
Jesus (pronounced HAY-ZEUS and means son of Zeus) was lounging around gathering contributions one day. There was a large crowd watching him. Some were donating money. Most were asking each other how a Hebrew could have such pale skin when the only people with pale skin in that region of the world were Romans and Greeks, and Jesus was neither. The long hair on his head was the cause of much speculation as well since, in that time and place, men wore their hair cut short. It was decided that the best way to find an explanation for these things was to ask Michelangelo and Pope Julius II della Rovere.
Right about the time everyone realized Michelangelo and Pope Julius II della Rovere would not be born for another 1500 years, a loud, proud, rich man pushed through the crowd and stepped up to Jesus. With a large grin beaming across his face the man reached into the pockets of his leather Jordache(TM) jeans and pulled out a thick wad of greenbacks. From this he peeled off ten Benjamins and spread them on the table before Jesus. Jesus accepted the money and said a simple, "Thank you". This startled the man. With a look of surprise on his face he stepped back a bit and watched for a while. It was clear to the crowd that he had expected more.
Within a few minutes some old, musty smelling broad came through the crowd. She quietly shuffled up to Jesus and gave him a single penny. Jesus smiled at the old woman, blessed her, and wished her well.
Now the rich bastard that donated the Benjamins became angry...irate...pissed-off you might say. He stormed up to Jesus and got LOUD in Jesus' face. "I gave you a thousand dollars, muthafucka'! How come you blessed that bitch for her penny and didn't say shit to me?"
The crowd drew back and sang a collective "Oooooh!" in fear of impending violence. A couple of instigators in the crowd shouted out things like, "You gonna' take that?", and "slap that hippy".
Jesus was quick to his feet.
He pimp-slapped the punk to the ground, put a foot on his neck and calmly explained to the fool, "You gave me a small portion of your wealth that you will not miss. That kind, gentle woman gave me everything she had in the world."
I wonder why I think about that story everytime someone talks about the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
On the one hand, Gates can come off as being greedy, and often times not practicing what he preaches. He basically seems to care about being rich.
On the other hand, you could say Gates is a perfect example that our mutated form of capitalism can indeed work. The man basically started from scratch. Whether he stole ideas or not is irrelevant: the point is, he didn't do a single thing that no one else couldn't have done themselves.
The difference is, he actually did it.
Put aside your personal opinion of Microsoft for the moment, and look at what this man has accomplished. Starting from basically nothing, he has built a multi-billion dollar buisness which is used by roughly 90% of the computing world. I don't care how he got there, I don't care if someoen likes him or doesn't like him, I don't care what toes he stepped on to get there; there are a couple FACTS that you cannot deny regardless of your opinion:
FACT: WE THE CONSUMERS created this monopoly. No one but the general consumers made this company a massive force in the computing world. They didn't magically pull money out of their ass; WE THE CONSUMERS gave it to them.
FACT: There is NOTHING that Bill Gates has done that someone else couldn't do; he just did it first and best. Regardless of how he got to where he was, you cannot deny the fact that in terms of adoption rate, income, and market penetration, NOBODY is ahead of Microsoft right now. NOBODY.
FACT: There is nothing stopping someone else from toppling Microsoft; Linux and Apple could do it...although I think Apple is in a better position to do so than Linux. Linux being open source actually kind of hurts Linux in this regard only because it makes it harder to get a definate measure of "success"; if I develop my own distro of Linux, it's not the same as your distro and thus is not the same operating system. But that's an entirely different conversation.)
Whatever your opinion is of Microsoft and Bill Gates, you cannot deny that the man has accomplished something no one else has.
Don't like it? Prove him to be horrible and change the opinion of hundreds of millions of people that use his product.
Living With a Nerd
This story somehow reminds me of a story about how a high-upper-class wife of a CEO in California would run a charity. This charity would have fund raising events to raise money for starving children in Africa. The events typically would be a big dinner and dance. They would charge $1000.00 per plate for the dinner. 50 people would come and they would raise $50,000.00 for charity!
But in reality 98% of the $50,000.00 went to her friend's catering companies, security companies, and florists. They end up raising $2,000.00 for starving children, they get to make huge tax deductible donations, and their friend's companies make profit. The next time around the friends rotate the roles so everyone gets to roll in the profit.
If the Gates foundation has many billions of dollars, this money can't just be put into a single bank account. It must be invested. They also must give away some of the money every year. But the key here is that they get to control which companies get the investment money, and they get to pay less tax on this money in order to exert this control over other companies, plus they get to play philanthropy.
Playing philanthropy is just the extension of the need for personal power.
btw IANAA (I Am Not An Accountant) but I watched on on TV.
--jeffk++
ipv6 is my vpn
The matter of expertise is critical. Perhaps they could turn their assets over to some SRI management firm with the experience and knowledge necessary to undertake such a monumental task as trying to differentially calculate the social value of each company in which it invests... but that still leaves the problem of deciding what SRI firm's goal significantly match their own conception of social good, and so on.
It's probably best that the foundation just lets its capital ride wherever the market takes it with its easy-to-read financial information while the foundation focuses on spending the proceeds on projects about which it knows a great deal.
I am the one true god. However, as an atheist, I don't believe in myself. I guess I have a self-esteem problem.
Bill Gates: "I didn't get rich by writing checks!!!"
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
What's HE going to do with billions of dollars?
And my point, as a rational person who has not been brainwashed and who understands english and demands a lack of hypocrisy would comprehend, is that if your stated goal is to improve the quality of life for people then you have a responsibility to DO the necessary research and only invest your money in companies which improve the net quality of life. Anything else is completely hypocritical. What you're saying is that it's hard to do good and make money at the same time. Well, what the fuck? I thought this was a philanthropic organization, not one designed to make money.
Now the immediate reaction to that statement is that if they make more money, they can spend it to improve the quality of life. But clearly at least one company in which they have invested is harming people horribly. Can you really sit there and with a straight face tell me that the investors do not share the blame? The investors make it possible for these companies to exploit people. Period. Without them, the exploitation could not occur. And yes, we ALL have a RESPONSIBILITY to only invest in companies which match our morality. Otherwise, you are simply doing things that, well, you don't know what they are. Do you really find that to be acceptable?
And that makes it okay to pollute? To harm every inhabitant of the globe through pollution? To be making people in the area sick? You know why they don't care if they do it? Because people will still come to work for them because they're the only thing around. Does that make it right for them to produce such egregious pollution? Are you seriously going to make that argument? When the people working in the plant get sick and are simply replaced, with the previous employees kicked out on the street to die, is that justified by education? Is that justified by giving people jobs for which you pay them orders of magnitude less than the prevailing wage in other countries which are producing the same commodity? Let me share with you a couple of lines from a Bad Religion song called "Quality or Quantity":
This says it better than I ever could.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Basically, it would be too difficult to hold other companies to the standard of ethics that MS has attained. It just wouldn't be fair. Wait... did I get that backwards?
the more miserable you are now, the funnier the story will be later
I think this fairly clearly proves that Gates' motivations are not altruistic.
Or maybe it's more simply true that real life is complicated and that throwing money at a problem is usually only part of the solution.
Even their charitable foundation has to backpedal on the previously stated scope of its projects because of complexity.
I reject your facts as being either false statements/interpretations of logic, or discussing something that is irrelevant in an attempt to prove a misguided point.
Quote:
FACT: There is NOTHING that Bill Gates has done that someone else couldn't do; he just did it first and best. Regardless of how he got to where he was, you cannot deny the fact that in terms of adoption rate, income, and market penetration, NOBODY is ahead of Microsoft right now. NOBODY.
First off, yes, Bill Gates has done things that others in his position COULD do. However that does not make them MORALLY right or acceptable. That's like arguing everyone could shoot people they disagree with, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Also, Your statement of facts about the success of microsoft are pointless and misleading, as discussed below.
Quote:
FACT: There is nothing stopping someone else from toppling Microsoft; Linux and Apple could do it...although I think Apple is in a better position to do so than Linux. Linux being open source actually kind of hurts Linux in this regard only because it makes it harder to get a definate measure of "success"; if I develop my own distro of Linux, it's not the same as your distro and thus is not the same operating system. But that's an entirely different conversation.)
FACT: WE THE CONSUMERS created this monopoly. No one but the general consumers made this company a massive force in the computing world. They didn't magically pull money out of their ass; WE THE CONSUMERS gave it to them.
I disagree. Microsoft achieved where it was through marketing a monopolistic product and using agreesive and otherwise unethical business practices. The company became a massive force once it started deviating from normal practices and instead squashing the competition, as well as locking in end users and corporations for future exploitation. The consumers did not create a monopoly, consumers allowed a good business model to flourish, which then turned bad and started essentially cheating to stay ahead.
Your assertion that nothing is stopping others from getting ahead of Microsoft is also false, and you try to reinforce it by directing attention away from that point and instead blaming linux as being open source and impossible to measure, while that has NOTHING to do with your contention. Your contention is that microsoft can be toppled. It wouldn't matter what topples it, or who has what market share, so measuring it is irrelevant. The reasons your contention is false is that microsoft practices aggressive and amoral market preservation tactics, such as forcing vendor lockin, as well as using their monopolistic position to force OEMS and other distributors to use windows, even to the point of punishing them if they don't use windows, or even just sell a computer with a blank hard drive. Also their extensive FUD compaign on the nation's media networks, which is backed by money and therefore not available to anyone who isn't a millionaire or with a huge financial backing. That campaign holds sway over the lower ranks of the general populace due to the fact that it is distributed by microsoft, and therefore holds some assumption that it would be in their best interest to believe it.
Now please return to the topic at hand, which is philanthropy, and not microsoft's business practices.
You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
Wah!
Though I've always despised Microsoft for lots of good reasons, and have no admiration for Bill Gates the business 'leader', the Gates Foundation is probably doing more (financially speaking) to effect positive change in the world than the rest of us put together.
Here's hoping we can put aside our loathing long enough to recognize that the Gates Foundation is and will be saving and improving thousands if not millions of lives over the coming decades.
The Kansas City Shuffle...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_city_shuffle
Yes, that's true! So when Gates throws money at the problem, and doesn't inspect where the money is going, that is only a partial solution. That in itself would not be proof of his lack of altruism - the fact that they are not going to revise their practices constitutes that proof. They're whining about how doing the right thing is hard, but the whole point of a philanthropic organization is to do the right thing! So it's hard... did he really think solving the world's problems would be easy? Is the fact that it's hard not to do harm a valid excuse for doing harm?
As time goes by I have been refining my processes to do less harm wherever possible. I've been buying more and more locally-made products and locally-grown produce. I've been avoiding more of the major brands known to treat people horribly (like Nike) and even buying products with less toxic or nonbiodegradable ingredients. I'm not saying this makes me a saint or anything, but I'm pointing out that I'm working to reduce my negative impact on the world.
But meanwhile, the Gates foundation has in a very short period of time promised to do this thing that I am doing, trying to minimize negative impact, and then changed their mind and withdrawn their statement because doing that is difficult. Well, cry me a fucking river. Yes, it's hard to do the right thing. It costs money. But on the other hand there are long lists of companies which engage in fair trade practices that could be used to find investment targets. Are they less-lucrative investments? Often they are. Is it hypocritical to support companies which are harming people when there are companies which are actually improving the quality of life for people AND doing their best to be sustainable and have output equal to their input, and who believe in fairness and treating their employees and neighbors like humans and not just animals, to whom any abuse is justified and can be excused by paying off the right people? Why yes, it is the height of hypocrisy.
Those of you who are willing to forgive this behavior are simply putting your blessing on lies and as such you are part of the problem. Those of you who are buying these excuses are fools. I bet you believe that the war on drugs is about saving the children, too.
Be a part of the solution. DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY. Bill is excusing himself from accountability because it's harder to be accountable than just to run around willy-nilly acting like you're making a difference while ignoring the real, root problems and anyone accepting the bullshit excuses is just making it easier for them to do so. All of you making excuses for the gates foundation must share in the blame for the ill they are doing in the name of investiture.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"say that investing responsibly would just be too complex for them and that they need to focus on their core mission"
I love paraphrasing, it doesn't reek of bias or anything...
They are complex entities with many activities, good and bad. The effects of their actions are also very complicated. Any company can be cast as doing good or doing evil depending on which chain of consequences you follow. Efforts on corporate reform should focus on incentives to align externalities with public aims, not judge each company thumbs up or thumbs down, which is ultimately futile.
First the diehard lib says (btw, I'm a diehard lib) "if a company is harming society, the market will eventually shun that company and it will have to change its ways". Then, when someone suggests a shunning an evil company it's "look, if I don't make money of this, someone will..."
Just seems like that invisible hand keeps getting more and more invisible..
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
"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.
Mr. Burns: "I'll keep it short and sweet. Family. Religion. Friendship. These are the three demons you must slay if you wish to succeed in business."
Developers: We can use your help.
Dog is my co-pilot.
Let me revisit the linked article again. Let's look at this paragraph:
Now let's look at this statement carefully because it very well may be the most important statement in the entire thing: it contains an admission that shareholder activism can influence corporate behavior but they want to be a "passive investor" (meaning you don't stand up for your beliefs, if indeed you have any) because... well, why? They want to stay focuses on their core issues? Apparently, the health of the people they claim they are trying to help is not a core issue for the Gates Foundation.
How can any of you buy these bullshit arguments from the foundation? All you have to do is look at the literal meanings of the words they are using to realize that their words actually tell you the truth! But even more importantly, all you need do is look at their actions to tell you what they really believe. The old axiom about actions speaking louder than words is no less true in this instance than in any other. Immunizing people and then turning around and investing in a company that's killing them... well, I think that pretty clearly proves what's really going on here. I'm not trying to show that the foundation is malicious, I'm pointing out that they don't actually care about the people they claim they are trying to help. If they did they would be attacking this company for polluting these people's homes and their bodies.
I've never really understood why people are so willing to protect the hypocrisy of others, but I'm pretty sure that it has something to do with their own hypocrisy... the people who say "Oh yeah, life is terrible in the third world" and then go out and buy a pair of Nikes that were made with what is effectively slave labor, assembled by a bunch of kids who sit around huffing the toxic glue fumes all day until their brain has the consistency of runny oatmeal, really have to defend corporate actions like these lest they be confronted with the realities of their own actions.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"Now please return to the topic at hand, which is philanthropy, and not microsoft's business practices."
Very well.
I think measuring something like if he has done more harm than good with his investments is something that would be very difficult to do, and the answer would change depending on who you asked.
On the one hand, it seems a lot of the charity that Gates gives (which measures in the millions, if not nearly a billion, if I'm not mistaken) is done in an attempt to improve his image. Beyond that, the amount he has given away (and raised) is a drop in the bucket for him.
On the other hand, no one is making him do it. Whatever his REASONS for doing it are, he is supporting good causes. People tend to gloss over those things. He has the means to do it, so he does it.
I know what my answer would be, but how many people do you think would do the same in his position? Well, obviously there are two answers:
-Few, because people are generally greedy and want everything for themselves. They feel "I earned this not you, so why should you get a free ride off it?" While many people may see this as boring selfish, they really have no legal or moral obligation to help the less fortunate...they have indeed "earned" it (by whatever definition you apply to those words), and have every right to keep it for themselves.
And the other answer being:
-Alot, because people have good intentions and want to help their fellow human. Many people can look past issues that are conjured up to keep us fighting such as class, religion, sexual orientation, income, political affiliation...all things designed to keep us fighting with each other. Many people can see past that and want the human SPECIES as a whole to flourish.
Many people believe a single person cannot make a big impact. This isn't entirely true; however, when you look at the number of people that have made a massive contribution to the world as a single person, compared to the number of people that have made little contributions, you will find there are many more people that do a little bit here and a little bit there. There have been billions of people making little contributions; there have comparitavely been a handful of people that have changed history.
Personally, I would prolly go with answer number 2. I see all people as a fellow human being, regardless of where they come from or what their opinion is. yes, I know, there are some really fucked up people out there...and yes, I know my opinion is a bit of a pipe dream, but still; overall, my opinion of humanity as a whole is a positive one. I think people are GENERALLY good and GENERALLY wish for the good of our species.
The more people that follow the philosophy of accepting and supporting the person next to them, the fewer problems there are in the world.
Living With a Nerd
Even more complex than determining whether a particular investment is a net negative for a culture, is whether money spent in philanthropy provides a greater net gain for its target than simply investing in the economy of the region. One way to combat AIDS is to subsidize drugs for the afflicted. Another is to help the people of Africa create comparable wealth to that of G7 nations, so that AIDS treatment is as accessible for them as for us. Considerations of net good/harm often fail to consider secondary and tertiary effects. Like the banning of DDT, which (arguably) may have reversed the decline of some species, but demonstrably caused the deaths of millions of humans by increased malaria infection.
Most people try to keep it for their future generations.
I agree to your point. But, only to a degree. What he might be thinking might be very different from what we think.
There has been a lot of philanthropic organizations over the years, and very few made any mark in the world. Here, he has divided it to two different areas, one which makes money to support the other. Both of them doesn't influence each other. Such an operation might be in the end a way to make positive changes in the world.
I guess you haven't been to 3rd/4th world countries till now. I have been, it does (at least in my eyes) make it Ok. See, if that company doesn't pollute, some other company will. Bribes are rampant and nobody gives a heck about environment. The people there are concerned about their day-to-day survival. A very high percentage of them. They do not live usually long enough to feel the effects of it. People die young, and so they have much higher tolerance for pollution. Here what is needed is money for survival and education. That is what these companies provide. And the most important fact is that the education that they gain helps the whole country.
Now at least we know that the money that they make through this is at least going to help the people in that country. And that, I guess is the most important thing.
rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
If he was a true philanthropist and really altruistic, then it wouldn't be called the *Gates* Foundation. Charity is a private thing, not done for bragging points or tax avoidance.
Oh, so that makes it okay? As long as someone else would have done it, you can consider your hands to be clean?
The message I'm getting from you (and those who moderated me as a troll, when I clearly believe what I am saying) is that morality is a useless concept. I don't feel that it is. I feel that some things are just wrong and that lying is one of them, and investing in companies that knowingly and avoidably harm people is another. Yeah, some guy might rob a bank with or without me, does that mean I should volunteer to help him carry the bags of cash to his car in exchange for a tip? Because that is an excellent metaphor for what's happening here. They're cashing out from the earth and harming people in the process, and the Gates Foundation is helping them do it. That doesn't sound very benevolent to me.
What? People die young in part because of pollution, and the changes to their lifestyle brought on by unscrupulous capitalists who feel that it is appropriate to take advantage of the people's economically-depressed status in order to make money off of their suffering. It doesn't sound so nice when you put it that way, does it? The simple reality is that it is entirely possible for these companies to make obscene profits while still improving the quality of life.
In fact this brings up an excellent point that I look forward to raising in future conversations about cancer rates; many argue that cancer rates have climbed primarily because longetivity has increased. I cannot agree at all with this premise. There are indigenous peoples all over this planet who were regularly living for over a hundred years before the coming of the industrial age; in fact the Pomo peoples, Native Americans who live in a fairly restricted and secluded area of North America, fall into this category. Yet today their lifespans have been sharply reduced and cancer rates appear to be comparable to the rest of the population. This area used to be something of a beautiful natural paradise with several native species of oaks and practically absurd quantities of wildlife. Then ranchers came in and besides beginning to exterminate Pomos (I actually live in a town, Kelseyville, which is named after a man who with the assistance of his family enslaved, murdered, and raped large numbers of Pomo people) they also destroyed the land here and made large portions of it incapable of supporting a population that does not use organized agriculture.
Okay so that was a bit of a rant but the point is that industrialization is primarily responsible for both the improvement in the quality of life in the developed world, and the reduction in quality of life everywhere else, both for the pollution itself and the fundamental inequalities it made possible. Cancer rates doubled during the industrial revolution, and people have been quick to say that the increase in lifespan which occurred around the same time is primarily responsible, and I held that view myself until recently. Lifespans over 100 years are fairly common amongst rural villagers in China, in spite of (or perhaps because of - my mother was almost killed by a drug interaction recently) their poor access to modern medicine. The rapidly-moving industrialization of China will be a telling "experiment" in the effects of technology on the peoples of the world.
No, we don't know that. Vaccines don't really help people dying of respiratory failure.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
News Flash: There is no such thing as philanthropy anymore. This is just another form of lobbying. Does Kraft really need research funding when they already own half the shelf space in every grocery store and 7-11 in North America ? Kraft never helped anyone but its own damned self. What about 3M and their many innovations in the medical and engineering fields ? What about the OLPC project ? I could think of lots of places where research funding would benefit society at large.. Kraft and Ford are not on that list.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
If you must!
1. When you grow up, hopefully you'll learn that very few things in life and black and white. That's a fact of life. All we can all do is the best that we can.
2. You don't spend billions on "public relations". You spend billions on advertising. You've got to be an absolute idiot to give away billions of dollars for PR.
3. He IS doing it for altruistic reasons. Get over yourself.
OK, it's not quite the classic example but I think it works:
You buy a machine to manufacture widgets and as a by-product, it flings heavy iron balls of scrap out. Now it costs money to fix it so the iron balls just don't fling around and smash windows. But if the owner of the machine merely uses some of his profits to replace the broken windows of his neighbors, then that's good then, right?
That was the point of the LA times article: if those companies were NOT behaving like that, the foundation wouldn't need to be spending money to fix the problems the companies cause.
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
It's very easy to point to something and say it's bad. It's very hard to come up with a better way.
On a side note:
If you recall, England and the US weren't great places to live during their industrial revolutions. Horrible working conditions, massive pollution, no social services. But would either country be where it is today if it hadn't?
It isn't terribly clear that if you take all the monopoly abuse and problems associated with everybody using the same software and add it up that it is larger than the productivity benefits that have come from everybody using the same software. If it isn't, there is a chance that there has been some horrible opportunity cost incurred, but Microsoft would still be a net 'good' for society.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
I hope I understood you correctly. It sounded like you hadn't taken that into account.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
"if the Gates foundation isn't making money off of the evil corporations, someone will."
That's like saying
"if I'm not making money off of selling drugs, someone (else) will."
or
"if I'm not making money off of kiddie p()rn, someone (else) will."
This logic is bullshit.
You seriously need to write your own Bible translation/version.
..money can't buy morals.
Blerg.
Steal from The rich who stole from the poor and give back to the poor.
Thats basically what it is (assuming those companies are really bad)
Bad Corp make money by making Worker miserable.
Then Gates Foundation get a bit of this money (investement returns)
Then they give that money to the miserable Worker.
The question is how much money did stay in the Rich guys hand ?
No, you're an asshole because your point is meaningless. It implies the idea that charitable donations or good deeds have to be compared. The simple fact is that the Gates foundation does more good on this world than most any other organization. It sure as hell does more good than the nutbag religious ones which give with one hand then sew dissention and hate of other relgions with the other.
I prefer the message of the Buddha - moderation. You don't have to give the clothing off your back to do good.
When you buy stock on the open exchange, you're buying it from someone else who owns it, not from the company in question. So none of your money goes to the company in question, and you're not 'putting money into the company'. If you really wanted to have an effect on an 'irresponsible' company, you'd buy as much of their stock as possible, so that you'd have leverage to influence the board of directors.
Is not a tragedy to the people who get in first and use the most.
You've got to play things smart. The investment arm of the foundation should be concerned with making the most money they can. They do limit themselves somewhat, by not buying tobacco stocks for example, but their investment decisions should be motivated by financial statements, not fuzzy ethical questions.
The grant side should be (and is) concerned with the ethical, moral, and responsible side of things.
That is the best way to do the most good for the largest amount of people.
Stow the righteous indignation and try to think for a second.
The rich man was chastised for giving "only a small amount" because he expected to blessed for his show of philantropy. Hw wasn't showing good will, he was attempting to surreptiously purchase grace.
Name the evil things he's done, specifically. I'm sure these evil things involve outright theft, physical assault, and fraud - so please provide a laundry list of these nefarious dealings.
I'm being facetious. I know, of course, he's done no such thing and you're going to trot out a list of business dealings between consenting adults. It amuses me that you SlashDot geeky dweebs are by and large Libertarian leaning, but not when it comes to Micrsoft.
People trying to do good things can make money too, why not invest in them?
Because it's vanishingly difficult, and Gates basically says it's a fool's errand, to figure out who the "good" companies are. Announcing that you have Gates' money and are looking for "good" companies is a sure way to get scammed. All kinds of "good" companies will pop up with a business plan who will end global hunger and bring peace to Africa through new, safe technology. Then, after they get the money, they mysteriously disappear. And that's just one problem.
The biggest issues are A) defining "good" and B) getting everyone else to buy in.
Not everyone shares the same definition of "good", so they won't all invest in the same people. Is a company that makes condoms "good"? Some would say yes, others no. And that's just a single product -- most companies make several. Some people would consider Microsoft not to be a "good" company.
So if not everyone buys in, and you've chosen your investments with an eye toward something other than their yield, you've got an artificially underperforming investment portfolio. In Gates' case that would artificially limit the amount of money he could devote to his primary mission.
But never fear: there is a certain amount of convergence between investing for long-term profit and investing in "good" companies. Firms that don't play well with others tend to attract negative attention, limiting their yield. I'm not saying the good guys always win, but then my definition of "good" would probably not match yours anyway. I'm just saying that you don't have to obsess over whether you've invested in "good" companies, as the really bad ones will be easy enough to spot.
sigs, as if you care.
Me, I don't care - it's what you do, not why you do it.
Thank you.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
Yes, I am very suspicious of their motives.
By the way, whether you prefer Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, or "the Prophet Harry" you still believe in something that you can't touch and I don't quite know what the difference is.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
I guess you haven't been to 3rd/4th world countries till now. I have been, it does (at least in my eyes) make it Ok. See, if that company doesn't pollute, some other company will.
I see your point, that's why I'm going to grab a couple of guns, head over to your house, pistol whip you senseless, tie you up, cut your eyelids off, rape your mom and girlfriend while you watch and then kill them both by jamming the guns up their cunts and pulling the triggers and then kill you by ramming a gun up your ass and pulling the trigger, take your stuff and burn your house to the ground. See, if I don't do it someone else will, so there's really no reason for me not to do it and there's no reason for you, or society, to ask me not to do it because well, if I don't someone else will.
Oh, and this is cute, the captcha for this post is "bastard", I think that's an adequate description of what you and the rest of the "well we can't ask anyone to invest responsibly" crowd are.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
Obviously somebody at the Foundation decided to say they would change their policy to make the Foundation look better.
Then Bill (or his father) stepped in.
So much for that.
Big surprise...
I keep telling you - the Foundation is a SCAM - nothing more.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I don't know, but it's best not to judge others. Regardless, I don't think the moral of the story was to not give at all if you weren't going to give enough.
I do believe that you are not a troll. It is just that moderators are a little too overenthusiastic.
My point is not that morality is a bad thing. After reading about Mahatma Gandhi, I cannot even come close to saying that.
What I was just suggesting was that some of these countries are under extreme economic pressure. I am a person who considers that
the amount of good you do matters more than the intent of yours. Again, I am not saying that intent is overrated. Just that at many
a time, what matters is the amount of good you do.
Gates here is such an example. He is doing a lot of good. He is helping children live. He may be just doing for his PR. But that
doesnt take away the goodness that he did. And he should be lauded for that.
I do see your point here and also I do agree with you in many areas. But, not completely. My point still remains that it is unusual for a person to spend 1/3rd of his life savings (however lrge that maybe), for charity. As I mentioned in another post long ago, when I was not as rich as now, I had no issues in giving money away for charity. See, I had decided to give 10% of my savings to charity. Once I got richer (by a little bit), my heart bled when I gave the same 10%, since it was a higher amount. Later on I stopped because the amount became too much.
So, I laud him. And the companies which support his mission.
rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
No. The moral of the story was don't expect inordinate praise for deigning to throw your table scraps, when others are giving their all.
Give as much or as little as you want. Don't expect your $1000 (which you casually throw from a $50,000 wad in your pocket) to be received with effusiveness and then become indignant when a beggar hands over their only quarter and is highly praised.
This applies to all charity, not just religious-based.
It's kinda like..oh...I don't know...arming a middle eastern dictatorship and then spending even more money cleaning up after it.
+&x
This was to be the next "Trent" story. It was never published in book form. I grabbed it from DKM's web-site back in the ninties. I don't know if it's still available on the web or not. It's a pretty cool story. It opens with Trent getting shot in the chest at point-blank range by a bounty hunter.
No, I can't copy it here. It's too long and I don't have the right to do that anyway.
If you manage to find a legitimate copy look for
I highly recommend it.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
I couldn't have said that better, though I thought I did. :)
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
That's the real issue. Perhaps the foundation actually could, if they put a lot of work into that (instead of doing their job), make sure they invest in the right things. But they'll still have negative articles written about them, because there's no consensus on what the Right Thing is. No matter what you do, any diversified investor is going get bad PR. Get out of whale oil, and the whalers' widows' pension fund manager is going to call his local newspaper.
That doesn't mean the foundation shouldn't think about what they invest in, but it'll never make the articles go away. So changing strategies just because someone bitched, would be kind of dumb.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I think when it comes to making sure companies don't destroy society, that's exactly what governments are meant to deal with. So I say good for the Gates Foundation, let them keep their investments, and we can all keep ours too. The markets have no values, have no morals - markets favor winners, and couldn't care less about fairness. These concepts are the domain of governments, and it's up to governments to make sure the rules are set, fair and adhered to, and to companies that step out of line, in appropriate ways. We are told that "the markets" will some how fix this up, and everything will turn out great in the end. It's a fantasy, and we need to stop pretending there are negative consequences where there are none for these companies. The right thing for the Gates Foundation and for the rest of to do, is to push the governments of the world to set the right law, regulations and oversite and then watch them to make sure they follow through. This is not a problem that can be addressed within the economic branch of society - a branch which is often only concerned with the impact of its action over the next single quarter. It has to be addressed through government - and preferably, through government by the people. ;-)
http://www.unfocus.com/
Reading over most of the comments it appears that most people seem to think that Gates is perfectly justified to invest wherever he wants with no real consideration of the companies he invests in.
Most of the supporting comments seem to fall into these categories:
1. It's too difficult to judge how socially responsible a company is.
2. A socially responsible company is a relative term.
3. If Gates didn't invest in a company for moral reasons, it wouldn't matter because someone else would. Thereby depriving his charity of funds while doing nothing to stop an abuse.
First off; we must agree that companies can have a impact on the well being of the countries and communities they operate in, be it positive or negative. I think it's pretty obvious that they can; extent is a trickier issue. Regardless, I think premise #1 is on some solid footing. If any one seeks to differ, I'm all ears.
So how difficult is it to determine which companies are good and which are bad? Some people have suggested that it is impossibly hard. I would argue that's false. Their is no lack of investment funds that one can access which do exactly this. There are Christian funds with invest in a 'Christian friendly way'. There are ethical funds which do exactly what Gates suggests is too hard and only invest in an ethical way! Heck, there are even 'vice funds' which focus exclusively on investing in those areas that others maybe don't want to, like Tobacco.
But how can we tell if the final product of a companies activities are positive or negative? What if we don't agree on what's even a good practice? Well that is certainly tricky but not impossible to deal with. Most companies that are doing 'evil' can be ruled out without too much trouble. Companies that fall at this extreme end are guilty of excessive pollution, labour/human rights abuses, or dealing with those we hold as intolerable (eg. terrorist organizations). But what about those companies that can't be pegged so easily, like a company seeking to privatize water or operate a nuclear plant? In cases like this it is incumbent on Gates to make a principled stand, one way or the other, based on a solid rational of what he believes is best overall. With the stated goals of this charity, the most hypocritical thing that Gates could do is to ignore this issue.
But does it matter? How can investment make a difference anyway, won't someone else step up and invest? Maybe, but that doesn't mean it can't have an effect. By shrinking the pool of willing investment you're giving the remaining investment more value to the company thereby making it more expensive to that company. I offer 'vice finds' as an example; They invest exclusively in those areas that others find distasteful (like tobacco or gambling) and expect a premium in return. Anytime you put financial pressure on a company, it's pressure to change the way it operates. On the other side of the coin, you are then investing in companies that are making an effort. This increases their competitiveness by comparison.
I'm flabbergasted that Gates is actively ignoring this aspect. This could be the single greatest contribution he makes to the world. Instead he wants to focus solely on the symptoms (illiteracy, disease) when the initial causes are largely ignored. For the record I see the issue this way:
1. Companies operations can have an impact on the well being of the areas they operate in.
2. Companies require investment/capital to operate.
Therefore, we can impact a companies ability to operate - and by extension, conditions in the areas they operate - by selectively investing our money towards good corporate practice and away from bad.
I did some last minute rearanging and it appears I broke the continuity of my reply. For the record, when I refer to premise one being on solid ground, I'm refering to the premise that is now at the bottom of the reply. My apologies.
The idea that one can invest in capital markets without interacting with companies whose policies one my disagree is laughable. As is the idea that the foundation must just accept the market as it is.
In the specific scenario mentioned in the LA Times article, the oil plant that causes respiratory illness where the foundation is trying to improve health, the foundation could use it's ownership in the corporation to compell the board to improve the quality of the refinery. This may reduce the foundation's return on investment from the stock, but it will increase the effectiveness of the foundation's efforts in that community. If, for economic reasons or otherwise, the foundation could not exert it's control through ownership, it could leverage it's investment and local relationships to come up with a solution, such as subsidizing pollution techology. Regardless of the specific solution needed, the foundation is not forced to choose between changing these conditions and assuring maximum return on investment. This idea is no different than partnering with some local charity for distribution of charity rather than investing in your own infrastructure to do so. Partnering with businesses might actually be easier in some cases since money usually buys cooperation in the business world and the foundation is hardly lacking in that area.
Wealth is power. For the foundation to give up that power is counter to it's goals. It must effectively use that power to further it's goals. The premise that blindly investing for growth reduces the rate of return on charitable works is valid. That the solution is all or nothing, depending whether the company is "good" or "evil" is invalid.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
No he is not.
:-))
Microsoft is a bad corporation, and this has much to do with the caracter of M. Gates, who probably is not very good at empathy, and quite efficient at greed.
But there are many obviously "worse" people than M. Gates.
So writing that he is the "worst" brands you as a loony.
And by association might give a bad image of other M$ opponents
"tout ce qui est excessif est dérisoire" (no I'm german
Or to use raw materials more efficiently, and thereby save money in the process. That was the experience of Silicon Valley: they reduced output of contaminated solvents by learning to use less solvent in the first place.
Yeah, at least sometimes. Which is one reason you might do better with "socially responsible investing".
Though on the other hand, pollution is often an "externality" that the manufacturer can inflict on the outside world without paying for it... until people get pissed off enough about it to take legal action, in which case the company that's already figured out to reduce pollution could be in a very good position.
(Though I wouldn't be surprised if "tradeable emissions caps" undermine that to a large extent. It might make more sense to pollute as much as you can so that you can plead for a higher "cap", and then you can make a killing selling your pollution rights.)
I wrote an article on this for the Seattle Weekly: http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0504/050126_news _investing.php
Gates and Microsoft are very aggressive in business and don't believe corporations should be regulated to prevent public harm except in the most eggregious cases. The problem is they don't seem to think predatory lending, stomping out the open source community or polluting third world countries is eggregious.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1
I thought people knew by now that it is the poor that are generous.
"but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
You did tell it better. Some people just need a direct & blunt clue by four upside their head.
Unfortunately it has largely been corrupted to be synonomous with Tibetan Buddhism which adds all the mystical mumbo-jumbo. Buddha's points about Karma, for example, are far more subtle than the traditional understanding, and literal reincarnation was not part of it.
Why? I think he should be encouraged to do good. But vaccinating people and simultaneously providing funding to a company that is giving them respiratory illnesses is, as I said, hypocritical at best and I consider it an outright lie. "We're helping these people!" The Foundation is profiting from their abuse and even if that money is spent somewhere else to do good, I frankly don't think it's enough to make a net positive change. Besides, how do you measure human suffering?
No, I think that if you are going to claim to be altruistic then you have to do your best to do no evil, and they aren't doing anything along those lines. They have made a public statement that they will not review their investments to make sure they aren't making people sick or killing them. In my book, that is evil. Period. And hiding behind the good deeds does not excuse you from responsibility for your bad ones! If I save the lives of ten people, does that then give me license to go out and kill five? No? Then the only logical conclusion is that vaccinating people doesn't excuse investing in companies that are killing people.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
this in one company in serious trouble!
Gates' Microsoft invests billions in insecure software from which it makes billions in "securing" with consulting services, upgrades and "security" software.
Now Gates' foundation invests billions in broken communities from which it makes billions in exploiting through other multinationals in which it is part owner.
That guy really is as smart, privileged and evil as people say he is.
--
make install -not war
It also ignores the fact that he's wastes more resources on frivolous personal expenses than most people will ever see in a lifetime. Holy shit on a stick man, get off your soapbox! First off, there was no "stealing", people willingly gave their money for a product. Secondly, if anything, years of super-lax anti-pirating measures made MS give more to the poor than it ever got. I can't think of many homeless people waiting outside in the line so they could be the first to buy Windows 98 First Edition. And thirdly, if you make the money, you're allowed to spend the money! I've "wasted more on frivolous personal expenses" than most 3rd world folks will ever see in a lifetime... hell, if you've bought a computer you've spent more than a lot of people on this planet will ever make in a lifetime.
None of that changes the fact that in terms of percentage, BG has given more money than the vast majority of people (I sure as hell haven't given 1/3 of my money to charity) and also in terms of absolute dollars, he's given a contribution to society that rivals the amount that some nations have put out. Now, while you may not agree with the fine details of exactly how he went about his business transactions, the fact is that he built his own business, made lots of money that middle and upper class people willingly gave to him, and then instead of giving it all to his kids or building his own private space station, or giving it to some huge inefficient charity (United Way, anyone?), he makes his own organization dedicated to fixing many of the overlooked wrongs in the world. And you know what, if the price of that world-changing event is that he takes a few hundred million to build himself a house embedded in a hill with all sorts of cool gizmos... well, fuck you, he worked damn hard for 30 years, he's giving back more to society in percentage and gross than you or I or 99.999% of the world ever could or would, and he doesn't even have to do it, he's doing it because he wants to.
Don't go spewing stupid shit like "he stole from the poor and middle class". This isn't the 1900's, he's not an oil tycoon or a land stealer
Yes, I'll get -1 Troll for defending BG on Slash, but seriously folks, it's bullshit like this that makes us look like raving lunatics to the rest of the world, and it's bullshit like this that stops us from getting taken seriously. Grow the fuck up and get some sense of scale and priority, wouldya?
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
"Philanthropizing is hard work!" - Bill Gates
... and then they built the supercollider.
... then he wouldn't have any money invested in Microsoft.
At least with the Gates foundation, the money is going to treat disease, bring clean and renewable drinking sources, textbooks, etc,...
Here are some numbers from B&MGF's financial statements [This works in 'preview'; sure hope it doesn't trip any lameness filters after submission]
Year__ Assets___________ NetROI__________ GrantsPaid______ GP/Assets_ GP/ROI
2001 _ $23,875,273,000 _ $1,182,049,000 _ $1,146,958,000 _ _ 4.80% _ _ 97.03%
2002 _ $24,082,053,000 _ $1,965,411,000 _ $1,158,293,000 _ _ 4.81% _ _ 58.93%
2003 _ $26,810,518,000 _ $3,928,204,000 _ $1,182,791,000 _ _ 4.41% _ _ 30.11%
2004 _ $28,798,609,000 _ $2,632,002,000 _ $1,252,371,000 _ _ 4.35% _ _ 47.58%
2005 _ $29,153,508,000 _ $1,421,334,000 _ $1,356,327,000 _ _ 4.65% _ _ 95.43%
I'm sure that after adjustments for certain overheads, GrantsPaid will consistently be between 5.00% and 5.10% of the assets for each year. Under IRS law, a philanthropic organization has to pay out at least 5% of its assets each year to continue to qualify for its special tax breaks.
It is enlightening that on the average, B&MGF earns through its investments half again as much as it pays out through grants.
Basically this looks like a for-profit institution that distributes no more to charities than the minimum needed to qualify for tax breaks. The good works it does are an artificial side-effect of its primary activity, which is its investment arm.
This can actually be quantified: B&MGF is 4.61% for philanthropic work, and 95.39% for other activity (possibly just to make even more money, which seems like a ridiculous goal for someone as clever as BG; or possibly to use the lever these investments provide to attempt to reshape economies. He is recognized as a visionary by those who idolize him.)
Would it not be cheaper by not needing more medical expenses, by paying the $1 to $5m needed to clean up the said toxic plant.
Pay for filter, pay for better storage tanks and trucks and pipes etc....
Or does this fund also have investments in the medical companies providing the support as well?
Kind of like owning the toxic power plant, the hospital and the medical/drug companies at once.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Given the number of funds now specializing in socially responsible investing (Working Assets comes to mind), your stating that it's impossible just about puts you in tinfoil-hat land... like the people who deny the Holocaust and global warming.
If you're enough of a Bill Gates / MS fanboy to want to defend the Gates Foundation, come up with something better.
Tech Public Policy stuff
the Gates Foundation apparently think that Bill Gates has decided to turn over a new leaf after 'retiring' from MS. He's just found a new place to be a bad guy. . . and pick up public acclaim while doing it.
Judging from the number of comments supporting him, it seems to have worked. At least for the hard-core MS fanboys, I doubt the rest of us really expected anything different.
Tech Public Policy stuff
as funny.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Actually, I think that finding companies with MS's standard of ethics would be even more work than finding "good guy" companies. After buying Halliburton and ExxonMobil, what do they do with the rest of their investment money? White slavery startups?
Tech Public Policy stuff
just because one or more of the mods here is a MS fanboy doesn't mean that a post they don't like deserves a flamebait rating.
The biggest weakness of slashdot is anonymous moderation.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Buying and selling shares doesn't help or hurt the company associated with them, with rare exceptions.
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve." - Walden (1854), Chapter 1: Economy, Henry David Thoreau
"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."
In yet another burst of MS-style innovation, it seems the Gates Foundation has come up with a question that nobody has ever asked before!: "Can you please everybody, all of the time?" This is a very significant matter, extremely worthy of research sponsorship by the Gates Foundation. Apparantly nobody has looked into it, much less tried to resolve it. Because I am such a devoted scholar, supporter of not-for-profit organizations (that's "charities" in the minds of the Little People who keep Microsoft oh-so-profitable), I am willing to devote my time and energy into investigating the nature and consequences of this profound puzzle that has such global implications and is clearly of great importance to all of Mankind.
I think that with a modest research grant, say about equivalent to what was spent to develop Vista, I can make significant progress in defining, exploring, and perhaps coming up with plans of action to address this thorny issue.
"You're young, you're drunk, you're in bed, you have knives; shit happens." -- Angelina Jolie
You're missing the point. The reason I took this story from the Bible is because it's, what, a couple of thousand years old! People have been making this very same observation about those trying to buy "indulgences" for at least that long and probably longer.
NOTE: yes, I know the history of "indulgences". That's why I deliberately chose that word. The Catholic Church's sinful use of this concept doesn't stop it from being WRONG!
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
It isn't any coincidence that the Gates foundation, with new funding from Warren Buffett, tends to donate money to those countries which purchase expensive AIDS drugs, instead of those which dismiss the drug companies' claims to intellectual property rights and produce it themselves.
Gates foundation: follow the money. Go to the source. It's closed.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Somebody once said that "The love of money is the root of all evil." That the richest person in the world puts accumulating more money above any harm that may be caused by it comes as no surprise at all.
Be as you would have the world become.