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
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 hope that the Stephen & Melinda Gates Foundation approaches this issue with a little more responsibility.
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.
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!
Some companies, like BP, aren't pure evil. Some, like Sony BMG, totally are.
/. are anti-DRM, anti-RIAA and pro-It's MY Computer so we generally consider Sony BMG a negative force with BP being fairly decent with all them investing the oil profits into alternative energy schemes.
This view is, like anyones, based on your views and experience. (Mind you, I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just going to point out another viewpoint).
The GW groups would probably consider BP pure evil as they pump and sell oil, regardless of anything else they do. Sony BMG, on the other hand, doesn't have any direct say in it so they wouldn't consider them evil.
On the other hand, most of us on
Taking a Nuclear Power Plant can also be good or evil depending on your view. Energy free of CO2 emmissions or a Chernobyl waiting to happen.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Even their charitable foundation has to backpedal on the previously stated scope of its projects because of complexity.
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
The impact of a responsible investment policy on the money scale of GF will exceed the results from donating proceeds by an unimaginable magnitude.
While the money it is giving to good causes may sound great, it is nothing compared to the possible impact of running a strictly "responsible investment" policy with a money chest of their size (Most of BG money and most of the wizard of Omaha money nowdays).
This will turn the stockmarket bottom up, upside down and leave it on its head for a very long time. Money this size will cause a large number of companies to accept responsible corporate polices in order to be eligible for investment. You cannot just ignore it or turn its back on it. This in turn will force move of other investment and so on and so on.
I can bet that the perspective of this happening has scared all those pyramid jugglers with "quantitative models" shitless. I can bet that the real reason for BGF to abandon the policy 2 days after stating it is that Gates personal phone (the one not published in the phonebook) did not stop ringing during that period.
So this most likely is an order from above and it sucks. A money chest this size which is bound by "responsible investment" covenant may have forced many companies to assume more responsible polices and ultimately changed the world to the better much more than the money GF gives away to good causes. Everything else aside, its effect would have been much more long term.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
You seriously need to write your own Bible translation/version.
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.