Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates's New Version of the Einstein Letter
dcblogs writes "In 1939, Albert Einstein sent 'F.D. Roosevelt, President of the United States,' a letter with a warning about Germany's interest in a new type of energy with potential for use as a powerful bomb. The letter also outlined the competitive threat posed by Germany and steps for improving US research efforts. Last week, Bill Gates, along with GE's CEO and others, met with President Obama to deliver their own message: that of the top 30 companies in the world working on alternative energy, only four are in the US. Similar to Einstein's point and recommendations, Gates and his allies are asking the US to view the alternative energy push as a competitive threat posed by other nations, particularly China, which may be doing a better job in bringing its engineering talent and money to bear on this problem."
No, Einstein was the sage even at the time, which is why Szilard got him to sign the letter.
Actually you're totally wrong.
Einstein acted alone and was not heavily invested in nuclear energy. Gates and his friends are heavily invested in alternative energy sources.
"The Einstein–Szilárd letter was a letter sent to United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt on August 2, 1939, that was signed by Albert Einstein but largely written by Leó Szilárd in consultation with fellow Hungarian physicists Edward Teller and Eugene Wigner."
Szilárd had a patent on nuclear chain reaction.
Szilárd and Fermi had patent on nuclear-power plant design.
Dark cloud over good works of Gates Foundation
In a contradiction between its grants and its endowment holdings, a Times investigation has found, the foundation reaps vast financial gains every year from investments that contravene its good works.
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Holdings Outperforming S&P 500 Handily
It is also overweight Healthcare, Consumer Staples and Industrials. The Foundation is underweight Telecom, Consumer Discretionary and Energy, and it has a 0% weight in Technology, Utilities and Materials.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Owns Over 7 Million Shares of BP
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Buys CSX Corp., M&T Bank Corp., XTO Energy Inc. Mcdonald's, Devon Energy Corp., Sells Johnson & Johnson
These are the top 5 holdings of Bill Gates
1. Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK-B) - 1,251,250 shares, 48.36% of the total portfolio
2. McDonald's Corp. (MCD) - 6,867,500 shares, 5.27% of the total portfolio
3. Canadian National Railway Company Fully (CNI) - 8,399,653 shares, 4.82% of the total portfolio
4. Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) - 4,285,000 shares, 4% of the total portfolio
5. Costco Wholesale Corp. (COST) - 6,128,000 shares, 3.74% of the total portfolio
Is this a philanthropic venture or a tax evasion investment scheme?
I do commend Gates for what he is doing but I would not go so far as to slobber all over him for his philanthropic works considering his past illicit activity that played a significant role in providing him with the funds to become a philanthropist.
The fact that buy taking his money you are now agreeing to the patents on other drugs. These drugs then are sold and that is how this makes money.
Ooooookay, let's start by exploring just waht a "foundation" is. The applicable definitions would be:
a : funds given for the permanent support of an institution : endowment; b : an organization or institution established by endowment with provision for future maintenance
(emphasis added)
In other words, a foudnation is precisely an organization that has an endowment of seed money, invests that money, and uses income from such investment to do some sort of work (in this case, charitable work) perpetually. Typically some of the investment income is reinvested in the foundation (rather than 100% of the income going to do work), as this helps ensure perpetual operation and can even cause the foundation's strength to increase over time.
An organization that doesn't invest, but rather does its work directly with the money it takes in from donors or other revenue streams, is not a foundation.
So pointing out that the foundation invests in profitable things and therefoer concluding that it's a tax scam is entirely misguided. If you want to distinguish a charitable foundation from a tax scam, look for an outbound revenue stream into the founders' pockets. If you have evidence of that, then there's something to talk about.
Your first link represents a dillema that every successful investor with a diverse portfolio has to deal with. Your second and fourth links only show that they are good stewards of their seed money. Your third link is such trivially emotional crap that it barely deserves comment.
I read somewhere that more lives were saved before when they used copies of patented drugs than now with his 'donations'.
You read something garbled then. The donations do save lives, this is not in dispute. The problem is the cost that they come with. The B&MGF buys the patented drugs, but the drug companies only provide them on the condition that the receiving countries sign treaties with the USA introducing US-style patent laws. This means that the country can then not buy (or locally produce) cheaper, generic, patent-infringing, versions of the drugs. As a (wholly unintentional, of course) side effect, the new treaties also make it possible for companies like, for example, large software firms, to enforce their copyrights and software patents in the countries that have received this aid.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News