Facebook's Zuckerberg To Give Away Half His Cash

Stoobalou writes "Facebook co-founders Mark Zuckerberg and Dustin Moskovitz are among the latest batch of 17 billionaires who have promised to give away at least half of their fortunes, after signing up to a philanthropic campaign led by Microsoft founder Bill Gates 3.0 and celebrity investor Warren Buffett. By signing up to The Giving Pledge, the mega-rich make a vague promise — sorry, 'moral commitment' — to give away more than half of their fortune at some point during their lifetime."

Comments

News for...

[jerryluc]

nerds, Stuff that matters.

I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[eldavojohn]

Call me old fashion but when you "give something away." You let it go. You don't set up a foundation and put the money in that foundation and then parcel out small percentages yearly as your foundation invests it back into businesses and countries that you have an interest in. I've bitched about this before (I'm aware that the couple hundred I've donated in my life does not measure up to tens of billions) but I think it should be clarified. A lot of these billionaires do not give the money away. They put the money into a foundation that then invests the large amounts of money into the American economy and sometimes businesses or areas of development that they hold an interest in. Once the return is netted at the end of the year, then this is what is "given away" in the strictest sense of the words. They treat researchers and poor starving nations like children. It has its benefits but I see it as largely detrimental. I understand that in doing this the foundation can continue to give indefinitely (until the American stock market dumps) but what I don't understand is that potential that the money has could be equally useful to the target medicines and poor that are supposed to be helped. If you don't think that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is American-centric and nationalistic in its investments, why don't you read his warning letter about China developing alternative energy. To quote Kenny Powers: "Sure, I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is, I'm not. I honestly just feel that America is the best country and the other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism."

Here's my prediction for Zuck's money: He's going to pledge a trillion dollars it to something like stopping malaria in Africa. It's going to go into a foundation. The foundation will make money yearly by investing in indexes and mutual funds spread across American (not African) companies managed by some genius living comfortably far from any malaria parasite. At the end of each year, they're going to have ~5.5% to give away. They have American medical research companies apply for research grants. They arrange to have malaria medicine created and licensed from American companies shipped to Africa. They can't give that money to governments like the Democratic Republic of the Congo because government corruption will wick away much of that. And they might buy small arms and attack their neighbors with them. They get treated like children and they stay children. At the end of that year, America prevails economically with a sound infrastructure while the DRC remains malaria infested, corrupted and without any sort of infrastructure to provide clean potable water, sewage treatment or electricity to large areas of populace.

So I have to kind of wonder if they're "giving money away" or if they're putting money into an engine that just persists existing problems while helping the American economy? Because people have been donating vast extensive sums of money to stop malaria historically and where are we at in that fight?

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that something is happening but I really question when I read "give away" in the news articles when a better term might be "endowed" or just call it what it often is, "an investment in America resulting in good will."

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[Afforess]

Because clearly, what's good for America must be truly terrible for the rest of the world... er, what?

America creates the most billionaires in the world, and reaps the rewards (or doesn't, depending on your point of view...). Other countries only have themselves to blame if they feel left out.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[JackieBrown]

A foundation allows him to know the donation is spent the way he intends it rather than how some other "charitable" organization deems fit.

For example, I donate to places directly but would never donate to United Way or Red Cross because I have no control on how that money is spent.

I don't donate enough to be worth setting up a foundation, but I can certainly understand how one might want to.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're full of bullshit. A one-time shot of a half-billion dollars will get pissed away in a year. Put that money in a foundation and consistently donate the interest, however, and you get a significant chunk of change going to the cause every year, forever.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[91degrees]

Seems sensible to me. Helping the American economy is not a zero sum game is it? And a regular fairly predictable income is a lot more useful for a charity than a single lump sum. It allows them to plan ahead.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know what you are talking about.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[recoiledsnake]

They put the money into a foundation that then invests the large amounts of money into the American economy and sometimes businesses or areas of development that they hold an interest in. Once the return is netted at the end of the year, then this is what is "given away" in the strictest sense of the words

The objective is to make money for the charity, so more money can be given out. It does not matter to the foundation if that's an American business or not, just that it has to be profitable. If African companies are not profitable then the foundation will simply squander the money away.

If you don't think that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is American-centric and nationalistic in its investments, why don't you read his warning letter about China developing alternative energy [slashdot.org].

What has that go to do with the foundation? It's not even mentioned there. Dare a person have different goals and objectives in his life? I think you're letting bias cloud your judgment. Just throwing the money at a problem does not solve it. Signing a check of a trillion dollars to the African government will just make the situation worse. A foundation is far better.

How is what the foundation doing largely detrimental?

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[khallow]

They treat researchers and poor starving nations like children.

It's a feature not a bug. How should you treat a country that has dozens of examples of how to elevate a country above crushing poverty, yet chooses not to follow those examples? And researchers could always get their funding from a source that respects them, say themselves, for example. Sure you're not going to fund a ten billion dollar collider on a associate professor's income, but a lot of those people are paid more than adequately for funding their own research.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[maxume]

Gates stated goal is to disperse the money out of the foundation prior to his death.

Buffett sees the logic in that but is too old to do it himself.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[u38cg]

Not to be trite, but just giving away money doesn't really help. Trillions have been pumped into Africa as Western aid over the years, and there is diddly-squat to show for it. Using money intelligently is not a bad thing to do: a malaria cure is more use than a malaria net, even if everyone gets one.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[entotre]

Summary of parent for the busy among us: "You can't say they 'give it away', because they still control when and where it is donated". A thoroughly boring read.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[jdgeorge]

Agreed. This is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation approach to philanthropy. If you have a complaint about it, explain how you disagree with this approach.

Regarding nationalism, this explanation of their approach overtly expresses that one of their grant making priorities is "improving high school education in the United States." I cannot deny that this is America-centric, but I wholeheartedly support the idea that a wealthy person should contribute to the ongoing positive development of his own country.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[Xacid]

Seriously?

Operating in this manner is what makes the whole operation *sustainable*. And of course they're not investing the principle in Africa. Might as well give it to one of the million Nigerian Princes.

And the Gates letter has NOTHING to do with stifling Chinese development. It has everything to do with asking the U.S. to step up its game in that field.

Ever wonder why when you fly they say to put your oxygen mask on first? If you cripple yourself in the process you're useless to help.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[Demonantis]

That is the same reason why fair trade coffee bothers me. If it is not economically viable, why are they still producing it? Are there infrastructure issues that force them to produce coffee instead of food? Maybe those issues need to be addressed by people instead of just paying more for coffee. Fair trade is basically giving the coffee farms an allowance. They are better off day to day, but in the long run they are dependent on us and our demands. They should be supporting their own economy first so in the long run they will be able to function without our support.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[Anonymous Coward]

Why teach a man to fish if you can buy him a yacht with harpoon on it?

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[trickyD1ck]

This was the most stupid thing I ever read on this site.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[maxume]

I would guess that western aid has resulted in millions and millions of people that would otherwise not have survived or even been born.

I'm not sure that counts as diddly squat.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[toQDuj]

I remember (but I cannot find) that a one-time lump sum handout to families in developing countries actually turned out to help quite well, as the family usually invested the money sensibly.

As for the malaria, you can actually change the parasites' behaviour by installing malaria nets. The reason for that was explained in a ted talk: ill people, infected, will stay indoors and are no longer accessible to other mosquitoes, thereby preventing the spread of the parasite. It is therefore in the parasites' best interest not to render the patient bedridden, and changes in the parasites' characteristics can be seen within years. (and damn, I cannot find that either because for some reason the ted.com site is incredulously slow now..).

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[fulldecent]

May I recommend a book:

The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[shadowrat]

He's going to pledge a trillion dollars it to something like stopping malaria in Africa. It's going to go into a foundation. The foundation will make money yearly by investing in indexes and mutual funds spread across American (not African) companies managed by some genius living comfortably far from any malaria parasite.

I'm not sure that close proximity to wild malaria is anything that facilitates anti-malaria medicine. Seems to me it's not such a good idea to risk all of your researchers getting malaria. I know your situation is hypothetical, but hypothetically, i'd hope his foundation would dole out money to the organizations best suited to stopping malaria. Those companies might be Swedish, or Japanese, or American, or from some African nation. The thing is, i don't know how many African pharmaceutical or pesticide companies there are. Even if there is some African company on the forefront of the war on malaria, the leadership of that company is probably living somewhere where they aren't going to get malaria anyway.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

They can't give that money to governments like the Democratic Republic of the Congo because government corruption will wick away much of that. And they might buy small arms and attack their neighbors with them. They get treated like children and they stay children.

You kinda had me going along with you at the start of your rant. I thought you were going to go somewhere freakonomics-like on me and was ready for the ride. But your rant against putting money into an endowment and the above quoted rant against paternalism through me right of that track.

First about your equating the practice of not giving corrupt countries a lump sum of cash to paternalism. People have given money to countries which are poor and have a history of corruption, and every time the lion's share of that money goes into the pockets of officials or buys arms. So giving money directly to those governments is simply a no-go, you just can't do that. And, according to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_aid#Criticism_of_aid "James Shikwati, a Kenyan economist, has argued that foreign aid causes harm to the recipient nations, specifically because aid is distributed by local politicians, finances the creation of corrupt government such as that led by Dr Fredrick Chiluba in Zambia bureaucracies, and hollows out the local economy." So even if aid isn't gobbled up by a corrupt government, it still isn't a good idea. There are organization out there looking for sustainable ways of providing aid, but guess what, it's not coming as a lump sum payment as you suggest.

And that brings me back to your dislike of endowments. I really don't understand that. Have you never heard about interest? Why do you think colleges, museums, and other institutions like endowments so much? Not because they're forced to use them by some paternalistic billionaire.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[interval1066]

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that something is happening but I really question when I read "give away" in the news articles when a better term might be "endowed" or just call it what it often is, "an investment in America resulting in good will."

Your problem appears to be with semantics. He and his peers (Gates, et al.) actually aren't "giving money away", as you seem to be saying they should be doing, where poor sods like you can (presumably) receive it and piss it away. He's giving it away to benefit a number of charities where it is presumed it will be managed to do the most good for everyone, not a few luck lottery winners. Your argument is specious and petty. These charities are like the world, theres good one's and there's bad ones. Here's a plan; go talk to Zuckerberg and make a case for YOUR favorite charity. You no doubt know exactly which ones will be the most effective and less likely to be simply an "...investment in America resulting in good will."

What rubbish.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[10101001 10101001]

No, you're full of bullshit. A one-time shot of a half-billion dollars will get pissed away in a year.

Why a one-time shot? Why pissed away in a year? That sounds more like a choice of the spender, be it a foundation or a person.

Put that money in a foundation and consistently donate the interest, however, and you get a significant chunk of change going to the cause every year, forever.

And perhaps never solve the problem. Spending the interest gained, say ~5.5% of $40 Billion (ie ~$2.2 Billion), indefinitely may stop the hemorrhaging of the disease indefinitely. But it might well take a good deal more, say $10 Billion per year, along with an actual plan to cure the disease. Governments have been for years doing the same sort of massive, yet inadequate, money and supply donations. It would seem the main problem is not having a plan in the first place.

The fact that a government or a foundation may be very unwilling to even consider many options because it could "kill" the government/foundation may make them rather unsuitable in to actually solving some problems. A person? He/she's going to die anyways--that's what the whole pledge is about really; so, why not "piss away" their billions and consider even outrageous plans?

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[TheLink]

It is therefore in the parasites' best interest not to render the patient bedridden, and changes in the parasites' characteristics can be seen within years.

I think that'll work.

Pity the bosses normally don't appreciate it if we stay at home for a week and not even bother to see the doctor (and thus risk spreading more germs) whenever we have a minor ailment. Oh well.

Won't stop stuff like Hepatitis B/C and HIV though.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[Peeteriz]

I don't see anywhere that the stated goal of the donation is to help everyone in the world.
If most of the donated money stays within the donors country, that may easily be what is desired; and if the foundation donates 5% annually to causes in Africa, well, then it's 5% more than it would be otherwise. If there aren't profitable companies in Africa, then it's not the duty of a malaria foundation to make these companies happen, they should just invest where it's best.

I don't really have a desire to 'teach a lesson' anyone in Congo or have the first-world come in and fix the problems of their corruption and governments - if I donated the money, I'd stipulate that it should definitely be benefitting my country as well while doing something for globally important issues. Why not? A local man who has lost his job in the recession and needs money for food&shelter is far more important to me than a foreign man who needs the same money for food&shelter.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[rainhill]

Buffett did give away I think, by handing his money in someone else's (Gates') foundation.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[Monkeedude1212]

What has that go to do with the foundation? It's not even mentioned there. Dare a person have different goals and objectives in his life? I think you're letting bias cloud your judgment. Just throwing the money at a problem does not solve it. Signing a check of a trillion dollars to the African government will just make the situation worse. A foundation is far better.

How is what the foundation doing largely detrimental?

I suppose thats a question of morality.

Where do you fit on the scale if you put money into researching cures, but then patent them and use them to make money?

In one sense, the cure wouldn't have been discovered without the money going into the research. On the other hand, its exploiting those who need the cure and have money, and leaving those without money high and dry.

I don't think Eldavo was suggesting to just up and "give away" the money, but rather that they shouldn't be claiming thats what they are doing when its not what they're doing.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[argStyopa]

It sounds more like you're bitching about "short term donations" vs. "long-term ongoing donation strategies". And, if you have a few billion to invest, I'd expect its simply more conservative to invest them in US or European economies where the chance of your investment being pissed away, consumed by civil war, or nationalized out of your pocket is at least reasonably small.

Which is better, giving away fish or teaching people how to do it themselves"?

Given that our 'humanitarian' strategy seems to be to mitigate long-term overpopulation by feeding and medically assisting people - then a long-term investment strategy is the ONLY strategy, as we seem to be doing nothing to reduce our future humanitarian needs.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[m50d]

Why "pissed away"? If it saves lives of people who then go on to be productive, do well for themselves and spend their own money on charitable causes... you're going to end up with a better return in the long run than from investing in rich companies and giving away the interest on that. In terms of benefiting the poor, the best group to be giving money to is, surprisingly enough, the poor.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[scot4875]

Except that developing cures for diseases isn't like buying a jacket. It's not like there's some cure that they're "saving up for" $50 million at a time, bit by bit, rather than just buying it off the shelf for $5 billion.

And even if they did give the billions of dollars directly to a charity, what would you expect the charity to do? Hire enough people to blow through it in a year? Spend it all on a huge facility with all the absolute best equipment, then run out of money to fund it in a couple of years? I suspect that they might, instead, just hire enough people to effectively work on the problem, in a reasonably sized facility, then save the rest to pay their expenses and salaries for the next X years. But if the rest is saved, what are you going to do? Just stick it in a bank account? No, with that kind of money, it would really make sense to invest it and hire some smart people to take care of it and hopefully earn more money for you.

In the end, it ends up being the same thing. So really, what's your point? The way it works now, the research institutions don't have to also worry about being investment experts; they just get their money and do their thing. They foundation gets to do its thing and not have to worry about also running a research institution. Personally, I think that's a good solution and maybe helps to eliminate some conflicts of interest.

--Jeremy

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[jdgeorge]

Just curious: Specifically which parts of the Gates Foundation approach to philanthropy do you disagree with? Are there specific grants they have made you don't approve of? Do you disagree with their priorities?

Part of the point of philanthropic work is that the person who has the money gets to decide how he gives it away. Otherwise, it wouldn't be called "philanthropy"; it would be called "taxes".

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[dogmatixpsych]

Exactly. It is a lot better to "teach a man to fish" than to simply give him a fish. I know I slipped into cliché but it's the same principle. Just like you said, you can usually do a lot more good by starting a foundation than just giving all the money away.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[elsurexiste]

A one time shot would be great, it may be even more useful than a fraction of that.

Let's say you invest all your money. You can take risks, so 5% a year is a reasonable expectation. You can assume, in a nothing-goes-wrong scenario (cough *2008 crisis* cough), that you give away that amount on a 20 year lapse. You don't consider inflation, or that you may lose money. You don't consider that a problem, left unattended, continues to grow. You don't consider that a problem not addressed today properly requires more effort later. This is specially so with pests like rats or mosquitoes.

Can you see the problem with your statement? Pissing off the money in a year may also mean solving the problem in a year.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[martyros]

The objective is to make money for the charity, so more money can be given out. It does not matter to the foundation if that's an American business or not, just that it has to be profitable. If African companies are not profitable then the foundation will simply squander the money away.

I think some of what's missing in the whole stock-market type investment thing is that people typically look at only one outcome for their investment: money (aka "shareholder value"). The problem with this is that it often leads to various degrees of evil behavior; often the very problems that the foundations themselves are giving money to try to solve.

If everyone, especially large charitable foundations like Bill Gates set up, tried to evaluate not just the value on the stock market, but how much good or evil the companies they'd invested in was doing, then we'd be living in a very different world from the one we are now. And arguably, a foundation with $40B could do more good overall by choosing investments specifically to optimize both for shareholder value and good of people, than it could by simply donating the income to explicit charities without asking how that money was made.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[Americano]

So are you suggesting that it would be better if they split up 40 billion dollars into a couple thousand dollar lump-sum payment to everybody in the world with malaria, and then proclaimed they had "solved the malaria problem"?

If you want to actually "solve the malaria problem," you find researchers and drug companies who are well-versed in the epidemiology of the disease, and you make grants to those researchers to find new and innovative ways of treating the disease.

Guess what - most of the researchers and drug companies who have the requisite experience and knowledge are... wait for it... western, rich, and not based in Africa!

If I'm walking down the street and you tell me you need $10 for a crack rock, but I instead take $1000 and invest it into building a drug treatment program, which is the better outcome? Giving $10 to 100 crack addicts, or $1000 to a "rich American company" to set up a treatment center to help 100 crack addicts break their dependency on crack? Handing a poor African family a $50,000 lump sum won't turn them into the family who lives next door - they will be fabulously rich, and have absolutely no infrastructure around them to better their lives with that money.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[10101001 10101001]

Specifically which parts of the Gates Foundation approach to philanthropy do you disagree with?

The fact that a government or a foundation may be very unwilling to even consider many options because it could "kill" the government/foundation may make them rather unsuitable in to actually solving some problems.

In short, my issue is with it being a foundation. I'd assume it's a byproduct of Gates having a lot of money and not knowing, at the start, where to put the money. I can only hope that its foundation status doesn't get in the way of it actually achieving some of its stated sub-goals (like eradicating malaria, which if it does take 40+ years to develop a vaccine and deploy it means Gates likely won't be alive to insure that the priority is on eradicating malaria first).

Are there specific grants they have made you don't approve of?

None that I know of.

Do you disagree with their priorities?

Again, the fact it's a foundation and has so far acted to maintain itself as such; admittedly, this may be excusable in that it's a necessary evil to long-term goals, but that part isn't entirely clear.

Part of the point of philanthropic work is that the person who has the money gets to decide how he gives it away. Otherwise, it wouldn't be called "philanthropy"; it would be called "taxes".

Granted. But if the objective of philanthropy is desired to be met, there are certain decisions on how one gives one's money away that will get in the way of it being nearly or at all effective in its stated goals. A billion can try to end poverty by giving out $1 million checks to homeless people, and I think it not unreasonable to question the effectiveness of their methods.

I'd never suggest we should just take Gates money and spend it even if we could prove we'd do a better job of it. But, given that a stated reason why Gates didn't just give to other charities was a desire for results-geared work (ie, to cure problems, not simply hold them at bay), is it not at least reasonable to question the structure of a foundation? Of course, since Gates has active power over has the foundation's money is spent, it's quite possible that structure is a moot point. Time will tell.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[CodeBuster]

They can't give that money to governments like the Democratic Republic of the Congo because government corruption will wick away much of that. And they might buy small arms and attack their neighbors with them. They get treated like children and they stay children.

They are treated that way because they have proven time and again that they cannot be trusted. If people and nations wish to be treated as adults then they must put aside childish ways and begin acting like adults. I wouldn't invest my money in any Congolese companies, so I don't blame Zuckerberg and the other billionaires for likewise refusing to invest in corruption. If you want some examples of what happens when monetary aid is given to corrupt African governments just take a look at the various IMF programs or the US foreign aid payments for the last 30 years. The only people happy with the results are the Swiss bankers. Africa would be better off without foreign aid payments and the more honest African politicians have said as much. Indeed, they would much prefer that Europeans and Americans end their farm subsidies and quit dumping tons of free or extremely low cost grain because such handouts undermine local development and fuel corruption.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[careysub]

A foundation allows him to know the donation is spent the way he intends it rather than how some other "charitable" organization deems fit.

Right - the wealth is transferred to a privately held entity that runs in perpetuity according to the choices of its founder. Note that the poster above puts scare quotes around "charitable" when it is not a billionaire's own private charity. I guess only billionaires know what is best for the common good?

You should aware that due in large part to the U.S. having the lowest taxes on the incomes of the rich in the industrialized world essentially all of the economic growth of the last 30 years has flowed exclusively into their pockets, causing the income inequality in the U.S. to rise to the highest in the industrialized world by a large margin.* Only third world plutocracies match us in this (and some do better). Wealth concentration at the top is now about equal to the age of the 19th century Robber Barons.

So what are the super-rich doing to give back? They are locking this enormous wealth permanently into tax-sheltered foundations that act according to the desires of the founder. This means that an increasingly large share of the national wealth, remains under the control of a tiny group of private individuals whose decisions control the behavior of the economy, even when most of the profits are devoted to public-spirited activities (some are retained to grow the foundation further). And it means that the control will either pass to their dynasty, or else to simply be in the control of the dead hand -- fulfilling the wishes/whims of individual long after they pass from the scene. Even with the best public spirited intentions in the world this a serious problem for a healthy society. For one thing it destroys the dynamism of an adaptable growth-oriented economy.

In the lot so long run -- this process is well along its course already -- the economy will be largely controlled by a tiny group of private individuals. The economy will be largely owned in fact either by them directly or by the foundation they control.

This is called plutocracy - it is the death of the democracy and the Republic.

* The standard metric for this is called GINI. See: this chart for the history. It was 0.395 in 1974, already the highest in the industrialized world, to 0.466 in 2001, and has risen further throughout the past decade.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[DerekLyons]

Spending the interest gained, say ~5.5% of $40 Billion (ie ~$2.2 Billion), indefinitely may stop the hemorrhaging of the disease indefinitely. But it might well take a good deal more, say $10 Billion per year, along with an actual plan to cure the disease.

So, you're suggesting that we replace something that we know works more or less... with something that 'might' work?
 

Governments have been for years doing the same sort of massive, yet inadequate, money and supply donations.

Yet, under exactly this scheme, Polio is gone, as is Smallpox, and vast progress has been made on other infectious diseases. Given that research takes years, and deploying the cures takes years, and that the current funding process pays off over years... I'd say that based on the evidence, infusions of cash on an annual basis precisely matches the requirements of the recipients.
 

The fact that a government or a foundation may be very unwilling to even consider many options because it could "kill" the government/foundation may make them rather unsuitable in to actually solving some problems.

Ask the National Association for the Study and Prevention of Tuberculosis (a disease virtually eradicated) - they became the American Lung Association and anti-smoking crusaders. Ask the trustees of Benjamin Franklin's estate (established to pay for apprenticeships)... which now funds college scholarships since nobody offers apprenticeships anymore.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[Locutus]

causes like providing "free" Microsoft software for schools and libraries with restrictions that the schools and libraries can't use open source software. I'm with the parent on this one because they mentioned Bill Gates and his foundation is a front for addicting children to Microsoft software. IMO

LoB

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[geekoid]

Nice, except it's wrong.
A) The parasite doesn't have an interest. None at all. IF you are talking about making change to in order to use natural selection to make a parasite that is more easily livable...then that wn't work either.

Unless you can find a away to instantly remove the person from a mosquito population, they will get bit before that can be sequestered. It requires large amounts of people who need to work to love be removed from society and no longer have a support mechanize.

B) Natural select will migrate back to what it is now as soon as a group of people don't use the nets. It will take a few generations. We see this same thing in bugs who become more tolerant of pesticides. Stop using the pesticide, and a few generation latter, the bug has returned to it's previous level of tolerance.

The best defense we have no is proper application of DDT.

More often then not, TED is the argument from authority logical fallacy in action.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

It's a tax dodge... Foundations don't get taxed and you can take a fee for running it, or the board of directors...

Yeah, except that you have to give away more money than what you save in taxes, and the income from those fees for running it is taxed. Hell, if you're rich, donate to your own charity, and get paid back for running it, you might actually pay more in taxes: if your primary source of income is from long term capital gains, you're saving the 15% tax on those but paying 35% on the fee for running it.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[StikyPad]

Does Zuck really belong in this group? I mean he's certainly a millionaire, but the idea that he's a billionaire seems to be based squarely on valuations of his company rather than any cash on hand. Unless and until he actually sells his part in Facebook, it's all speculative as far as I'm concerned. The valuation of Facebook may be vaguely justifiable based on past offers perhaps, but dot coms aren't exactly blue chips, the future is unknown, and the track record for online business to date is poor, to put it mildly.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[10101001 10101001]

So, you're suggesting that we replace something that we know works more or less... with something that 'might' work?

Obviously yes. Isn't it a wiser investment to eradicate a disease at a greater cost today than to hold it at bay indefinitely? And that doesn't even consider the risk of mutation.

Yet, under exactly this scheme, Polio is gone, as is Smallpox, and vast progress has been made on other infectious diseases.

Polio isn't gone, but effort and headway are being made on it. Smallpox and Rinderpest eradication are great milestones and I applaud their eradication.

Given that research takes years, and deploying the cures takes years, and that the current funding process pays off over years... I'd say that based on the evidence, infusions of cash on an annual basis precisely matches the requirements of the recipients.

And read the above link on polio's eradication. We've had a vaccine since the 50s, yet we only started an eradication program in 1988. And that was 8 years after we were finished eradicating smallpox. Meanwhile, there's tons of other diseases which we have vaccines for and haven't remotely attempted to eradicate. Yes, those annual infusions of cash have made vast improvements on those diseases and is likely the first step in eradication, but it's hard to not feel we as a world aren't doing remotely enough given we have the tools available to eradicate so many diseases and yet those cash infusions we do give often pale in comparison to war budgets*.

Ask the National Association for the Study and Prevention of Tuberculosis (a disease virtually eradicated) - they became the American Lung Association and anti-smoking crusaders. Ask the trustees of Benjamin Franklin's estate (established to pay for apprenticeships)... which now funds college scholarships since nobody offers apprenticeships anymore.

I believe you missed the point of my statement. It is not one of "we can't cure the disease because then we'll have no purpose". It is "we can't risk spending 20% of the foundation's budget every year in trying to cure the disease because the foundation can't survive indefinitely that way". You found some instances where a foundation has been transformed because their original purpose is gone. But note that the former in striving to eradicate one disease has now turned its attention on more general and perpetual lung health issues; why didn't they focus on eliminating another lung disease? The latter foundation meanwhile continues to be what it was always meant to be, a yearly provider of the means to aid in education; that's a noble purpose and I applaud the efforts but it only bolsters the point that a foundation strives first for perpetuity.

*A quick google search returns a link about the cost of eradicating polio at the ~$70 Billion range which overly the course of decades is virtually nothing for many government budgets. So, why not start eradicating childhood diseases next in a combination vaccine?

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[surgeterrix]

Wrong, when you give money to someone or an organization, you are in essence making an "investment" in that individual or organization that the investment you made will grow (in this case not into money but into a positive change or benefit that will perpetuate). You invest money in schools with the hope that the education they receive will help those students grow even further. And just like you would any normal investment you watch it and are careful with how that investment money is used so it isn't blown on the latest fly by night scheme/false hope. A parent might give his kid money for college, but doesn't do so unquestioningly unless they want to risk being the parent of a 6th year senior who will gain little from the experience.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Not to be trite, but just giving away money doesn't really help. Trillions have been pumped into Africa as Western aid over the years, and there is diddly-squat to show for it.

You know, a lot of it has indeed been disappointing, but saying that there's "diddly-squat" to show for it is plain wrong. And what's worse, it discourages people from donating, when there are in fact success stories—even if they might be outnumbered.

There is a number of nations in Africa that have managed to create a peaceful society without rampant corruption, where foreign help has made a difference and can continue to do so. They're not as much in the news because the news is always reportig the worse things, but there are places like Senegal or Cape Verde where progress is being made.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[NeutronCowboy]

Except that developing cures for diseases isn't like buying a jacket. It's not like there's some cure that they're "saving up for" $50 million at a time, bit by bit, rather than just buying it off the shelf for $5 billion.

Exactly. What's more, you can't just dump $10billion into an area and call it a day. Let's say that there is a jacket problem that requires $10 billion dollars to solve: 100 million people need a $100 jacket. Bill Gates can't just sign a check for $10 billion, hand it over to someone, and the jackets magically appear on 100 million people. It doesn't work that way. Someone has to buy those jackets. Someone has to distribute them. Someone has to make sure the jackets go to people who don't have one, and not to a reseller. You're already up to three organizations which require vastly different skill sets and connections. And we haven't even touched the problem that there aren't 100 million jackets available to buy, and that they have to be produced first.

And then, realize that curing cancer and relieving malaria problems present problems that are orders of magnitude bigger than just handing out a jacket. That includes handing out malaria nets. Ever thought about how you best deal with a completely corrupt country?

The best solution is indeed to set up a long-lived foundation to administrate the process by which the money is used to achieve the end result. Regardless of whether you just want to hand out jackets or cure cancer.

Here's something else that bothers me when I hear people complain about philanthropic foundations and people giving their money supporting the poor and sick: their complaints always revolve around "this cause sucks, that one's so much better" and "they're not really giving it away, they're just investing in themselves". I always have the impression that this is nothing but jealousy that they aren't getting a cut of the action. A version of "support the charity of Neutroncowboys with not enough toys", if you will.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[Nirvelli]

They get treated like children and they stay children.

Wow! Your parents actually bought that line? You must have been one lucky kid.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[N3Roaster]

The economic realities of the global coffee market are not as simple as you are making them out to be. Some historical perspective:

There was once a time when coffee was trading at high prices. Demand was increasing, supplies were not increasing as much, and there were countries capable of producing coffees that weren't. Getting people to plant coffee in these non-traditional producing areas was seen as a way to develop economies. This idea was not without precedent. Brazil was largely built on coffee money, after all. Now, it takes a few years from the time coffee is planted until it produces its first crop. Coffee isn't a crop where you plant it, harvest it a few months later, and know what you've got. It takes about 10 years before you really know what you have with coffee. All of the sudden you have a huge increase in global coffee production. Making the problem worse, these new coffee producers were exporting coffees of such poor quality that more established producers never allowed on the global market. Now, coffee does not really fit the definition of a commodity, but it was usually sold with contracts that specify a differential above or below the NYBOT C price with those differentials based on several factors such as the quality of the coffee (coffee better than exchange grade selling for more, worse coffee selling for less) and the producing country (a comparative advantage model doesn't really work because a specialty grade coffee from Panama isn't going to taste anything like a specialty grade coffee from Tanzania).

Up until this point, the NYBOT C was cyclical. Sometimes it would go bust, but it would recover. This time it was different. There had been a fundamental change in the market which kept prices depressed for a long period of time and the differentials weren't keeping up. Simply letting quality producers go out of business wasn't going to be good for the producers and it wasn't going to be good for buyers either because someone who wanted to buy a nice coffee from Mexico wasn't going to be interested in some garbage from Vietnam. By setting a floor price for some coffees, Fair Trade did a lot of good in keeping those producers in business. You might find it interesting to look into the details of some Fair Trade producers and see what they're doing with those premiums. In many cases they're using them to improve the quality of the coffee and diversify the local economy, both things which reduce long term reliance on the Fair Trade premium, which seems to be exactly what you're advocating (though you suggest doing that before getting the capital needed to undertake such projects).

Now we're back into a period of higher prices for coffee (NYBOT C is over 200 as I write this and the differentials aren't dropping quickly which is a big part of why many coffee firms either have or soon will be announcing price increases) and this is due to many factors. Looking at the fundamentals, this is cyclical and prices will drop again, but probably not substantially within the next 18 months. We also have a lot more diversity in price discovery mechanisms for coffee which is a positive development, particularly for producers of high quality coffees. Any Fair Trade cooperative ought to be looking into getting out of Fair Trade in the long term exactly because that's not a long term sustainable model. Some cooperatives have already made that jump, others will follow, but to argue that Fair Trade was not beneficial in the long term simply is not supported by fact.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[Stiletto]

No, summary is more like: You can't say they 'give it away', because:

1. they transfer their 'donation' to a tax-free entity whose primary purpose is investment in domestic companies
2. they (and their heirs, probably US citizens) can control this money into perpetuity
3. any tiny profits left after overhead and costs are given to big US pharma companies at the end of the year
4. those US pharma companies then produce patented product that they can license or sell to poor countries, with terms extremely favorable to US business

At every stage in the game, profit is being made by someone in the USA, by the "donor", his family, or his business buddies, but they SAY they're merely "giving it away to less fortunate countries". It's total bullshit, and the people doing it need to be called on their bullshit and publicly shamed.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[JackieBrown]

I guess only billionaires know what is best for the common good?

The term "common good" is consistently used for the majority to force their will on someone. This is not acceptable even when the person is rich. Restrictions usually start against with unpopular groups before branching out to everyone.

Would you be OK with your money going to a pro-life group? Would you be OK with it going to a pro-choice group?

A pro-life person would not want their money in any way assisting in murdering an innocent child. A pro-choice person does not believe that abortion is murdering a child and would not want their money in any way assisting in restricting a woman's right on her own.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[DerekLyons]

So, you're suggesting that we replace something that we know works more or less... with something that 'might' work?

Obviously yes. Isn't it a wiser investment to eradicate a disease at a greater cost today than to hold it at bay indefinitely? And that doesn't even consider the risk of mutation.

You seem to have missed the point, so I'll spell it out in small words: The current method works, you have no evidence for your method beyond tinfoil hat ravings and assumptions that you confuse with facts.
 

And read the above link on polio's eradication. We've had a vaccine since the 50s, yet we only started an eradication program in 1988. And that was 8 years after we were finished eradicating smallpox.

Here on my planet, the one described in the link, the (largely funded in increments over the years by foundations) research and vaccine program eradicated the disease in the West within a couple of years of it's introduction. When the (funded in annual increments) program was expanded across the world, it was effective in a couple of years. What your point is, and what the conditions on your planet are, eludes me.
 

Ask the National Association for the Study and Prevention of Tuberculosis (a disease virtually eradicated) - they became the American Lung Association and anti-smoking crusaders. Ask the trustees of Benjamin Franklin's estate (established to pay for apprenticeships)... which now funds college scholarships since nobody offers apprenticeships anymore.

I believe you missed the point of my statement. It is not one of "we can't cure the disease because then we'll have no purpose". It is "we can't risk spending 20% of the foundation's budget every year in trying to cure the disease because the foundation can't survive indefinitely that way". You found some instances where a foundation has been transformed because their original purpose is gone.

When you demonstrate that spending massive amount of cash are somehow better than the current model - you'll *have* a point. Any idiot can handwave and blow smoke, which is all you have on offer. It's not enough.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[Eros]

His point was that this isn't as altruistic as people are saying. Yes, he sets up a foundation that does good through the interest earned each year.

So he helps some people for pennies on the dollar while he throws around the real power of the foundation to get what he really wants in the end. Which may be in fact be evil.

It is just a tool for the rich. They don't give a damn about the people they "help".

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[10101001 10101001]

When you demonstrate that spending massive amount of cash are somehow better than the current model - you'll *have* a point. Any idiot can handwave and blow smoke, which is all you have on offer. It's not enough.

Again, according to the link it cost ~$70 Billion (~$67 Billion to be more precisely) to nearly eradicate polio. I'm fairly certainly that doesn't include any of the research, development, etc of the vaccine itself, so let's just focus on the 1988-2010 period. At ~$67 Billion for those 22 years, it's cost a minimal average of ~$3 Billion a year to eradicate polio (I have no idea on the actual funding pattern or if it could be sped up or yearly/total costs cut).

Now, with the Gates' foundations $33.5 Billion at 5.5% interest and payouts, they can only spend ~$1.8 Billion a year and remain perpetual. Presuming that eradicating malaria problem is only as costly as eradicating polio (ignoring that a vaccine is still being funded and developed), the Gates' foundation cannot alone eradicate malaria without a risk of no longer being perpetual (presuming they couldn't just take 36 years, spending the ~$1.8 Billion each year).

Of course, as you note, there's a lot of hand waving I'm doing. What if it's 10x as much to cure malaria as polio? What if it's 10% as much? If and when a vaccine is developed, how long will global deployment be delayed as the Gates' Foundation tries to find other donors so it doesn't have to bare the entire burden? Maybe it'll be 30+ years like polio. Maybe it'll be never.

Again, the reason Gates didn't just invest in extant foundations is because he wanted to see radical things done. Why not eradicate 20 diseases at once instead of one at a time? Because that requires big thinking, big organization, and big money and a commitment that might bankrupt a person, foundation, etc. And if none of that is true and the current system "works", why is that we still have whooping cough in the world?

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[osgeek]

I don't understand is that potential that the money has could be equally useful to the target medicines and poor that are supposed to be helped

Can't we just look at Africa to see that throwing money, food, and medicine into poverty-stricken areas doesn't do any good?

I'd much rather have a foundation trying to rethink charity and use the donations in clever ways in order to help rebuild society rather than through a lousy band-aid at problems that haven't been significantly helped with that lousy band-aid before.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[RazorSharp]

Ensuring that schools in the United States run Windows PCs is not "improving high school education in the United States."

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[walshy007]

America creates the most billionaires in the world, and reaps the rewards

And also has a horrible minimum wage in comparison to cost of living.

All that money comes from somewhere, and most of the time it comes from successfully getting away with treating people like dirt.

Re:I Take Issue with the Phrase "Give Away"

[Alex Belits]

But if they do, those societies will defeat Windows, as they would end up with actual progress in technology instead of porn-and-military innovation practiced in US.

Re:Huh...

[Third Position]

Believe it when you see it.

Respect

[Anonymous Coward]

I can certainly respect this. It's true altruism, quite unlike when government takes money by force and redistributes it. This is 100% voluntary, and therefore much more impressive and worthy of respect than any government program.

Re:Respect

[Bobakitoo]

Why you bring political bullshit in? Government don't take money by force, that money is due for all the services you get. Or did you mean like a commerce take your money by foce when you buy something? If you want to argue that you do not get your money's worth of public services, please do so in the appropriate thread/story. eg.: Not this one. Also, true altruism is anonymous donation or volunteering, not making yet a other Metoo foundation.

Re:Respect

[Americano]

Government don't take money by force.

If you live in the US, try not paying your taxes, then see if you still believe that's the case.

And altruism is defined as "unselfish concern for the welfare of others." It doesn't prescribe in the least whether or not that concern has to be expressed anonymously, or through a foundation.

Re:Respect

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I love the "paytaxesinstead" tag -- because the government will be so much *more* efficient with large sums of money than a charitable organization could?

Re:Respect

[careysub]

I can certainly respect this. It's true altruism, quite unlike when government takes money by force and redistributes it. This is 100% voluntary, and therefore much more impressive and worthy of respect than any government program.

That they are able to accumulate this is because of the favorable laws and regulations of the government written to benefit them, the services the government provides, and the protections it gives them, not just because they have great personal virtue. They have a moral obligation (as well as a legal one) to support the government that enables them to become rich. It is "taking money by force" only in the sense that everybody obeys the law because of the ultimate threat of force.

True altruism is paying your taxes without bitching about the government "stealing" from you.

Re:Respect

[gutnor]

"true altruism"

We are talking about people worth billion here. Bill Gates said it himself, once your are past a certain level of wealth, there is really no point having more, because there is nothing you can get with more money that you could not get before. Even if Bill Gates give the 90% of his fortune, that would probably not make any difference to him or his family.

True altruism is giving away something that has value to you in exchange of nothing. That does not mean that what they are doing is bad - of course - and it is still respectful but to them it is the same level as giving away 5$ a month to some random charity. Great but not something Nobel price deserving.

Another point - they do not really try to change the world. They setup a profitable business and give the profit away. So they are strengthening the economic system on one side and soothing its ill effect on the other side: they help the loser of the global market to feel better about it, they do not try to reverse the balance. That's ok, at some point, as long as you don't lose too badly you stop caring about how wealthy you could be and just enjoy life - that's what happen in Europe where you don't need to earn million to get education, healthcare and security. The problem is that the current system is destroying that balance where it exists (like Europe), so I have little hope that somehow it will change anything in Africa.

Re:Respect

[whiteboy86]

I do not want to spoil your cheers for charity, but according to this site: charitynavigator.org, US charities (most of them) are money devouring scumbags.

I wonder whether we can even call them "charities", on average they spend about 50% of donated money on "expenses", but shockingly those expenses are excessive wages in millions of dollars for a selected few at the top. Some of these tax-avoiding charities burn as much as 90 cents on every dollar you donate. Just look at the annual charity report PDF at that site, it is a revolting shameful read.

Re:Respect

[crunchygranola]

Government don't take money by force.

If you live in the US, try not paying your taxes, then see if you still believe that's the case.

And this is different from living where exactly? I would appreciate a list of countries where laws are followed purely voluntarily, and where the government is supported only from donations made without legal obligation?

This taxation is theft, and governments are evil because they use force if you break the law, meme amounts to declaring civilization intrinsically immoral.

I understand Somalia is free from this tyranny. Perhaps you'd like to relocate?

Re:Respect

[crunchygranola]

I love the "paytaxesinstead" tag -- because the government will be so much *more* efficient with large sums of money than a charitable organization could?

Actually governments are quite efficient in this manner. The "government can never do anything right" meme is a religious belief on the right - one taken on faith without any need for evidence. The U.S government (this being an almost exclusively American religion) takes a much smaller fraction of its revenue to provide charitable aid than most private charities.

Re:Respect

[Americano]

First, you'll note that I did not say that "taxation was theft" or that "government was evil."

I simply stated the demonstrably true fact that the government *does* tax through force. In fact, it is one of the important foundations of our system of government: citizens give up the right to use force on one another, and vest that power in the government, to allow them to enforce a consistent set of laws, which includes taxes.

If you don't pay your taxes, the government will seize your assets, and/or throw you in jail. If that's not the definition of "non-voluntary," I'm not sure what qualifies. I expressed NO opinion as to whether or not this taxation was "good" or the government was "evil" for doing so, that's all in your poor overworked little head. I simply pointed out that the original poster opining that the government isn't "taking money by force" was incorrect.

Why would I do that? Because I believe in being honest about how taxation works: it's not "government earnings," it's not "voluntary." It's "money which is legally seized by the government from its citizens, in order to support government and social functions." Whether or not you feel the taxes & entitlements are good or bad, that is *exactly* what they are and how they're funded.

I understand your ass is sufficiently sized and comfortable. Perhaps you'd like to relocate your head back up there now that you've gotten out your bout of indignant rage?

Re:Respect

[Bobakitoo]

Not paying taxes is a theft. The worst kind of theft, it deprive every citizens of the quality services their representatives voted for AND cause them to pay even more taxes for all the asshat that should have but did not. If i was victim of a thief i would like the police to act the same way. Thank you very much.

Re:Respect

[Bobakitoo]

Oops, i forgot to address your second criticism.

"unselfish concern for the welfare of others."

It would not be unselfish if they get PR out of it. When it come to donation, the only unselfish way is through anonymity.

Re:Respect

[Americano]

Ah, but the question was: does the government take taxes by force.

The answer to that is, categorically, YES, they do.

Whether or not you think it's *justified* force wasn't really in question; If you'd like to discuss that, you're welcome to, but you stated - and I quote - "Government don't take money by force."

I'm simply pointing out that they do.

Re:Respect

[Americano]

If they don't want or seek PR, but someone else believes it newsworthy, that's still unselfish.

Selfishness has to do with your intent: Did you donate a bajillion dollars to get written up in the NY Post as "Super Donor Of Teh YEEEEAAARZZ!!"? If so, that's selfish.

If you donate it, wanting, expecting, and seeking no fame or notoriety, and someone else says "WOW, this guy just donated a bajillion dollars," that's not selfish.

Saying that true charity can only be done by double-blind matchmaking cheapens the countless acts of true charity and goodwill that happen every day in the world.

Re:Respect

[drsmithy]

I can certainly respect this. It's true altruism, quite unlike when government takes money by force and redistributes it. This is 100% voluntary, and therefore much more impressive and worthy of respect than any government program.

If there were sufficient "altruism" then said Government programs would not be necessary.

However, history has - and continues - to demonstrate this will never happen.

Re:Respect

[Bobakitoo]

There is no need to be impolite. Your previous comment was misinformed or flamebait. The "somalia" reply was to be expected. Please see my other responses where i address your criticism.

Re:Respect

[j00r0m4nc3r]

It's true altruism

Bullshit. This is money earned thru capitalism, which by definition is not altruistic. That's like stealing a car and then donating it to CarsForKids. If any of these execs were altruistic at all, they wouldn't have become billionaires to begin with. That money would have stayed with their customers, employers, and investors... Make no mistake -- this is a publicity thing, and like the first-poster said, they are angling it to get some monetary benefit to themselves.

Re:Respect

[clone52431]

Government don't take money by force, that money is due for all the services you get.

They didn’t ask my permission to force me to accept all those services, and not all of them benefited me anyway.

There’s a law that says if a product shows up in my mailbox unrequested and then somebody claims I have to pay them for it, I get to keep it for free and they can go hump a porcupine. But that doesn’t apply to people who came from the government and are here to help, oh no.

Re:Respect

[Bobakitoo]

With due process of law... At this point, anything anyone get could be argued to be by force. Wtf is your definition of "force"? On second thought, i don't want to know.

Re:Respect

[Bobakitoo]

Journalists are not monitoring bank accounts to see when someone is doing a donation. The press wont write anything unless they get a press release announcing the donation. Which is exactly what Zuckerberg did today when he publicly "signing up".

Anonymity, in this context, is not hidding behind 7 proxy. It is simply not bragging about it.

Re:Respect

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

The U.S government (this being an almost exclusively American religion) takes a much smaller fraction of its revenue to provide charitable aid than most private charities.

In fact, the government can pay *more* than it takes in from taxes -- the beauty of deficit spending and a national debt with no cap.

Because of this, any comparison based on money outgoing vs money spent is fairly meaningless. Allowing the government to redistribute the money (even if it were the idealistic picture you seem to imply) also cedes control of that money. Is the government is better able to decide which causes are "worthy" of your money than you are? I guess some might feel that way; I just can't bring myself to agree when I look at any budget figures at the State or Federal levels.

Re:Respect

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

And yet when I strike gold and have millions to give away, I would be in a position to do the research and determine where I want *my* money to go. I am not saying that every charity bears the halo of an angel -- but I am saying it's better that people decide for themselves; and that even at 50% I suspect it would be more efficient than the government could manage. As I mentioned in another reply though -- we really can't measure that. The money our government spends is not a percentage of income received, so we really have no way of knowing *how* efficient it is with its charity (social programs, disaster relief, international aid, medical care, etc).

Thanks for the link, BTW, that's an excellent resource.

Re:Respect

[adisakp]

I can certainly respect this. It's true altruism, quite unlike when government takes money by force and redistributes it. This is 100% voluntary, and therefore much more impressive and worthy of respect than any government program.

Definitely, the whims of a generous billionaire are certainly worth more than having libraries and public schools in every community. Being able to drive along public roads to pretty much every town in the country is in no reason for the government to take money by force from me. Instead we should live in a free* society (by free I mean in the tea-party sense of paying no taxes) and all of our problems should be magically cured by the free market and the magnificent billionaires who have so much money from not paying taxes that it's just too much money for themselves and decided to use it all for the benevolence of society.

Re:Respect

[Americano]

If you are executed with due process of law, does that make you any less dead?

You can endlessly debate the *merits* of taxation, and whether or not they're valid, useful, ethical, legitimate, and even necessary.

You *cannot* debate that the government imposes taxes by force:
1) You do not get to agree on a price for services rendered;
2) You do not get the privilege of opting out of paying;
3) Your choices are pay, or surrender your property & assets, and perhaps your freedom;

This is the antithesis of "voluntary" and "optional," and questions of whether or not you feel that it's okay is quite irrelevant when defining whether or not it *is* the use of force.

Re:Respect

[Americano]

Zuckerberg signed up. Along with 17 other people.

"The Giving Pledge" - the organization to which he made the pledge - issued the press release.

Do you know something that's not been reported about Mark's involvement in writing the press release? Was he involved, and using this organization as a front to make it seem like he wasn't? Or did he make the pledge, and then someone at the organization made a press release?

Why are you so insistent on putting the worst possible spin on all of this? Do you hate anybody who has a penny more than you that much? If Mr. Zuckerberg never spent a penny of his money on philanthropy, your life would be no different than if Mr. Zuckerberg spent 100% of every penny he owns on philanthropy.

Why not go anonymously donate a lot of money, and take satisfaction from knowing that you're just an all-around better person than any of these super-rich folks who you seem to despise so much? But be careful, if you derive TOO much satisfaction from being better than them, you're going to risk your "unselfish" status.

Re:Respect

[k8to]

I think the point is the megarich don't actually pay their fair share of taxes in this country.

Re:Respect

[HarvardAce]

That's like stealing a car and then donating it to CarsForKids.

As someone who has heard their ad on the radio at least 100 times, that's KarsForKids with a K. It's also one of the most annoying radio ads I've ever heard, although the fact that I'm posting this indicates it's also a successful ad.

Re:Respect

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Define "fair share" - the top 10% of income earners pay more tax dollars than the lower 90% combined.

Re:Huh...

[cronco]

The thing is AFAIK he is now estimated to have a fortune of about 6 billion dollars, and I expect he expects it to grow. Giving away 3 billion dollars still lets him live like a king and earn him public "karma". Anyone except the stupidest/most evil people around would do the same.

Now might be a good time

[fantomas]

I hear the USA economy is in a poor way. Might be worth helping out now and investing in their local communities rather than waiting for 50 years...

But fair play to Bill Gates for getting rich folk to sign over more wealth than a lot of folk have done in the past. Some of it's blood money /guilt money and there's a big philosophical debate about the balance of happiness at the end of them giving their money away vs what troubles they might have caused getting there in some cases. But fair play for giving it away rather than building marble temples or gold swimming pools or whatever.

Bill Gates 3.0

[ChinggisK]

For anyone else who was wondering about the "Bill Gates 3.0" part, the Bill we know and love/hate is William Henry Gates III. In case you were going to confuse him for the other Bill Gates'.

Re:Bill Gates 3.0

[Rary]

For anyone else who was wondering about the "Bill Gates 3.0" part, the Bill we know and love/hate is William Henry Gates III. In case you were going to confuse him for the other Bill Gates'.

Except really he's Bill Gates 4.0 (or maybe 3.1?). His dad was William Gates III, but he dropped the "III" suffix, and gave it to his son, who was actually the fourth Bill Gates in the family line.

Perhaps this helps to explain the Windows version numbering system.

Half a 'Fortune'?

[ThePromenader]

Half my fortune? Okay, just let me file this bankruptcy claim...

Re:Half a 'Fortune'?

[Chrisq]

Half my fortune? Okay, just let me file this bankruptcy claim...

I'm not quite that bad but if you define my fortune as

assets - mortgage

I would love someone to take half my fortune!

Re:Half a 'Fortune'?

[russotto]

I'm not quite that bad but if you define my fortune as

assets - mortgage

I would love someone to take half my fortune!

In non-recourse states, it's easy; default on the mortgage and let the bank foreclose. Actually, you'll lose your entire fortune that way.

Is Bill Gates a Cyborg now?

[blefler]

Bill Gates 3.0 ?

Re:Is Bill Gates a Cyborg now?

[Chrisq]

Bill Gates 3.0 ?

Is Bill Gates a Cyborg now?

No he managed to clone himself by having gay sex with a mouse.

Re:Is Bill Gates a Cyborg now?

[mcgrew]

No, but I am. So are a few of my friends, most of whom have more mechanical parts than I do. I just have the one device implanted in my eye, one woman I know has had both hips and knees replaced.

Re:Is Bill Gates a Cyborg now?

[blefler]

True... I have a port in my chest from chemo treatments. Not compatible with ethernet unfortunately...

Re:Is Bill Gates a Cyborg now?

[mcgrew]

You have been assimilated! Resistance was futile!

Bill Gates 3.0?

[dkleinsc]

Like anything related to Microsoft, I guess you need to get to at least version 3 before you have something useful. *ducks*

Re:Bill Gates 3.0?

[Tr3vin]

I'm waiting for the upgrade to Bill Gates 3.11. I've heard he will be better at working in groups.

Re:Bill Gates 3.0?

[noidentity]

I don't know how I missed this. I thought we only had one Bill Gates. I'm checking my calendar carefully now, to be sure it doesn't say 2110 or 2210. This may be a frightening day...

I'll give you my money...

[enterix]

...when you take it from my cold, dead hands!

Hey, I did the same thing yesterday!

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

I gave away half my net worth yesterday. I have now idea what the Salvation Army will do with the entire $20, but it sure felt good.

I always laugh when I see this

[rsilvergun]

'cause conservatives like to laud this kind of thing as a sign that their take on capitalism works. But why should us lower classes have to go begging to some rich guy just to get what they need? Random generosity & hoping for the best isn't a good way to stabilize human society.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[khallow]

'cause conservatives like to laud this kind of thing as a sign that their take on capitalism works. But why should us lower classes have to go begging to some rich guy just to get what they need? Random generosity & hoping for the best isn't a good way to stabilize human society.

The real question here. Why would we want to "stabilize" human society? I think the rate of human progress is in large part due to the inherent instability of human society.

And you could always get a job or even better, start your own business. Then you could save your income rather than spend it frivolously. Then you too could be one of the rich people rather than one of the "beggars".

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[Anonymous Coward]

And you could always get a job

As if all poor people are poor because they don't have a job.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[smwny]

'cause conservatives like to laud this kind of thing as a sign that their take on capitalism works. But why should us lower classes have to go begging to some rich guy just to get what they need? Random generosity & hoping for the best isn't a good way to stabilize human society.

No, instead us lower classes should just take from the rich! They are throwing around too much money in a way that displeases you, they should be taxed more.

Now, I don't actually think this "moral commitment" means anything, but that does not matter. People donating because are compassionate (or at least want to look like they are) is much better morally than it being taken from them by force.

Of course, it would be even better if they didn't tell anyone or make an agreement and just did it. Of course, they want to look compassionate more than be compassionate.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[MicroRoller]

and these same people are so opposed to reversing the bush tax cuts

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[Millennium]

But why should us lower classes have to go begging to some rich guy just to get what they need?

Because if you're not going to pull enough of your own weight to get what you need, then the other option is to live off of the goodwill of those who do. What entitles you to an illusion of a third option?

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[entotre]

I think the rate of human progress is in large part due to the inherent instability of human society.

I assume you already live in Somalia and revel in all the progress there.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[Anonymous Psychopath]

'cause conservatives like to laud this kind of thing as a sign that their take on capitalism works. But why should us lower classes have to go begging to some rich guy just to get what they need? Random generosity & hoping for the best isn't a good way to stabilize human society.

Yes, because in the Worker's Paradise, hard work is its own reward. Wait, didn't we try that one already?

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[ScentCone]

But why should us lower classes have to go begging to some rich guy just to get what they need?

Right! Why beg a rich guy for it, or make it yourself, when you can wait for the rich guy to make it, and then just use some of his money to pay government agencies to take more of it from him, and give you a tiny piece of it! Who cares if there are huge administrative costs, as long as we take it from him, that's what matters.

Of course the problem with that is that once you've got your piece of the rich guy's stuff, somebody else will be looking at you as being richer than he is, and you're next on the list.

Conservatives applaud the sort of thing being discussed because it's done by choice, rather than by force. Liberals hate this sort of thing because it means that some poor guy is getting mosquito netting or an education without a bureaucratic layer of unfireable, unionized government employees making a living off of deciding how the rich guy should be generous, in what amount, when, and to whom, under penalty of imprisonment if he doesn't do it right. Taxing the rich guy and doling out money doesn't create anything. Investing the rich guy's money in a foundation that is chartered specifically to grow and use proceeds to benefit the foundation's targeted recipients does create things. That's the difference between the two approaches, and the ability to grasp that is the difference between conservatives and liberals on a lot of these topics. Forcibly redistributing the fruits of someone else's work doesn't create a thing except a culture of dependence and resentment.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[Chemisor]

> Random generosity & hoping for the best isn't a good way to stabilize human society.

And forced redistribution of wealth is?

> But why should us lower classes have to go begging to some rich guy just to get what they need?

Yeah! Let's get some guns, kill all the rich guys, and take their stuff! As a russian, I can tell you exactly how well that's going to work out.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[D Ninja]

'cause conservatives like to laud this kind of thing as a sign that their take on capitalism works. But why should us lower classes have to go begging to some rich guy just to get what they need? Random generosity & hoping for the best isn't a good way to stabilize human society.

Yeah...because lower classes NEVER go begging to...oh...say...some big entity like the government for a handout. No. Never.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[east coast]

Remember these people the next time you swing by WalMart and see someone with a cart full of smokes, junk food, Pixar DVDs and a new BluRay player who is moaning about things getting so bad economically that they're being forced to make the choice between medication and food.

Not to say that this is all of them, not by a long shot, but there are enough "working poor" who are poor because of their spending habbits and not because of their income. People who've gotten roped into 862 channels of garbage on their 52 inch LCD TVs and 5 MPG SUVs who complain about credit card interest rates just make me laugh anymore. The joke would be a lot better if I didn't have to pay for these deadbeats who falter on their debts through hidden charges and fees.

There is no easy answer but the fact that Bill Gates is rich doesn't mean that he's repressing anyone from taking hold of their own lives and bettering themselves.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[entotre]

The howto: Buy a credit default swap on yourself, twice. Default. Profit.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[El Neepo]

What entitles you to an illusion of a third option?

The society and both the rich man and the poor also prevents the poor from simply stealing from the rich man. Society benefits the rich man by protecting his goods, therefore the rich man owes something back. The poor man contributes to society (not all poor people are poor because they're "lazy") therefore also deserves some benefit.

A civilized society benefits all. All should benefit from living in a society.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[russotto]

A civilized society benefits all. All should benefit from living in a society.

But apparently you believe that the "benefit" to the rich man should be that the poor man doesn't steal his stuff, whereas the benefit to the poor man is that he gets some of the rich man's stuff. Not really civilized, IMO.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[kvezach]

The real question here. Why would we want to "stabilize" human society? I think the rate of human progress is in large part due to the inherent instability of human society.

Because if you don't stabilize it at all, the people will get mad at the massive wealth inequality and there will be a revolution. If it goes well, society will be stabilized anyway; if it does not, you'll end up with a dictatorship.

(That, and it's the right thing to do. Not everybody is poor by choice.)

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[khallow]

I covered most of that case with my second sentence: "Then you could save your income rather than spend it frivolously." Sure there are people who are poor or troubled through no fault of their own, but that's not true of most people. We live in a free society. That means two things: first, that we have to make decisions and second, that we have consequences for those decisions.

Going back to the original poster, they complained about charity from rich people. Presumably, they'd prefer charity from government (which magically will be less "random" and more "stable" than charity). The thing is, charity isn't random, it is discerning and limited. The government version is not. If it overspends, government just borrows money or taxes more. And fighting fraud and moral hazard just isn't in the interests of the parties who create the programs.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[khallow]

I assume you already live in Somalia and revel in all the progress there.

False dilemma. We can have a society more stable than Somalia and less stable than say, Singapore.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[entotre]

You wrote that progress and instability in large part are correlated. They are not. The end.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[cobrausn]

Mod this up please. "Won't somebody please think of all those poor people?"

At what point did you decide having 5 kids on your minimum wage income was a good idea? Following that, at what point was it ok to blow all your money on junk food and entertainment instead of spending it on your children's future? And now I'm supposed to feel bad because I didn't make those decisions and ended up better off?

Conservatives love to see poor as poor because they don't work hard enough. Liberals love to see poor as poor because of the evil rich guy who pays them too little. At what point does poor decisions make it into this? Is it possible to work really hard, make smart decisions, and still end up poor? I earned minimum wage most of my life, up until I got sick of it and used the money I squirreled away (and a few loans) to pay for college, get a CompSci degree, and start earning some real money doing work I actually like.

Without a doubt there are those who genuinely can't catch a break. But I fail to see why we should effectively reward the bad decisions of the other 99% for that.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[khallow]

Your ignorance shows when you presume that we already live in such a society, as evidenced by your "get a job, ya bums" comment and the one about pissing away one's money. Do you think that poor people are poor just because they're too lazy to get jobs, and too thoughtless to save it rather than piss it away?

No, there are also people who work hard but are too thoughtless to save it rather than piss it away.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[Americano]

But why should us lower classes have to go begging to some rich guy just to get what they need?

Because as much as you may not like to hear it, the "rich guys" are not beasts of burden whose sole purpose in life is to provide YOU with a flat screen tv and a shiny new Honda, you fucking parasite.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

'cause conservatives like to laud this kind of thing as a sign that their take on capitalism works. But why should us lower classes have to go begging to some rich guy just to get what they need?

You're right, of course. THe things we need should be just given to us by right. Of course they have to come from somewhere -- the easiest candidates for providing them are those same rich guys you don't want to beg. After all -- when you can just take, why go through the humiliation of begging?

I think I missed where your need becomes the rich guy's obligation. Or your neighbor's, for that matter.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[ProfessionalCookie]

The going wage here is $3/day. Minimum wage is less than a 20 cents an hour in some sectors. Living beyond your means may mean having shelter (bamboo/mud hut).

In international terms, much of poverty is not particularly the poor's fault and often it is very very difficult to defeat.

Writing from Cabo Delgado in Mozambique.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[tycoex]

Thank you! I'm still in college and between my wife and I were still considered "poor". I don't get any money from the government, and I do just fine!

I don't waste 10 percent of my income on cigarettes. I don't waste money on buying lottery tickets every day. I don't waste money on expensive cable when I can watch hulu at any time (and net is pretty much necessary for school, although I could go without if I absolutely had to). We buy groceries from Sam's Club once a month and stock our freezer full of more than enough good food. We don't have kids yet because we're smart enough to know that you shouldn't have children unless you can afford them!

Also, I hear people complaining about how expensive it is where they live. I wonder if they realize it's not very expensive to move to another state? You can take your one week vacation, rent a cheapo u-haul and drive to another state fairly inexpensively.

There are a few people in the world that do everything right, and still get boned due to circumstances. I will be the first to admit that. But there is also a large number of people who make themselves poor with their own choices.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[Halo1]

The definition of "working poor" people is not defined based on how much money someone has, but on raw income relative to an absolute poverty level (USA and Canada), or on a relative poverty level (e.g. 60% of the median income for the EU). How much they buy at WalMart or even how many children they have (like someone else mentioned) is irrelevant.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[jayveekay]

The real question here. Why would we want to "stabilize" human society? I think the rate of human progress is in large part due to the inherent instability of human society.

Because instability combined with more and more countries having weapons capable of destroying all life on the planet is not viable in the long term?

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[drsmithy]

This may come as something of a shock to you, but most poor people aren't "dysfunctional alcoholics" or "homeless bums".

People who "want to help themselves" aren't rare, they're common.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[khallow]

You wrote that progress and instability in large part are correlated. They are not. The end.

Now, it's a non sequitur. Please use a real argument next time.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[mcgrew]

And you could always get a job or even better, start your own business.

One in ten Americans are looking for work and can't find it. And you can't start a business without capital.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[khallow]

Ah the old rags-to-riches myth. Too bad numerous sociological studies show the vast majority of the world's wealthy actually acquire their wealth through inheritance, not hard work. You need to understand CAPITALism a little better...

This thread is US-centric. I grant that most of the world doesn't favor meritocracy, though I wouldn't take those numerous sociological studies at face value.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[CaptainPatent]

If I had modpoints I'd definitely mark this and the parent what they are - flamebait.

Let's face it, whether it is via donations or via taxed handouts, both systems will create the same type of dependence and when the money dries up they will create the same resentment.

With respect to the parent post - While I don't think complete redistribution of wealth is a wise idea, it's apparent that the parent post ignores the fact that the vast majority of tax money is not given directly back to poor people. Sure, there are programs that do that, but most government programs create large infrastructure projects. Roads, regulatory agencies and military posts are examples. Guess what, construction and maintenance of all of the above create quite a few jobs also.

I'd also like to state the current tax bracketing system is set up based roughly on disposable income, so yes, the wealthy do give up more because they can do so much more comfortably without vastly affecting their quality of life.

With respect to the grandparent - why even bother inciting the argument in the first place? Why not just be happy that a whole lot of money is going to head to people that need it? So basically agree that "redistribution of wealth" is not the appropriate thing to do, but because your post is rank with conservative propaganda I don't see how it's anything but flaimbait.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[khallow]

One in ten Americans are looking for work and haven't found it yet. And you can start a business with little capital.

FIFY.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[CaptainPatent]

P.S. - the "rank with conservative propaganda" is meant for the parent and not the gp. The gp was merely inciting a partisan comment like the one I originally replied to.
Editing error on my part.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[khallow]

Because instability combined with more and more countries having weapons capable of destroying all life on the planet is not viable in the long term?

No country has weapons which can destroy all life on the planet. And if that's the argument, then how does providing for poor people solve it? Given that too many people don't seem very interested in reducing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other WMD, then why should I sacrifice for something unrelated to but rationalized by this state of affairs.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[Idiomatick]

20% of the us earns an avg 10.5k/year. That is 900/mnth. If you need medication you often are choosing between food and the meds. I imagine a decent chunk of those 20% also have kids.... they also aren't free.

I'm not saying that there aren't morons that spend themselves into poverty situations there DEFINITELY are. Just try to remember that isn't the case for many of the poor people you do see at walmart.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[Idiomatick]

This is patently false. You can draw an almost perfectly smooth line plotting the top societies with economic stability. If your point were true we'd make our best steps forwards right before the country collapses into economic depression. Progress takes money and time. Without stability you have neither of these things.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[ScentCone]

, it's apparent that the parent post ignores the fact that the vast majority of tax money is not given directly back to poor people. Sure, there are programs that do that, but most government programs create large infrastructure projects. Roads, regulatory agencies and military posts are examples

Actually, entitlement spending is where the vast majority of tax dollars (well, or debt-funded dollars) go. Regardless, we're not talking about infrastructure and whatnot, which is a sensible role for the government. We're talking about the kinds of things that people like Bill and Melinda Gates spend their money on. Not dependency-inducing programs, but investment in fundamentally changing cultures (by creating a generation or two that will embrace and perpetuate education and a rational approach to things like vaccinations). Their foundation chooses their battles quite well, I think.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[khallow]

If your point were true we'd make our best steps forwards right before the country collapses into economic depression.

Radio and electronic trading (the Great Depression), web-based commerce (the 1999-2001 dotcom bubble), personal computers (the recessions of the 70s), looks like Fairchild Semiconductor was formed heading into the 1958 recession.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[Idiomatick]

All happening in nice and stable countries. Rwanda during that time period did not have as many advancements.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[Archangel Michael]

So, you think everyone of the "will work for food" signs is genuine? Even a majority? How about the fat chick with the "Hungry" sign?

Most of the "Working poor" aren't looking for the handout of "spare change" that I was addressing. And most of the homeless I've encountered are that way for a reason of their own making.

But other than that, you're exactly right, while missing the point entirely. And proof that people like yourself believe that feelings are more important than reality. I was talking about dysfunctional alcoholics and homeless bums, not "working poor". Working poor don't have time to stand on a corner begging for their next drink.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[khallow]

All happening in nice and stable countries. Rwanda during that time period did not have as many advancements.

I answered your question. And a lot of Slashdotters would dispute your claim that the US (which is where all these innovations occurred) is nice and stable.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[mcgrew]

Yes, you can start a business with little capital, but the poor have NO capital and no way to obtain capital.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[drsmithy]

And most of the homeless I've encountered are that way for a reason of their own making.

You mean like mental illness ? The lack of any resources to bootstrap themselves into work ? No marketable skills and no way to get them ? Born into poverty, never gone to school and can't even read and write ?

Truly, such people deserve everything they have.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[SwedishPenguin]

What in the hell makes you think the guy on top should have everyone else's money? Bill Gates did not make money in a vacuum, he did not build Microsoft on his own and Microsoft could never have been the success that it is without the societal institutions and infrastructure that costs a lot of money. This includes includes money for those down on their luck, if we had full employment with decent wages for everyone working, sure, but that's not the case and probably never will be. Those without a job need to survive in order to get a new one and once again make a ton of money for those on top, they also need to be able to get an education without going bankrupt, same goes for health-care.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[vux984]

At what point did you decide having 5 kids on your minimum wage income was a good idea?

Whose to say they "decided" to have 5 kids? And once they've got them, you can't just un-have them. Telling them "Hey, you shouldn't have done that." doesn't fix things.

Is it possible to work really hard, make smart decisions, and still end up poor?

Yes. Next question.

I earned minimum wage most of my life, up until I got sick of it and used the money I squirreled away (and a few loans) to pay for college, get a CompSci degree, and start earning some real money doing work I actually like.

How was your health insurance situation "you earned minimum wage most of your life"? Minimum wage and adequate health care coverage rarely go hand in hand. A single unlucky medical event and you might be saddled with enough debt to ensure you'll be poor even with your CompSci degree income.

Without a doubt there are those who genuinely can't catch a break. But I fail to see why we should effectively reward the bad decisions of the other 99% for that.

1)"99%" - is a number pulled out of your ass. We both know it. What is the actual percent? I don't know, lets not pretend its just about everyone.

2) "bad decisions" - Your right, a lot of them do make bad decisions. Why is that? Why do they make bad decisions?

How many don't understand credit card interest? How many don't understand how "Do not pay for 1 year" works. How many don't understand how leasing costs work? You can't fix the problem by saying "hey, poor people, stop making bad decisions that ensure you remain poor."

Great advice, but completely worthless... kind of like yelling at someone who is drowning that they need to "swim better". Its not going solve anything. Financial planning, fiscal discipline, etc... these aren't innate, most people need to be taught.

get a CompSci degree, and start earning some real money doing work I actually like.

I'm glad it working for you, but its impossible that it is a solution for society. Society is a pyramid with the good high paying jobs at the top, and the shitty jobs at the base. Its absolutely possible for someone such as yourself to move up from the base to somewhere in the middle or even higher. But its categorically impossible for EVERYONE or even "most people" to do that. Those mc-walmart jobs are the majority... even if everyone in the country EARNED an advanced degree, the mc-walmart jobs still need to be filled, and the ratio of mc-walmart jobs to comp-sci class jobs is still going to be mc-walmart heavy.

Its like the "Too many chiefs and not enough Indians" management paradox. If you work hard you get recognized and you advance... but that only works as long as ONLY you do it. If EVERYONE works hard, you can't all get recognized and promoted.

In fact, the opposite is true... if everyone works hard most of them WON'T advance.

So individually, work hard and better yourself is excellent advice. But its not a large scale solution to large scale problems like "the working-poor".

We need solutions that ensure the base of the pyramid is reasonably comfortable because no matter what we do its not going away. Or we say fuck it, and let the base tend to itself... and that's libertarian nirvana but it leads to additional crime, disease, civil unrest... and a host of other problems.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[rsilvergun]

The rich man only has all that stuff because the poor man is tricked into making it for him.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[rsilvergun]

The rich guy doesn't make anything. Jeez, do you not know what a ruling class is? They're 'property owners'. They don't produce, they just own and horde. They play the poor off of each other to their own benefit. We used to call them the 'gentry', nowadays we call them 'venture capitalists'. They point is, they horde everything and we get nothing.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[rsilvergun]

Yes. It does. For the last fucking time, you're country is not socialist, it's fascist. Just because you live there doesn't mean you understand a thing about it. Can you see Alaska from there?

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[Archangel Michael]

Um

I've known people with all those conditions who have succeeded. I didn't say it was easy, probably easier to sit on sidewalk with a sign that says "will work for food", which most people know is a lie. They won't work, for anything, for any reason.

I've known enough people who have tried to help said "victims" of life and quite frankly, the results are the same for a vast majority. Exceptions do occur.

And here in the US of A and just about ANY post industrial country, there is no excuse for poverty, not going to school or not knowing how to read or write.

At some point, you have to be responsible for your life, and the choices you make. I learned this when I was about 20 and a drugged out coke fiend.

As for marketable skills, only one skill is needed for just about any job, desire. I bussed tables and washed dishes while going to college. I WORKED HARD to get there, I worked hard to stay there, I worked hard to get my degree. Now I have a good job. Coincidence?

I've been blessed along the way, and cursed (see my burn scars) too. Life has a way of kicking ass, and the only way to win, is to kick life's ass every day you can.

So, you see, I've been there, done that. You want to help someone, teach them how to kick themselves in the ass everyday to get out and do something to improve themselves. IT will be rewarded.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[Alex Belits]

And forced redistribution of wealth is?

Yes.

My own education, obtained for free in USSR, is the primary reason why I am one of the people who keep US electronics industry from collapsing. If we weren't in your stupid country, you would have total economy collapse long ago (and you still will, but not yet).

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[Alex Belits]

Actually for all I care, those obscenely rich people can be treated as wild beasts or cattle. We have nothing in common with them, they treat everyone as prey, so there is no good reason why anyone should defend their interests. If someone does, it only happens because American society is insane and delusional.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[ScentCone]

nowadays we call them 'venture capitalists'

And without capital being risked (and almost always completely lost) there would be no ability to start the production of much of anything. Most people who make stuff or provide services are terrible business people. Though I suppose you'd prefer that the government collect tax money from everyone, and the feds get involved in every business start-up?

Regardless, you really think that some guy who generates $250k running a dental practice is "rich?" What a laugh.

They point is, they horde everything and we get nothing.

Woops, never mind. You're trolling. Using the computer in front of you, despite the fact that you have nothing.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[Americano]

You know what the problem is with this line of thinking?

There's always someone out there who has less than you who will say its fine to make YOU a slave to their every whim.

Not being a parasite is not "insane and delusional," itelf the height of rational self-interest. Unless you're the one person on earth with absolutely nothing, then everybody who subscribes to your mode of thinking is somebody else's slave.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[drsmithy]

I've known people with all those conditions who have succeeded.

Great. Should we ignore all the rest because of that ?

And here in the US of A and just about ANY post industrial country, there is no excuse for poverty, not going to school or not knowing how to read or write.

There are plenty of good excuses, from drug addicted parents to bad luck.

As for marketable skills, only one skill is needed for just about any job, desire.

Oh, bullshit. You need to be in an area with work available. You need to know where to look. You need to know how to present yourself as employable.

That's just for minimum wage jobs that often don't even provide enough income to live on.

I didn't say it was easy, probably easier to sit on sidewalk with a sign that says "will work for food", which most people know is a lie. They won't work, for anything, for any reason.

Except you think this sort of person is representative of the majority of poor, and therefore justification for not assisting the poor, whereas the complete opposite is true.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[Alex Belits]

I don't "earn" my salary by hurting other people or stealing from them. My work is to make things better and easier for others, and advance the progress in technology, as I am an embedded systems developer. I also do not collect "savings" with the goal to control other people's work.

In other news, you are a moron.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[rsilvergun]

a. There is no risk. People in the $250k+ bracket have their investments protected by the gov't and get bailed out when they screw up. Gore Vidal said it: Socialism for the rich & dog-eat-dog Capitalism for the poor.

b. $250k/yr puts him in the top 10%, that's rich in my book. He's got virtually no worries either, see comment a.

c. I'm not trolling. It's a fact that 5% of the population of the United States is sitting on 2 TRILLION dollars in capital and doing nothing with it. If that's not hording, I don't know what is.

Ever heard of the dark ages? Do you even know what it means outside the context of poorly written fantasy novels? 1000 years of stagnation to keep the rich rich, only broken up when the Arabs, of all people, brought back knowledge. Google for the origin of the word 'Algebra' some time.

Re:I always laugh when I see this

[ScentCone]

There is no risk. People in the $250k+ bracket have their investments protected by the gov't and get bailed out when they screw up.

Tell that to the GM investors who had their investment trashed so that Obama could instead give equity to unions as payback for political action. Tell that to anyone who's seen their stock portfolio roller-coaster all over the place. Equities are not the same as a bank account. Of course you actually know that, and you're BS-ing.

$250k/yr puts him in the top 10%, that's rich in my book. He's got virtually no worries

Do you have any idea what malpractice insurance costs? Have you ever actually seen what it costs to run such a practice, in terms of payroll and unemployment taxes, regulatory fees, and the rest? And the whole thing is one lawsuit from ruin, even if it's dismissed. Of course, you know all that, and you're BS-ing.

It's a fact that 5% of the population of the United States is sitting on 2 TRILLION dollars in capital and doing nothing with it

Of course they are. Because they have absolutely no way of knowing of they're going to have their investment handed over to the UAW, or have congress tax them in ways that they cannot possibly predict (since Pelosi and Reid have been deliberately dragging their feet for a year, specifically to create this exact sort of uncertainty). Investors have absolutely no way of knowing how the burdensome new health care costs are going to derail some busineses. They have no idea how new EPA regulatory authority is going to be actually applied. They have no way of knowing how their own returns on those investments are going to be taxed.

You want to see capital put to work? Tell the Democrats running both houses of congress and executive branch to quit screwing around. Businesses need stability, not the kind of nonsense that's being served up by Reid right now.

1000 years of stagnation to keep the rich rich

No, 1000 years of stagnation because of, mostly, religion.

I'll sign up...

[mswhippingboy]

Let's see...

I promise when and if I ever obtain wealth in the 20-30 billion dollar range, I'll give away half my fortune at some point during my lifetime (preferable just moments before I bite the big one).

Wow... I feel like Mother Theresa now, and I didn't even have to deal with a bunch of lepers!

Re:I'll sign up...

[Poorcku]

Let me ask if you have donated like 5$ this year, Mother Theresa. My feeling is that you haven't, just like the majority of critics here...

Re:I'll sign up...

[gman003]

I for one donated something more valuable than money: time. It doesn't matter how much money you throw at a problem - if there's no one to actually get off their ass and do something, the problem doesn't get solved.

Re:I'll sign up...

[dogmatixpsych]

75% of Americans donate every year (I'm not saying 75% of /.ers donate but they might). From a talk (source: http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1826&tid=2) by economist Arthur Brooks:

"Seventy-five percent of America’s families give every year. Fifty percent volunteer their time, and many Americans give in myriad other ways that are not captured in data.... If we look at how much money Americans give per capita compared to citizens in other coun- tries of the world, we will find that the average American citizen gives away three-and-a-half times as much money each year as the aver- age French citizen, seven times as much as the average German, and 14 times as much as the average Italian. Now, as an economist I want to know whether or not that’s because we are richer. However, when you correct for income differences and tax differences and all the things that make the United States a different country, you find that the gap doesn’t close."

Jobs, not Cash

[digitaldc]

I am not for certain, but I am willing to bet that this 'cash' will be spent on things that will not immediately benefit poor people and the working class.
People need jobs, not cash. No amount of cash donated to a is going to help in the short-term pull us out of the financial crisis we are in right NOW.
If facebook, Microsoft or others were to provide more stable, good-paying jobs to people, that would be more beneficial in the short-term and the long run for our country.
Although I commend the philanthropy, the reality is that people who are unemployed and underemployed couldn't care less about Mark Zuckerberg's philanthropic billions and the billions he has left over to live his extravagant lifestyle.

Re:Jobs, not Cash

[digitaldc]

donated to any foundation I meant to say

Re:Jobs, not Cash

[geekoid]

well, that was nearly a nice attempt to push a political flamebait.

The money is used in a way that does create jobs. TMYK
Also, BG money goes SPECIFICALLY to helping the poor.

Re:Jobs, not Cash

[PaulMeigh]

So, he should just create jobs for the sake of creating jobs? What would the job description be, "Head of Wall Staring?"

"Head of Road Building" seemed to work out pretty well for the country in the New Deal.

Re:Jobs, not Cash

[DerekLyons]

People need jobs, not cash. No amount of cash donated to a is going to help in the short-term pull us out of the financial crisis we are in right NOW.

Since the purpose of the philanthropy isn't to pull us out of the financial crisis, I'm not exactly certain what your point is.

Re:Huh...

[The Moof]

Or maybe he's trying to atone for some things.

Everything not as it seems....

[Dishwasha]

Unbeknown to the plebeian masses, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have been secretly funding research to extend human life. Since the materials and techniques are too expensive to replicate to anything but a select group of individuals, Gates and Buffet have invited only the most elite in to the know under the condition that they give up lots of money. Unfortunately for them, this is only the icing of achievements for Gates and Buffet in the one game they love more than anything else, knowing how to hoodwink lots of money out of people by being one step ahead of them.

Re:Everything not as it seems....

[geekoid]

I wish you were correct, Because eventually it would be cheap enough for everyone.

So is there an enforcement clause in this?

[Lead Butthead]

If this douche decides not to, who's there to enforce this pledge? "I was under the influence of several different controlled subs... medications when I signed the papers. I have no idea what I signed. I have changed my mind since, and if you have a problem with that, talk to my lawyers."

Re:So is there an enforcement clause in this?

[geekoid]

Stop being an ass. You could have spent that time being positive and shot him an email.
IN my experience, praising people for good moves make it more likely they will follow through.

Re:So is there an enforcement clause in this?

[Doomdark]

The whole idea (of BillG's and others project) is that publicly stating intent does make it MUCH more likely that person follows it. If you want to understand how and why, you can read any reasonable modern behavior psych book; anything from the classic "The Psychology of Persuasion" or newer. Turns out that human behavior often follows backwards route (from how I feel to what the situation must be like); and in this case it starts with "I am a good person since I will give money to charity" and increases chances of actually acting this belief. This is much simplified explanation but the underlying principle is sound and based on clinical research.

So, yes, technically he could just change his mind and not do it; it just is less likely than what you seem to think.

Plus from what I have read, it does not look like Z is actually obsessed with personal wealth; either for accumulating or spending it. And he has started doling out charitable contributions already; so I would give him quite a bit of benefit of doubt here.

The Winklevoss twins

[ben_stilwell]

They now stand outside of his door with their hands out waiting expectantly.

Re:The Winklevoss twins

[entotre]

It is a good thing for computer science departments everywhere that those two are not the owners of facebook.

Re:Huh...

[larry bagina]

if you think he's a douche because he has more money than you, then he's only half a douche (and you're class warfare crybaby)
If you think he's a douche for other reasons, he's still a douche.

Re:Huh...

[TapeCutter]

Bill always claimed he was going to give away most of his fortune at age 55, I didn't believe it until I saw him do it. Kudo's to him for his generosity, for keeping his word, and for showing others that mega-philanthropy brings it's own rewards.

tax them then

[Anonymous Coward]

So they support a 50% tax rate on income? During Eisenhower's time, the nominal rate for the very rich was 91%, and the nation was very prosperous.

No, they do not support any such thing of course. They will spend their money the way they see fit (queue ignoramus libertarian armchair economist rant). They will call it "charitable" and get a tax write off. In Gate's case, the way he spends his money also advances his investment interests in biotechnology, because there are strings attached to accepting his "gift."

The world does not need the largess of billionaires, it needs an equitable (not "equal") distribution of wealth so that the free market economy can function efficiently. It's not the billionaire's fault that the system is set up this way. They are making their way through the world the best they can given the circumstances they live in. That doesn't change the fact that our economy is grossly out of balance because of the enormous distortion in wealth distribution encouraged by a certain strain of frontier capitalism rooted in sophomoric economic libertarianism. If these billionaires really wanted to make the world a better place, they would use their great wealth to agitate for progressive economic changes, rather than just dump cash into this or that charity. In fact, both Gates and Buffet have made such arguments, but in a cruel twist of irony, the hoi polloi who would benefit from such change continue to fight against it. How sad and stupid.

Re:tax them then

[Americano]

it needs an equitable (not "equal") distribution of wealth so that the free market economy can function efficiently

So you're saying that we just need to exert massive control over the economy so we can force it to be a free market?

Re:tax them then

[crunchygranola]

it needs an equitable (not "equal") distribution of wealth so that the free market economy can function efficiently

So you're saying that we just need to exert massive control over the economy so we can force it to be a free market?

Like the OP said: "queue ignoramus libertarian armchair economist rant".

Check!

Re:tax them then

[Americano]

So my pointing out the irony of claiming you need to have some central body enforcing an "equitable distribution of wealth" in order to have the "free market economy" function efficiently is an ignorant libertarian rant?

As I said in response to your other snide response: I believe in describing things honestly. If you're saying you want to redistribute wealth, then what you are describing is absolutely not a "free market" economy.

You seem to be quite doggedly reading things into my posts that I didn't put there, so I'll once again encourage you to put your head back up your ass until you learn to read without projecting your own little agenda onto everything that someone else writes.

Re:tax them then

[Americano]

A heavily controlled and regulated market is not a "free market".

Controls and regulations are, in fact, the opposite of the "free" market.

When you say "freedom isn't free," what you really mean is, "We can't have a free market because it's impossible to have an economy in which the government doesn't heavily regulate & oversee things." That's an entirely different issue, and may well be a legitimate point, that some level of regulation is simply required; however, the resulting market can be called "free market"-ish, but it is not a "free market".

If I tried to use your "freedom isn't free" quote to suggest that wikileaks needed to be muzzled, or the press needed to be blocked from reporting certain things... would you say that that pithy little phrase makes sense still?

If you don't mean "free market", say what you do mean.

Oh

[The MAZZTer]

TFTI, I was ready to wait for Bill Gates 3.1

If there's one thing I have learned .......

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

If there is one thing I have learned it's this, never trust "future me". Doesn't matter whether it's billionaires, congress or myself.

Re:If there's one thing I have learned .......

[geekoid]

I will make a note that your word can't be taken for anything. Got it.

Re:Huh...

[HungryHobo]

An old man walked up a shore littered with thousands of starfish, beached and dying after a storm.

A boy was picking them up and flinging them back into the ocean. "Why do you bother?" the old man scoffed. "You can't save them all. You're not even saving enough to make a difference."

The boy stoped thinking about what he had said.
The boy went off to college, learned about buisness and learned how to make useful things.
The boy went off and founded his own company with some of his friends and made and incredible amount of money because the boy was very bright and had a tallent for buisness.

Years later as the old man, now positively ancient, walked along the beach spending his days discouraging children from helping starfish the boy, now a man roared past him in a giant automatic beach combing and starfish catapulting machine which he had designed and built with his massive fortune as part of a fleet of vehicles to comb the worlds seashores spewing starfish back into the ocean.

As he passed the young man gave the decrepit old sod the finger and screamed
"Can't save them all can I?"

in reality...

[bball99]

Gates and Buffett, like so many of the Industrialists before them, appear to subscribe to the Gospel of Wealth...

what seems to be forgotten in the ensuing adulation is how these folks acquired their wealth... we know about Gates,
but Buffett is no kindly grandfather type... the Berkshire Hathaway Reinsurance Group has reaped BILLIONS in just
the last several years via policies that ensured insane increases in homeowner insurance policy...

Re:in reality...

[Chapter80]

Buffett is no kindly grandfather type... the Berkshire Hathaway Reinsurance Group has reaped BILLIONS in just
the last several years via policies that ensured insane increases in homeowner insurance policy...

Huh?

There is no customer of Berkshire Hathaway that is forced to purchase a policy from them. If you are unhappy that they raised your rates, go buy a policy elsewhere!

You capitalize BILLIONS as if this is an issue because it's a big number. Berkshire Hathaway is a huge organization, with annual revenues of roughly $112 Billion, from willing customers who choose to buy from this company. As a shareholder, I would be disappointed if they didn't reap BILLIONS.

Re:in reality...

[Doomdark]

So by your logic, assuming (quite possibly incorrectly) that wealth was obtained by illegal or immoral means, it should not be now shared? That is, the action of distributing wealth to charitable causes is no better than leaving it as inheritance to offsprings? Your moral view differs a lot from mine.

Re:in reality...

[Chapter80]

As I said, no one is forcing you to buy a policy from a Berkshire Hathaway Insurance company, or one that they re-insure.

There are plenty of alternatives, including, primarily: competitive companies, but also: not carrying insurance, self-insurance, starting your own insurance company, and renting.

Frankly, Berkshire's insurance businesses aren't providing overwhelming profits - yeah, it's profitable, but not to the extent that should cause people to call for reform.

Re:in reality...

[Alex Belits]

It should not be dangled in front of other people to control them -- this is what it was obtained for in the first place.

publicity stunt, plain and simple

[Adkins1984]

If they really cared about giving and helping people, and not just about patting themselves on the back for the world to see, they would make this a legal contract, monitor how much is given, and open it to anyone that wants to give. If some homeless guy wants to give 20 of his last $30 why should it matter that he isn't ultra-rich socialite? Nice sentiment, but (hopefully) anyone can see it for what it is...

Re:publicity stunt, plain and simple

[east coast]

The problem with small donations is that administrative costs of an organization can often eat up the lion's share of the donations. Having Gates plop down a billion dollars on a charity is a lot more streamlined then 10 million people giving a hundred dollars each. The simpler you keep book keeping the easier it is to uncover waste and fraud as well.

Re:publicity stunt, plain and simple

[Adkins1984]

I might agree with this if it weren't for the fact that there is no way to keep track of whether or not these Billionaires are giving the money they promise. I can promise to donate $300bn, doesn't mean it is likely to happen. That also might be true about the administrative costs, if this Give Pledge was taking the donations themselves, but it is nothing more than a list of people. Not a lot of overhead there.

Re:publicity stunt, plain and simple

[east coast]

Well, seeings as where the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is run transparently, I'd like to think that if they were lying about the 20 million that they claim they gave to CMU last September that someone would call them out on it.

Seriously, I know how much people love to hate MS around here and how popular it is to believe that anyone who is rich who isn't running an open source foundation is nothing but a sack of shit but Gates runs a first rate charitable program. It's open and available for anyone to scrutinize.

Re:publicity stunt, plain and simple

[Adkins1984]

I think you completely misunderstand my point. I have nothing against MS or Mr. Gates. Actually I have the utmost respect for him and what he has made out of his dream for a company. I realize the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is run transparently as well. My problem is with this particular pledge is the fact that (as you mentioned) not all charitable programs are open source it is possible for people pledge whatever they want, and I am a pessimist when it comes to the generosity of the ultra rich. If I had $40bil and wanted to donate half or more, why would I wait for a website to come along and post my name before doing so? Also the pledge states that the people will do this pledge in their life time. That is a bit on the vague side as well.

Re:publicity stunt, plain and simple

[east coast]

First off, transparent != open source. That's a term that is thrown around way too much and because of this it is losing its focus.

I would like to think that if this is part of what the Gates Foundation is doing that it would fall under its transparency.

As for why wait? Everyone has to set a watermark. Perhaps something has happened in his personal situation that is allowing him to be more confident in his contributions. Perhaps he was "sold" on an idea that hadn't been proposed to him before. I think you're looking at the most based concept here and stretching it into things that it may or may not be and deciding from the worst case scenerio what the reality of it is. You don't know these facts any better than anyone else.

Re:Huh...

[Anonymous Coward]

if you think he's a douche because he has more money than you, then he's only half a douche (and you're class warfare crybaby)

If you think he's a douche for other reasons, he's still a douche.

I, for one, think that if a person has absurd amount of money (so much that he can give billions away without it lowering his quality of life in any way... Because he'll still be a billionaire and won't have to give up a single benefit) and he chooses to sit on it rather than give some of it for some good cause, he is a douche. It can't even be called selfish because he won't really lose anything by giving the money away... It's pure and distilled douchery. It takes a very bad person to think "I don't want to help the less fortunate even if I wouldn't feel any difference... Because it's mine! It's all mine!" That is an issue that is mostly solved by him giving away over half of his fortune (though still being filthy rich). (I still think that he's a douche for other reasons, though)

Crybaby means a person who cries and complains about what he feels is wrong instead of actually doing something to fix that. Class warfare means concrete actions to fix what you feel is wrong in the world. As such, the two are mutually exclusive.

Win

[TaoPhoenix]

NT

How Much Did They Lose in the Market Crash?

[eldavojohn]

No, you're full of bullshit. A one-time shot of a half-billion dollars will get pissed away in a year. Put that money in a foundation and consistently donate the interest, however, and you get a significant chunk of change going to the cause every year, forever.

Forever? Just like the stock market is going to last forever? Just like the money the foundation lost from the BP oil spill? They lowered their payout they had promised following the American housing and financial crisis and I'm sure it's because they didn't get the money they thought was "already in the bag." Of course we can't get at any hard figures of how much they had pre-market crash and right after it but I'm going to go ahead and say you're full of bullshit in thinking that they are investing in things that are consistently going to help. They are investing in the stock market. The stock market is a gamble. Any thoughts otherwise are true bullshit.

Re:How Much Did They Lose in the Market Crash?

[ScentCone]

Just like the stock market is going to last forever?

It has so far. Those interested in long-term do-gooding in a particular niche think in longer terms. Changes in education, for example, are cultural issues. That takes generations, not one fiscal year, or the few years spanning some cyclical fluctuation in the value of equities. Over time, a halfway rationally managed pile of equities always has and always will grow in value. If all of the assets in a well balanced portfolio completely cease to exist, you can rest assured that there are far, far bigger problems than splitting hairs over whether it was smarter to buy a big pile of mosquito netting once, or setting up a foundation chartered to buy them regularly and forever.

The stock market is a gamble. Any thoughts otherwise are true bullshit.

Sure, if you only think in the very short term. And you think that, what ... handing all of your resources over, in one lump, as cash, to a particular charity for use right then and there ... that's not a gamble? We've seen many large funds get hoovered up by corrupt recipients over the years. Better for there to be oversight, guided by the principles of those that set up the foundations. And if they are students of a couple hundred years of history, they'll know that reasonably well balanced long-term investments grow, often very, very substantially. No multi-billion-dollar foundation is going to put all of its stock in a company in Venezuela that could at any moment by rendered worthless by Hugo Chavez in one of his weekly fits of nationalization, or tie up all of the funds in real-estate on one coast of one continent.

Re:How Much Did They Lose in the Market Crash?

[Monkeedude1212]

Especially if it is as you say, anywhere near 5-6% per year, it takes 16-20 years to meet the amount they could have originally donated!

That's pretty much another generation...

Re:How Much Did They Lose in the Market Crash?

[Gunnut1124]

Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Your couple hundred dollars of investment can be handled the way you describe. To extend the period of time in which a large donation has effect, there has to be some sort of structure. If that's a lawyer handing out million dollar checks every year for a thousand years, then great. He can just sit on a big ole pile of cash in his storage room and hope there's never a fire...

In reality though, the "gamble" you are griping about is the structure that ensures the longevity of the fund. The objective isn't to improve American as an economic power, though that may be a result, the objective is to provide solutions to the entire world. I'm certain we'd (Americans) love to buy Nike's from Congo rather than China. I'm pretty sure we like Nigerian oil. Africa has a lot to offer, but the process of setting up infrastructure in a place where basic health concerns are so great is not an easy one. Charities have been trying to solve that problem for decades now. The primary issue that most note? Not enough funding... Now Gates/Buffett have tried to make a near-inexhaustible source from which this funding can come. If you are having a hard time with the way they handle the money, make a billion dollars, contribute half, then tell them what you think. 'Til then, shut up with the pedantry and nitpicking.

Re:How Much Did They Lose in the Market Crash?

[nedlohs]

Everything is a gamble. Gate could have written a billion dollar check to the Red Cross and seen it all embezzled away the next week.

That BP article is funny, oh dear they lost 1% of the paper value of their share portfolio in a few months (in a period of time at which multiple percent daily swings are common place). Also note that 6 months later and a third of that has come back already.

The DOW is essentially the same as it was 10 years ago, so the capital hasn't changed over that ten year period even with a "market crash". All the while paying out dividends.

And you're a moron is you think they counted it as "in the bag". They made their estimates and the numbers came in lower, so oh dear in a time when the Federal Reserve is trying to stave of deflation they could only increase their payouts by 10%.

Re:How Much Did They Lose in the Market Crash?

[Americano]

The stock market is a gamble.

You just explained to us, in a sentence, why you'll never be rich enough to have to worry about what to do with your fortune. If you view it as a gamble, then go to your local credit union, and sock all your money away in an annual-2% savings account, and watch your money's purchasing power erode over time because it doesn't even keep up with the rate of inflation.

And as far as "forever" - rule of thumb is that, with fairly conservative investments, if you only ever spend about 4-5% of your invested capital each year, that's a "sustainable" rate of burn, which will result in your money lasting for a long, long, long time. There will be some tighter years and some better years, but over the long term, your capital will stay roughly the same, and the interest will provide a fairly consistent revenue stream.

Re:How Much Did They Lose in the Market Crash?

[ideonexus]

How long term? An investment you made in the stockmarket in 2000 is now worth less today. "Long term" is a nice concept to throw around, but if you're 65 and your investments are worth less than they were 10 years ago, it's no comfort to think they will be worth more 30 years from now.

Re:How Much Did They Lose in the Market Crash?

[tycoex]

Did you forget that he is talking about a charity foundation though? Wouldn't the charity foundation keep going even after you die? Meaning that it doesn't matter whether it's not profitable until 30 years from now, since your goal wasn't to benefit yourself anyways.

Re:How Much Did They Lose in the Market Crash?

[nabsltd]

Just like the money the foundation lost from the BP oil spill? They lowered their payout they had promised following the American housing and financial crisis and I'm sure it's because they didn't get the money they thought was "already in the bag."

If you make 5% and spend 10%, it would take nearly 35 years for the overall payout to fall below that of the "sustaining" model of only paying out what you make in interest. So, the sad part is that they could have sucked up a one-time hit on the principal and still not had any real effect on the long-term viability of the foundation.

Re:How Much Did They Lose in the Market Crash?

[ScentCone]

An investment you made in the stockmarket in 2000 is now worth less today.

Two of my investments in the stockmarket, made in 2000, are worth less today. All of the rest are worth more. In some cases quite a bit more. Taking all of it into account, from that year ... it's about a 70% increase. Not great, but not horrible considering there are a couple of real dot-com ball busters in the mix.

So if some foundation had put $1 billion into the exact same mix of stocks I had, today they'd have $1.7 billion. They could have put $500 million into their chosen works, and still been growing. And in the meantime, that cash is out there helping the companies in which its invested grow and pay people for things.

Re:How Much Did They Lose in the Market Crash?

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Over time, a halfway rationally managed pile of equities always has and always will grow in value.

Not that I disagree with your overall recommendations, but this is a common statement about investing that is just wrong. There is no lack of historical examples where this rule of thumb has failed. Take Germany from about 1870 up to 1945.

People who make these statements usually justify them by pointing at the performance of the US stock market, or the EAFE index. That is a case of survivor bias; you're judging stock market performance but leaving out the markets that performed so badly that they disappeared.

If all of the assets in a well balanced portfolio completely cease to exist, you can rest assured that there are far, far bigger problems than splitting hairs over whether it was smarter to buy a big pile of mosquito netting once, or setting up a foundation chartered to buy them regularly and forever.

Yup. Bigger problems like, say, world war...

Re:How Much Did They Lose in the Market Crash?

[t_ban]

If you are having a hard time with the way they handle the money, make a billion dollars, contribute half, then tell them what you think. 'Til then, shut up with the pedantry and nitpicking.

I can't criticise Bill Gates until I have a billion dollars? You realise that makes him answerable only to the handful of super-rich of the world?

Shameless cock-sucking, really.

Eye of the Needle?

[Gothmolly]

Funny how most of these rich, aging guys suddenly want to buy their way into Heaven.

Re:Eye of the Needle?

[maxume]

You really think they are that stupid?

Re:Eye of the Needle?

[geekoid]

Funny how when someone does something good with their money, spiteful religious types creep out of the darkness to deride their decisions. Unless of course the money is going to them, then it's the best thing ever.

Bush gave them tax cuts, so they should give back

[tacktick]

I can haz ca$h plz? Srsly though, how about helping the many millions of jobless, uninsured and struggling families. Considering the fat republican cats in government gave the super-rich major tax cuts in the Bush years I think it is only right that they give back to the lower and middle class people who took a greater share of the tax burden.

Re:Huh...

[aynoknman]

Kudo's to him for his generosity, for keeping his word, and for showing others that mega-philanthropy brings it's own rewards.

"kudos" (a Greek transliteration) is a mass noun like "praise". Putting an apostrophe in it would be like prai'se.

Re:Huh...

[poetmatt]

dont' forget the fun part - will these giveaways go to anything of actual value for society, or donations towards their own private charities?

either way makes them sound like saints when they're not even compromising on anything, along with a comedy tax break (an entire years worth of profits) that lets them recoup the money rather quickly.

Re:Huh...

[Low Ranked Craig]

Maybe he is not such a douche after all?

Pretty sure he'd still be a douche bag of epic proportions even if he gives all his money away.

Since when is he a billionaire?

[Anonymous Freak]

Facebook hasn't gone public. Facebook hasn't been sold.

Facebook could collapse tomorrow, and he wouldn't have more than whatever he has saved of his yearly salary recently...

I'd love to know how Zuckerberg thinks he's rich right now.

Re:Since when is he a billionaire?

[bigredradio]

I agree. When facebook goes the way of friendster, AOL, Yahoo, Netscape, etc he is probably going to be wealthy, but not a billionaire.

Re:Since when is he a billionaire?

[Doomdark]

There is actually marketplace for selling such securities ("Secondary Private Equity Sales"?), so Facebook equity is actually quite liquid. So there is nothing odd about this; he does have assets that are easy enough to liquidate.

Re:Since when is he a billionaire?

[Shimmer]

I read the Wikipedia page on this market and couldn't make heads or tails of it. Could you give a simple example for a newbie? Thanks.

Re:Since when is he a billionaire?

[city]

He sold 1.6% of his company to Microsoft for $240M. So he's got some cash on hand and could go public tomorrow. I agree this is a little premature, but just because I haven't sold my personal holdings for gold doesn't mean I'm not worth anything. Sure he's a little less liquid because his stock isn't publicly traded yet, but he's still a Billionaire.

Re:Since when is he a billionaire?

[Idiomatick]

Zuck lies. It isn't even clear that he has the legal right to sell the company to begin with.

Re:Since when is he a billionaire?

[Monkeedude1212]

I'd also like to know how any website, ever, on the internet, has ever made any money, whatsoever.

Re:Since when is he a billionaire?

[Doomdark]

I don't know very much beyond the basic idea that one can trade with securities that are pre-IPO, unfortunately.

But the idea as I understand it is that since shares can not be sold and bought in regular stock exchanges (due to there not having been a public offering), this works more like a single-equity-type exchange, essentially matching buyers and sellers. One downside would be that there are fewer sellers; second that due to lack of regulation there are more things that could go wrong and so forth. Upside is that you can invest early, without being a VC, early on so potential profits are also big as are risks.

A real donation

[LordNacho]

would be time. A rich guy like Bill Gates could give away 99% of what he's worth and still be rich. We each only have 24 hours a day though.

Re:A real donation

[arkenian]

Almost as if one were to decide to quit one's job and dedicate the majority of your time to the charitable works of a major foundation??

Re:A real donation

[russotto]

would be time. A rich guy like Bill Gates could give away 99% of what he's worth and still be rich. We each only have 24 hours a day though.

Since when has a donation (as opposed to a fine) been measured, not by the benefit it gives to its recipients, but by the harm it does to its donors?

Re:A real donation

[LordNacho]

How is money (or time for that matter) a measure of benefit?

What I'm getting at is that some people think of donations as a kind of "guilt money". I don't think of it like that, but some do. Now, if it's guilt money, it's pretty similar to a fine.

Re:A real donation

[LordNacho]

Yes, indeed.

Re:A real donation

[Alex Belits]

...and you probably would be paid much higher salary there.

Re:Huh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, he is.

"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full."

-Matthew 6:2

Re:Huh...

[somersault]

What about all the ones that died while he'd been away building his business? And surely if he was that bright he could have just made a device with a big net where he could run along and scoop up the starfish pretty quickly anyway. Hmm. I really don't get the point of this story, other than both the old man and the boy being douches.

Re:Huh...

[somersault]

Well, aside from Batman/Bruce Wayne being a fictional character, he's meant to be a crazy multi-billionaire, so I really doubt there would be "hundreds of thousands" of people with 20 times more money than him. What the hell are you smoking?

Re:Huh...

[drinkypoo]

Bill always claimed he was going to give away most of his fortune at age 55, I didn't believe it until I saw him do it.

You still haven't seen him do it. The Gates Foundation makes for-profit investments in evil, and in order to get immunizations you have to provide strong IP protection to big pharma. If you think Bill Gates is a good guy, you have been fooled. Enjoy your Kool-Aid!

Donations are tax deductable

[NicknamesAreStupid]

If they do it right, they may never pay a dollar of income tax for the rest of their lives.

Re:Donations are tax deductable

[Overzeetop]

Which means that the rest of us will be paying taxes to support the government for Zuck's lack. Which mean, effectively, we'll be paying higher taxes to support his causes. Make me all warm and tingly inside. Just like pinworm.

Let me get this straight

[geekoid]

Very rich people find away to donate money in a way that lets the money KEEP giving every year, and there not 'giving their money away'

Theya re being SMART with the money they give away by goinging it to a 'engine' that allows the money to help over and over again. this is BETTER then just a one time use of the money.

If you do give the charities, it would be smart of you to put money into a fund that supports what you want it to.

To answer your question: They're making progress, but the biggest hold back are 'environmental' groups who keep pressuring government to stop the production of DDT.

And just so you know, there has never been a causation found between DDT and Condor shell thinning.

DDT is a powerful tool in eliminating malaria, and a whole host of other nasties.

Re:Huh...

[salmosri]

This is the original story... An old man walked up a shore littered with thousands of starfish, beached and dying after a storm. A young man was picking them up and flinging them back into the ocean. "Why do you bother?" the old man scoffed. "You're not saving enough to make a difference." The young man picked up another starfish and sent it spinning back to the water. "Made a difference to that one," he said.

Re:Huh...

[mattbee]

a man roared past him in a giant automatic beach combing and starfish catapulting machine which he had designed and built with his massive fortune as part of a fleet of vehicles to comb the worlds seashores spewing starfish back into the ocean

Ah yes, no matter how many times I hear it, the ancient fable of the giant starfish-catapulting machine is still a heartwarming classic.

He will regret it!

[Sentrion]

He will soon regret pledging his fortune away when he finds out that he could have used that money to create mice from 2 fathers.

http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/1NnJOhmfGAs/story01.htm

Re:Huh...

[nomadic]

Without the starfish on the beach the delicate coastal ecosystem was altered; shore birds that used to feed on the starfish, and feed them to their young went hungry and left. Without the shorebirds the insect population increased and drove everyone from the beach. And I don't want to tell you what the giant automatic beach combing and starfish catapulting machine did to the buried sea turtle eggs.

Re:Huh...

[Lumpy]

Why's the Kool-Aid Yellow and warm? I was promised Cherry!

Invest it instead!

[Boona]

Don't give it away, invest it! We need jobs not temporary handouts!

Re:Huh...

[dc29A]

Not to mention, his fortune was earned as the head of a company that is a monopoly and was found guilty of abusing their monopoly on three continents.

Re:Huh...

[AltairDusk]

I think we'll be waiting a while to see it for most of them. From the last sentence of the summary: "give away more than half of their fortune at some point during their lifetime." Some point could very well mean they have it in their will that half the money goes to charity or that they plan to donate the money only when they know they'll be dead soon.

Re:On that note

[Chapter80]

Tough call.

Gates could have quietly given away his fortune, while everyone called him a greedy S.O.B., and followed the advice of the Biblical quote. Instead, he announced that he was giving it away, and encouraged others to give it away. And many have agreed to, and the world should be a better place because of the public give-away and challenge of Gates.

I know several multi-millionaires who have decided to quietly commit to giving up half, because of this Billionaire Challenge. I'm sure there are many. So Gates' challenge has actually achieved more on earth than had he quietly donated.

Each billionaire that signs up calls more attention to the challenge, and probably causes a few more multi-millionaires to sign up.

Actually

[geekoid]

they should read this:
http://www.atheists.org/

Re:On that note

[D Ninja]

Amen.

What these billionaires are doing is trying to leave a legacy behind. When you are as rich as they are, stuff doesn't mean anything to them any more. They can buy whatever it is that they want. Instead, they want to go down in history books, or keep their name alive, or do whatever it takes to have some sort of imprint on the world well into the future and, presumably, past their death. As AlteredEgg pointed out, money does not buy your way into heaven, but it does keep you pretty famous here on earth.

Re:Class warfare talk is laugable, too

[spiffmastercow]

Cripes, how many rags to riches success stories (or just people living their lives normally and comfortably because they act like responsible adults) does this country need before you class warriors give up?

One for each person who acts like a responsible adult? Just sayin'.

Since facebook makes over .5 B a year

[geekoid]

Wow, are you really that stupid? seriously? Facebook sells advertising, makes money from the largest online game in the world, sells spots in those games to major corporations. In farmville you can get a McDonalds.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-does-facebook-make-money-2010-5

Re:Since facebook makes over .5 B a year

[Anonymous Freak]

Uh...

The fact that FACEBOOK makes over $500 million a year doesn't mean that ZUCKERBERG is a billionaire.

I have no doubt that he has drawn high millions from it. Possibly even $100 million. But unless he sells the company tomorrow for cash, HE is not worth that much. I fully understand the idea of net worth, and also fully understand how easily it can evaporate.

As someone in Portland in (presumably) the tech sector, I'd think you would know more about how even seemingly large tech companies (and their perceived wealth) can vanish overnight.

P.S. Assuming you're the "geekoid" I think you are, I believe we have a few common friends from Tek...

Re:Huh...

[Anonymous Coward]

The boy went off and founded his own company with some of his friends and made and incredible amount of money because the boy was very bright and had a tallent for buisness.

Years later he went to the beach and found there where no starfish left.

The end.

But what will the money be spent on?

[RogueWarrior65]

Here's what I want to know: Will the money be put to use creating major research organizations or will it be pissed away on something nebulous such as foreign aid which inevitably winds up in some warlord's plethora of palaces? Imagine how many start-ups could be created with $500 million. Imagine how many people they would employ. Imagine how many people suppliers to those start-ups would employ. Imagine how many people would be employed by companies offering services and infrastructure required to make it all work. Imagine how many spin-offs would be created. Then multiply that by 17.

But even if you don't like that idea, why would you piss the money away on third-world countries when there are a lot of people on welfare and food stamps here in this country.

Re:Huh...

[DeathFromSomewhere]

I don't exactly have Zuckerbergs financial information in front of me but chances are that money is tucked away in a bank somewhere. The banks won't just sit on that money, they loan it out to you and me so we can build houses and businesses. So in a very roundabout way he is helping out those less fortunate with the money he isn't using.

Re:Huh...

[corbettw]

I think the point was that being a negative person who only pokes holes in what others are trying to accomplish serves no purpose, while being optimistic means that, even if you can't achieve what you want right now, you can still work hard and do so later.

Re:Huh...

[TheRaven64]

It's a really neat idea. 'We're philanthropists,' says the foundation's representative, 'we'd like to give you drugs - entirely free - that will save tens of thousands of lives in your country.' Pretty much the offer you can't refuse, for any politician - no one wants to be the one that turned down an offer to save that many lives. 'There's just one small thing you have to do for us,' says the foundation. 'Well, not really for us - we'd love to avoid this - but unfortunately the drug companies won't let us have the drugs unless you sign this IP treaty with the USA. It's to protect their investment, you understand.'

Well, that's fine - just one treaty, and it can't be that bad. Until you realise that it means that you are now not allowed to produce cheap generic versions of the drugs locally (or import them) - after the donation runs out, you have to keep buying the US versions that are several times the price. So, after a few years, it's probably going to cost more lives than not taking the money originally, but that's okay, you're a politician, you're not going to be accountable.

Oh, and as a bonus, it protects US IP-based companies (in which, coincidentally, the investors in the B&MGF have a lot of other investments) from foreign competition, by preventing another country from bootstrapping an industrial economy in the same way that the US, China, and so on, did.

Still, it would be hard to be a philanthropist if you ran out of poor people - they're just making sure that they can keep helping people for the foreseeable future.

Re:Huh...

[Johann Lau]

It's slightly less heartwarming when you consider that the starfish-catapulting machine is built out of dead starfish and consumes them as fuel.

Re:Huh...

[HolyMackerelBatman!]

Or maybe he's trying to atone for some things.

Like Clippy?

Re:Huh...

[bluefoxlucid]

By investing his money he drives the economy. By sitting it in the bank, he lets the bank invest it, driving the economy. Either way, he's creating jobs and opportunities.

Years later, that money he invested ... some of it poofed. Some of it grew by 10%. Some of it doubled. Some of it is 10 times bigger. Instead of 3 billion, he has 30 billion, plus another 200 billion from further income and investment of said income.

Now he has about 100 billion to give away, instead of 3 billion, to people who wouldn't ever have been born if their parents had starved in the street due to lack of jobs from all these start-up companies getting no VC or grants or loans. And most of those people went on to get jobs as well, so only a small percentage of these fortuned by his investment efforts now require direct aid.

Obviously a net loss, what with overpopulation.

I think too many people think money is magic

[Sycraft-fu]

It is like "omni-gel" in Mass Effect: just apply enough to the problem and it goes away! Ya well, not so much. Money is NOT magical, and just throwing lots at a problem in many cases doesn't help and in some cases makes it worse.

A simple example that is on a scale that many people can relate to would be a drug addict. Suppose a friend of yours is badly addicted to something, and has ruined their life with it. They can't hold down a job, are homeless, are in poor health, etc. Now suppose I make essentially an unlimited amount of funds available to fix the problem (we'll say $500,000,000 if you need a number to put on it). What do you do with it? If your answer is "Give them the money so they can turn their life around," then that's the wrong answer. Sure, they could fix some immediate problems like getting a house, and a job wouldn't be a concern. However all that would do is enable them to continue buying drugs. It might well lead to a quick death by overdose, but if not it would lead to a slower one by sustained abuse. You also would discover that the money would vanish at an amazing pace, as bad decisions get made all the time (druggies are not know for rational thinking).

If you wanted to do any good, you'd need to maintain control of the money and use it towards useful ends, like treatment programs and so on. You would need to make sure it was spent on things that actually help the problem, not things that just allow it to continue and mask some of the overt symptoms.

Well guess what? Same is true on a larger scale when dealing with countries with a great deal of dysfunction (like lack of basic infrastructure, long civil wars, oppression of large parts of the population, etc). Just saying "Here's a bunch of money have fun!" does nothing useful. In fact in many cases it'd make things worse, only entrenching corrupt people in power. To do any good the money has to be spent on things that help like, say, running water or generators or medicine and so on.

That is something a good foundation can do (and it would seem the Gates foundation does). They can figure out what to spend the money on and provide things that make useful improvements to quality of life, not just toss it at a corrupt government and let them run amok.

Re:Bush gave them tax cuts, so they should give ba

[The End Of Days]

I'd be willing to pay greater taxes to support you if you gave up your rights to self-determination. You want free money? Cool. You work like we tell you, learn what we tell you, live where we tell you and how we tell you. I don't see why you should get something for nothing.

It's like an allowance. You can earn money on your own and live your life, or you can have my money and live like I want you to.

But 1/3 of that money is tax dollars

[Overzeetop]

It's a fundamental problem I have with charitable giving in the US. The "value" you donate gets taken off your gross income, which reduces your taxes.

Say what you will about taxes, but by reducing your tax liability by $1, you've not changed the amount it takes to run the country, and have effectively raised everyone elses taxes to compensate for it.

Re:But 1/3 of that money is tax dollars

[clone52431]

In other words, they’re taking 1/3 of that money away from the government and giving it to people who actually need it?

Re:Huh...

[alexo]

Pics or it's a bugera.

Here ya go

Re:Huh...

[PhrstBrn]

You make it sounds like if everybody invested money, everybody would be 10x richer? Where do you think all this extra money comes from, trees?

Maybe the problem is "investing" really doesn't create as many jobs as you think it does, but instead moves money around between other "investors", and only a tiny tiny amount of that goes to VC loans and things which theoretically would create jobs.

If you "invested" $1M in Exxon stock, how many jobs do you think you're creating? 1? 2? 100? 1000? Let me try another number, zero.

I know of only one sure way to create more jobs. Hire more people. This investing crap is just moving the money around in a big circle jerk with the people at the top. You have to be naive if you believe any significant portion of that money invested "trickles down" to the working class.

Re:Bush gave them tax cuts, so they should give ba

[tacktick]

There are people right now who would take that deal.. for example military recruitment goes up during recession. Recent figure reported atleast a 25% increase of college grads joining the military because of a lack of jobs.

Big Corporations would love to dictate how, where, when you live your life if that means you pay them and buy their products. Its not hard to find evidence of that.

Good thing we have laws, rights and the courts to give us some measure of freedom.
Isn't that what USA is about?
Or do you want to start over and re-write the constitution?

Re:Huh...

[camperdave]

"kudos" (a Greek transliteration) is a mass noun like "praise".

All praise to Kudo!

Too much money - it's a nice problem to have

[davidwr]

If you have $2B and give away half, you are still a billionaire.

Still, it's nice they are doing it.

I like what the Gates are doing after they die even better though: To prevent financial dynasties and the laziness that can come with it a generation or two later, they are making sure the bulk of their estate goes to a foundation that will "spend it all" within a generation or two. Their kids will get a nice sum that will leave them set for life but it won't be anywhere close to a billion.

Re:Too much money - it's a nice problem to have

[jayveekay]

If you have $2B and give away half, you are still a billionaire.

Agreed. A person's generosity is measured not by how much they give away, but how much they spend on themselves.

The multi-billionaire who has a private jet and personal masseuse while giving millions to charity is less generous than the poor family that live in a shack but still manage to give a few hundred dollars a year to help the homeless.

Let's put this in perspective...

[Digital Vomit]

I don't mean to belittle Zuckerberg's donation, but it really bugs me when the media goes crazy about how "generous" the ultra-wealthy are when then give away a portion of their excess...

Jesus sat down near the collection box in the Temple and watched as the crowds dropped in their money. Many rich people put in large amounts. Then a poor widow came and dropped in two small coins.

Jesus called his disciples to him and said, “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has given more than all the others who are making contributions. For they gave a tiny part of their surplus, but she, poor as she is, has given everything she had to live on.” - Mark 12:41-44

Re:Bush gave them tax cuts, so they should give ba

[Americano]

NO. I've seen the documentary. Uncle Scrooge swims around in gold coins in a big vault on a hill. How could the bank be using that money to "finance their lending operations" when Uncle Scrooge is swimming, bathing, and probably even peeing in it? (It's a swimming pool. It happens.)

You and your fanciful "investment" theories. Get real! The rich just stockpile gold bars, everybody knows it.

A note to my parents and other relatives

[davidwr]

If you plan on leaving me more than enough to have me "set for life" please don't.

Give the excess to a cause you believe in besides my bank account.

Re:Huh...

[Stregano]

I am pretty sure that Bill Gates is either way older than 55, or a clone. The summary referred to Bill Gates as Bill Gates 3.0

Maybe it is like Windows and Bill Gates 3.11 for Workgroups will be super awesome and help a bunch of people, but then Bill Gates Millenium will trick people into thinking he is awesome, and punch them in the back of the head whenever he gets the chance.

Lawsuit

[zero0ne]

What Happened to the lawsuit against him & facebook ? I thought ~80 percent of his and facebooks worth isn't technically his?

Re:Huh...

[Jiro]

I'm sure you would like to think that he is a monster for the damage inflicted on the 'computing world', but the there is much more to life than just computers. By many standards he is a pretty average human being.

I don't agree. The damage done by Facebook to privacy, or by Microsoft to the computing world, is smaller than, say, the damage done to someone by stabbing them--but it's being done over and over and over and over, billions of times. One act of greed isn't as bad as one stabbing, but the damage adds up--is a billion acts of greed worse than one stabbing? If you're going to put any reasonable cost at all on the damage these people did, they end up being worse than normal criminals simply because although they're not doing things which are as bad, they make up for it in volume.

Re:Huh...

[Joce640k]

Why wouldn't they? It;'s common sense, what's the point in hoarding *that* much money...?

Re:Huh...

[blahplusplus]

"and you're class warfare crybaby"

Right... because we certainly know class war really doesn't exist (See below). I see you're with the the faith based economics community apparently.

It's ok when the federal reserve gives the warm embrace of socialism to the rich. Trillions in offsheet balance transactions to domestic and foreign multinational corporations.

http://dailybail.com/home/there-are-no-words-to-describe-the-following-part-ii.html

Ben Bernanke on 60 minutes, look at how nervous the man is!

http://dailybail.com/home/bernanke-on-60-minutes-were-not-printing-money.html

Everyone loves socialism... just remember to point your fellow conservatives/hardcore capitalists to the following videos next time they start with the ridiculous partisan rhetoric.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjTZOekaQlE&feature=player_embedded

Fix a problem, instead of managing the results

[assertation]

I remember seeing a quote on a t-shirt that went something like this

"When I help the poor I am called a saint. When I ask why are they poor I am called a communist".

Instead of donating their fortunes to charity, it would be better if these billionaires put their money to work at ending the reasons for charities being needed in the first place. I'm not talking about "socialism", but about donating money in such a way that any given cause will not need future donations. In other words solving a problem instead of helping to manage the results.

Not to take away from their generosity.....it is epic, with no ifs ands or buts.

Just offering a thought......

Re:Fix a problem, instead of managing the results

[ArbitraryDescriptor]

I'm not talking about "socialism", but about donating money in such a way that any given cause will not need future donations. In other words solving a problem instead of helping to manage the results.

Well that is far more difficult. Consider what you are asking, rather than giving a person a service they cannot afford; provide them the means to afford it. Help build their financial infrastructure so that it become more self sufficient.

Sounds great, but how do you do that? You could expand their disposable income so they can provide for themselves. If you set up your fund, lets say it makes 50m a year. Housing is a major drain on everyone's disposable income, do you take 4,000 people and buy them a house/pay off their mortgage each year? This would help me, certainly, but what's to prevent them from taking out a second mortgage on it and winding up in debt all over again? Does the foundation retain ownership of the house? Do you have to apply to them if you really need that second mortgage (ie: medical bills)? What happens when they want to sell it? How does the foundation ensure the house is maintained to not get hit with laws against being a bad landlord? Do they have to?

I think you could work out a system like that, but I think it could wind up feeling a little invasive because to ensure that it was actually effective, you would have to ensure people were being responsible. This could turn the program into a PR nightmare as the foundation starts getting painted as a corporate fiefdom by a few unhappy recipients and a journalist trying to make a name for themselves.

My opinion of Zuckerberg has changed.

[assertation]

I still don't trust him or Facebook with my information, but my opinion of him as a human being has just changed for the better.

This epically generous move would seem to indicate he is what he portrays himself as, a coder who cares about coding and not much else. I'm sure he will still be comfortable after giving all of this money away, but with that money a lot of opportunities will also leave his life. Though, if he is one of those guys who just likes spending the bulk of his day coding he will not care.

Re:My opinion of Zuckerberg has changed.

[assertation]

An investment would be making a large donation. Zuckerberg is giving away nearly his entire fortune. That is in a different class and an obvious point.

Re:On that note

[BitZtream]

Signing your name != actually doing anything.

Giving away 'half' your money, when you could give away 99% of it and still not change your lifestyle or ability to make more money != impressive.

The guys signing this 'pledge' are people that are disliked by most of the educated public because their actions historically show that they are nothing more than greedy fucks who will do anything they can to make money. This is simple a PR stunt they get together on and pretend their doing something special for the world.

Re:Class warfare talk is laugable, too

[Americano]

If Bill Gates had been born a poor black crack baby in Harlem, instead of a wealthy white son of a powerful lawyer with connections at IBM, would he still have built Microsoft exactly as he did?

No, he probably would have built Roc-A-Fella records and numerous other successful business ventures instead.

Plenty of people build very successful lives out of disadvantaged beginnings - in your haste to show us that talent, skill, and hard work don't matter, you overcompensate and start pretending like circumstances and heredity are the only things that matter.

YES, there are people who are born into poverty, and destined for jail or death from a gunshot wound by the time they turn 20;
YES, there are people who are born to privilege and no matter how big of a fuckup they are, they'll always be comfortable;
And in between those small extremes, there's a HUGE gray area, where circumstances can help or hinder, but a huge part of what you make of your life is what you put into it.

Repugnant

[Baldrson]

They should be using that wealth to change public policy to stop taxing economic activity and start taxing net assets. Enormous concentrations of wealth cannot exist without government so those benefiting should pay for the service.

By engaging in "philanthropy" rather than fixing the bug in the tax system, these guys are engaging in moral vanity -- essentially trying to buy respect. They don't get it from me nor anyone really concerned about the welfare of humanity.

Re:Bush gave them tax cuts, so they should give ba

[nschubach]

The Constitution says nothing about Corporations vs. People. It's a set of restrictions on Government and nothing more. (eg: There can be no law that ______.)

Re:Bush gave them tax cuts, so they should give ba

[nschubach]

Don't give out the secret to being rich!

Re:Class warfare talk is laugable, too

[Quiet_Desperation]

Wow. You mean life isn't perfect? Oh noes! Just because shit happens doesn't make this warmed over class warfare crap sensible.

Cash Giveaway

[dontgetshocked]

So what's the number to call for the FREE cash again? Or can I just slashdot it! Hurry,Please,it's my cash and I need it NOW!

Re:Class warfare talk is laugable, too

[Quiet_Desperation]

Nice strawman and cherry picked example.

Maybe he would have, maybe not. Or maybe he'd just be comfortable. That's my main point- the country isn't just the super rich and the super poor. It is, however, full of super stupid that I even have to explain stuff like this.

Re:Huh...

[cdombroski]

I, incredibly rich dude, being of sound mind.... give my entire fortune to X charity retroactive to 5 minutes before I am pronounced dead.

Re:On that note

[Chapter80]

Signing your name != actually doing anything.

I disagree. Signing your name is an action in itself.

Giving away 'half' your money, when you could give away 99% of it and still not change your lifestyle or ability to make more money != impressive.

I disagree. Giving away half of your money when you are not obligated to give away any is impressive.

The guys signing this 'pledge' are people that are disliked by most of the educated public

Being educated myself, I can't say I dislike all the signers. I have a great deal of respect for the business skills of many of them, and feel I can learn from them.

I am certainly not jealous of their success. Dislike? I don't even know them.

I'd love to see a poll that backs your allegations that "most" of the educated public dislikes these signers.

Re:Huh...

[NeutronCowboy]

And then countries realize that a treaty is a piece of paper, IP is incredibly easy to steal, and the US would try to kill the local pharma industry even without the treaty. They turn the treaty into compost, give the US the finger, and do what they want to do.

That's the interesting part about being a country. In the end, only an invasion can stop it from doing what it wants.

Still, it would be hard to be a philanthropist if you ran out of poor people - they're just making sure that they can keep helping people for the foreseeable future.

I'm not sure what you're implying. That all philanthropists are only interested in keeping people poor, so they can keep giving their money away? That philanthropists are buying the continuing poverty of others to build a monument for their generosity? Either which way, it's a completely illogical position. I suspect you're merely jealous that philanthropists aren't handing you their money.

Re:Class warfare talk is laugable, too

[spiffmastercow]

But you see, it does, because the rich use their wealth and power to screw over the middle class and poor. The divide between rich and poor in this country is the worst it has been in over a hundred years, and we're headed toward medieval serfdom. Hard work doesn't make you rich. Being willing to screw people over is what (generally) makes you rich.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to working 60 hours a week as a software developer to pay for the mortgage on my house and the food for my child, without a dime left over at the end of the month.

Re:Huh...

[hairyfeet]

And thanks to the increased starfish numbers they were able to easily feed on toxic waste left on the bottom by unscrupulous mobsters, grew into 10 story tall starkillers, and promptly attacked Tokyo, which thanks to Godzilla being well fed and fat on monster island after being labeled an endangered species Japan was utterly destroyed robbing the world of strange big eyed cartoons and used panty machines.

As for TFA it reminds me of an old bit I saw "If I have 100 million and you take half I won't be bothered 1 bit, if I have 10,000 and you want half I may have to kill you". While it is nice these uber rich want to blow some of their cash on whatever they consider charity, the simple fact is they could blow money on hookers and blow every day while wiping their asses with hundred dollar bills and the interest alone will make sure they come out ahead. If they really wanted to help out the country that allowed them to make their fortunes maybe they should push for a tax hike on the top 1% and for closing all the loopholes like the "double dutch" that allows them to dodge what little taxes they are supposed to pay? I know Google bounces money all over the place to keep from paying taxes on it, and MSFT has more tax havens than the mob. Maybe paying their fair share might be better than playing Daddy Warbucks?

Re:Huh...

[LingNoi]

I, for one, think that you should be forced to give away your own money before you talk about forcing other people to give away their money.

Re:Huh...

[s73v3r]

So you're saying that Zuckerberg should instead take his money and become a costumed crime fighter?

Re:Huh...

[s73v3r]

Cause the banks are really doing some hard-core investing right now.

Re:Huh...

[s73v3r]

No. Just no. I mean, did you even use Windows ME?

Re:Huh...

[s73v3r]

The banks won't just sit on that money

Nowadays they will.

Re:Huh...

[hesaigo999ca]

Great story, and sometimes needs to be revisited over and over, because too many times along the way, the boy starts his own company, and it ends there, streaming along making his big fortune, he never come back to save the starfish, few rarely do, although many do have that same notion.....

Re:Huh...

[cayenne8]

"Bill always claimed he was going to give away most of his fortune at age 55, I didn't believe it until I saw him do it. Kudo's to him for his generosity, for keeping his word, and for showing others that mega-philanthropy brings it's own rewards."

I'll bet his kids are going to be thrilled he's giving away their inheritance like this...

Re:That money was already pledged...

[jemenake]

...as the US Government has already pledged it for them. We call it "Death Taxes".

There's no such thing as a "death tax". You don't get taxed when you die. Want proof? Put in your will that you want to be buried with your money. They'll let you be buried with every last cent.

It's when money is transferred to someone else (inherited by an heir, earned as an employee, used to purchase a good or service) when it's taxed.

"Death tax" is just an insidious term made up by the Republicans to make the middle- and lower-classes think that could apply to them ("Well, gollie gee wilikers... y'know.. I'm a gonna die someday... an' I shor don't want to be taxed for dyin'"). After all, everybody dies... but the tax only kicks in on people who inherit large estates... that is why it's more-rightly called an "estate tax".

But Republicans avoid calling it that because it makes it sound like it only hits the rich... and they'd have trouble selling that to the public with that vernacular.

Leveraged philanthropy

[sam_handelman]

Allow me to explain.

1) Donate $1 million to the "Me Foundation".
2) The "Me Foundation" gets another $1 million in matching federal money to do their good work (education, medicine for the poor, whatever)
3) Given a near-total lack of oversight, the "Me Foundation" spends this $2 million on bullshit services provided by their for-profit vendor, "Me Incorporated LLC."
4) "Me Incorporated LLC" only spend about $200,000 to provide these bullshit services.
5) $800,000 of profit, on "leveraged philanthropy."

  Gates and Buffett are profiteering scum, and their so-called philanthropy is a travesty. Their educational initiatives are an outright scam (as outlined above), and even their much-ballyhooed HIV work is a travesty, which diverts - sorry, "leverages" - public money away from cheap and effective interventions.

Lucky lady!

[Gorimek]

I didn't know he was getting married!

What's that tax rate come to?

[jemenake]

Okay, so let me get this straight... he probably paid (or will pay) about 30% in federal and state taxes on his money since it's combined salary and capital gains. So, that means he takes home about 70% of it. Now, he says he's willing to give away half of that. So, he's perfectly happy to keep just 35%, actually. That's the equivalent of being taxed at 65%.

It's interesting to think about this when I hear people freak out about the idea of raising the highest tax-bracket rate from, say, 35% to 39%. They claim that, if we did this, all of the rich people would be so incensed that they'd take their money to other countries...

... yet here's a guy who's joining many other guys who are voluntarily, effectively, taxing themselves at about 65%.

Re:What's that tax rate come to?

[clone52431]

No, the tax rate is the percentage of your money that the government gets to decide how to spend.

It has nothing to do with how much money you keep and how much you give away, it has to do with who decides where the money goes... you or the government.

Re:What's that tax rate come to?

[jemenake]

No, the tax rate is the percentage of your money that the government gets to decide how to spend.

Regardless of who decides how it's spent, it gets spent on people that aren't him. In other words, he has decided that he only needs (or even wants) a small fraction of that money to spend on his own leisure and amusement.

Re:What's that tax rate come to?

[clone52431]

Regardless of who it gets spent on, HE DECIDED.

Re:Huh...

[BatGnat]

Maybe it has to do with that guy suing him, claiming he owns 80% of facebook on a deal made before it went public. i.e. give away the cash, so that guy cant get it....

Re:Huh...

[bluefoxlucid]

Actually, it's interesting, when you "Invest in Exxon-Mobil stock," you don't actually send money to Exxon-Mobil. You send it to a brokerage house that has a ton of Exxon-Mobil.

Funny thing though, the brokerage often hands out loans or buys IPOs for expanding companies-- that's how they survive, after all. With your invested money. Make no mistake, you still own the security you bought-- 200 shares of Exxon-Mobile-- but the brokerage you bought it from might not be able to buy it back if everyone sold it all back to the brokerage. So sell it to Scott Trade instead or something, who knows. Also these brokerages occasionally are parts of holding companies, which increase their holdings by venture capital investments-- meaning the money eventually moves that way as well.

The money they have on hand goes into banks as well. The banks again use this money to hand out small business loans, or invest in other companies. ETrade nearly dropped out, but Bank of America Bancorp threw them $2Billion to keep them afloat. Now they're back from $2.50/share to $20/share, wow.

You're quite right that most of your "investing" hits clearing houses and trading houses. You fail to understand that the trading houses and banks initially get their hands on those securities by buying IPOs and buying huge interests in small companies.

Re:Bush gave them tax cuts, so they should give ba

[clone52431]

So, basically, like the feudal system. A lot of peasants were pretty happy with that system, I guess...

God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater

[RazorSharp]

Kurt Vonnegut exposed this scam years before the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation existed: if you move a large portion of your money to a charity organization, it no longer gets taxed, and you make more in the long run. Also, when you die and you transfer control of the foundation to your heirs, it doesn't get hit with the inheritance tax.

If Zuckerberg and Gates cared about helping people, they would give money away anonymously. If they cared about helping people, they would use their power and money to expose corrupt politicians and support non-corrupt ones. But no, both of these guys and their corporations give the maximum campaign donations to the most corrupt politicians in Washington as bribes. This cocksuckers aren't changing anything, they're just trying to buy a positive public opinion.

Why is it that the Bill & Melinda foundation gives away Windows PCs to "support education?" How does having a computer that costs money to upgrade in the future help education, especially in third world countries? All schools in all countries should run Linux or Unix. If these guys were trying to change the world economically by empowering all classes, then I wouldn't be so cynical. But they're not trying to help anyone, they're just offering table scraps to keep the dogs loyal.

Re:Huh...

[dc29A]

Have you ever cleaned up a virus ridden PC? Or had to run into work Saturday at 4AM because the worm du jour was wreaking havoc on your servers? Do you maintain RadioactiveX code? Or VB6 crap?

Re:That money was already pledged...

[RazorSharp]

When you transfer your money to a charity organization you bypass the inheritance, or, should I say, "death tax."

Re:On that note

[clone52431]

Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them.

Jesus practiced plenty of righteousness in front of others, too, but he wasn’t doing it just to be seen by them.

Re:Huh...

[adisakp]

a man roared past him in a giant automatic beach combing and starfish catapulting machine which he had designed and built with his massive fortune as part of a fleet of vehicles to comb the worlds seashores spewing starfish back into the ocean

Ah yes, no matter how many times I hear it, the ancient fable of the giant starfish-catapulting machine is still a heartwarming classic.

Or at least it was until starfish population grew out of control, ate everything else in the ocean, and cause the biosphere to implode from the starfish imbalance.

Re:Class warfare talk is laugable, too

[RazorSharp]

"Warren Buffett. . .[i]n 2006, he says, he earned $46 million but paid only 18 percent of it in federal tax, whereas the average rate paid by his employees, whose salaries range from $60,000 to $750,000, was 33 percent. Buffett is convinced that this is no statistical fluke. In fact, he is willing to bet $1 million that the average tax rate (income and payroll) paid by the four hundred wealthiest people in the country is lower than that paid by their secretaries and receptionists."

"Since 1979 the average income of the top 1 percent of American households has doubled and has now hit a postwar record, surpassing the highs reached in the 1990s bull market. These fortunate souls now receive more pretax income than do the bottom 40 percent. Meanwhile, the income of the top 0.1 percent has tripled. This is part of a trend since 1980 toward an increasinly unequal distribution of national income in the United States, with those who are already very well-off—the top fifth of the country—now getting a larger slice of the pie than before. . .The flip side, of course, is that the bottom 80 percent now receives less."

"From World War II to the 1970s, the inflation-adjusted income of the median family doubled. But it rose only 18 percent between 1970 and 2003, and much of the gain was due to wives entering the labor force or people working longer hours. . .In fact, adjusted for inflation, wages for men remain below their 1973 peak, with young men in their thirties now earning 12 percent less than they did thirty years ago."

"The United States leads the world in executive pay. Japan's CEOs, for example, earn a salary of only $300,000 to $500,000 a year, with far fewer bonuses and stock options than their American counterparts. Since 2000, average pay for the American CEOs has declined slightly because stock prices are lower. Nevertheless, since 1980 the compensation of CEOs has grown from 42 times that of the average person working under them to 369 times greater. The median weekly salary for all workers is $659. If the average CEO works 60 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, then he or she earns that much every twenty minutes. Since 1990, CEO pay has gone up 571 percent. In comparison, corporate profits have grown by a relatively modest 114 percent, and the average worker's pay by a mere 37 percent (which is just above inflation at 32 percent). A schoolteacher who made $31,000 in 1990 would now make $177,000 if teachers' salaries had grown at the same rate of CEO pay."

SOURCE: Moral Issues in Business by William H. Shaw and Vincent Barry, pgs. 113-114

A Dicken's novel? Pretty much.

Re:Class warfare talk is laugable, too

[spiffmastercow]

Yes, they plot against you in smoky back rooms. Whatever. I know several people who have become very successful. They quite honestly have better things to think about.

You mean like screwing the country over for 900 billion dollars that will eventually bankrupt the country, just to get a tax break for themselves so they can buy a nicer private jet? Yeah, I'd say that's plotting against me, when you take "me" to mean an ordinary citizen without the means that these people have.

Re:Huh...

[Idiomatick]

Bill gates is going to be around for the next millennium? ... I think that would give the borg claim credence.

Re:Huh...

[trickyD1ck]

Yes. Did I throw away my PC and substituted pen and paper for Excel? -No.

Re:Huh...

[The Moof]

I don't know, Zuck's had some pretty bad things said about him, and if they're true, he's a pretty damn shady human being. Supposedly, he made his fortune illicitly, he's a cocky asshole, and he's destroying your standards of privacy while expanding his fortune doing so.

However, as I said, it's all anecdotal so far - He's settled out of court for one lawsuit, currently has another in progress, and the movie about him didn't paint him in a decent light (I hear). Add the chat transcripts that've been release (calling your customer base "dumb fucks" because they use your product), and you've got a person who's probably not going to be the moral pillar of society, either online or off.

Re:Huh...

[eof]

That is how it should work in theory.

Unfortunately in practice these days, the money tends to exchange hands between investors a fair few times before it finally gets to something that will actually use it to generate work. By that time, the investment must generate an obnoxiously high return in order to satisfy all of the middlemen, which can limit who qualifies for that investment.

Which is all part of the problem with finance these days. There is a huge, bloated infrastructure of money men that are moving money around, keeping a cut, and allowing precious little of it to actually go to work, at which point the returns have to be unreasonably high. Recipe for disaster, as we've been experiencing firsthand.

Re:Huh...

[mrlibertarian]

You make it sounds like if everybody invested money, everybody would be 10x richer? Where do you think all this extra money comes from, trees?

Yes, if everybody invested money, everybody would be richer. Not in terms of money, but in terms of goods.

Re:Huh...

[pookemon]

I like to see the study done where the Sea Stars were confirmed to be native rather than a species introduced via the ballast water of a passing Freighter.

Do they count taxation as "giving"?

[Lashat]

nt

Stockmarkets don't always go up - in fact...

[SanguineTeddy]

http://www.economist.com/node/9912566?story_id=9912566 "Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh and Mike Staunton of the London Business School examined* the record of 16 stockmarkets which were in continuous operation over the course of the 20th century. In itself, this selection showed survivorship bias by excluding the likes of Russia and China. The academics found that only three other countries could match the American record of having no 20-year periods with negative real returns. Other investors were far less lucky. Japanese, French, German and Spanish investors all suffered instances where they had to wait 50-60 years to earn a positive real return; in Italy and Belgium, the waiting period stretched to 70 years. It was no good following the famous advice to "put the shares in a drawer and forget about them"; the furniture would not have lasted that long." I'd recommend reading the whole article, but long story short, the belief that the stockmarket over the long run always goes up is based off nothing more than confirmation bias, really. So this strategy of investing in the stockmarket could actually come back to bite them in the ass. Although a one-off gift of, say, a billion dollars, might be "pissed away" relatively quickly, at least the money would definitely be used and reach those who need it.

Re:Huh...

[Whorhay]

I'm pretty sure I head something about Bill Gates and Warren Buffet actually promoting letting the tax cuts for the wealthy expire if not actually go up.

Re:Huh...

[SimonInOz]

William Henry "Bill" Gates III (born October 28, 1955)

Gosh, that was hard. Thanks Wikipedia.
This is Slashdot, not Fox News. We expect occasional checking of the facts.

Re:Huh...

[gangien]

If they really wanted to help out the country that allowed them to make their fortunes

Have you ever taken the time to consider that by them getting rich, they already have? Or you've never benefited from facebook(even if you haven't, millions have).

How sweet of him!

[wolftone]

I do this every month. I don't call it a 'give-away'. I call it 'rent'.

Re:Huh...

[drinkypoo]

Most offensive behavior on the internet not engaged in intentionally by otherwise apparently intelligent people is carried out by infected Windows machines. Meanwhile, there are alternatives. I think it's safe to say that Microsoft carries at least partial responsibility for most of the 0wnage-related ills of the internet including DDoSes and the like.

Re:Huh...

[coalrestall]

He used his massive fortune to buy new ones.

Suggestion

[turing_m]

For the ultimate irony, Zuckerberg should donate the money to privacy advocacy.

Re:Huh...

[rocca]

Thank you!

Re:Huh...

[Alex Belits]

I can certainly give all money I have away if it would force richest few top percents to lose all theirs (I don't even care how). I earn my living by doing productive work, so I can live even without any "savings" I have, however they have literally nothing to themselves but their money.

Re:Huh...

[tcr]

[ Mark Zuckerberg and 2 others like this ]

Re:Huh...

[TheRaven64]

And then countries realize that a treaty is a piece of paper, IP is incredibly easy to steal, and the US would try to kill the local pharma industry even without the treaty

It doesn't take invasion. Look at what the USA has done to Cuba with just economic sanctions. If you start disregarding a treaty with the USA, one of your biggest potential customers goes away. If you're clever, you've spent this time building good economic relations with India, China, and the EU, but you may not have that option.

That all philanthropists are only interested in keeping people poor, so they can keep giving their money away?

All philanthropists? Certainly not. There are some that do amazing amounts of good. The microloans concept, for example, has helped raise large numbers of people out of poverty and has caused self-sustaining growth. This kind of philanthropy is laudable - it results in an increase in standard of living for those on the receiving end, without making them dependent on the givers and without any direct return.

I object to organisations like the B&MGF, which make investments that give a good economic return to the donors while perpetuating conditions of poverty for the recipients being classed as 'philanthropy'. The aim of charity should always be to reduce the need for charity. This has been the goal of organisations like Oxfam for many years. It does not appear to be the goal of the B&MGF. I find it hard to believe that people with the economic and business skill of Bill Gates would be pursuing this course accidentally and with good intentions: they can not credibly claim ignorance of these issues.

I suspect you're merely jealous that philanthropists aren't handing you their money

Projecting much? I am in no need of charity, and I hope I never am. If I ever am, I would hope that the charity would be given with the aim of improving my life, rather than improving the economic standing of the givers. If it were the latter, then I might still accept it if it benefitted me, but I don't think I'd call it charity.

Re:Huh...

[dacaldar]

Thanks for that - I'm glad somebody else knows the real version.

This one was my Dad's favourite to use in various speeches he made as a high school principal. It stuck with me since he told it to me as a kid.

Re:Huh...

[NeutronCowboy]

Look at what the USA has done to Cuba with just economic sanctions.

Yep. Pretty much nothing. Castro (one of them at least) is still in power, it still doesn't give a flying fuck about the US and US businesses still can't make money there. In other words, every single goal of the economic sanctions has failed.

The aim of charity should always be to reduce the need for charity. This has been the goal of organisations like Oxfam for many years. It does not appear to be the goal of the B&MGF.

Then you don't understand the impact that diseases have on the development of an economy. If you'd read the studies and success stories, the single greatest bang for the buck when it comes to charity is to make sure that people are healthy. Close behind that is education. The B&MGF is active in both. You're right, they're not pursuing this accidentally: they understand what the best ways are to lift people out of poverty.

It seems to me you don't understand what it takes for an area and a person to be economically successful.

Re:Huh...

[LingNoi]

Thing is that mindset is propagated throughout the pay grades. The extremely poor cleaner that makes very little thinks the exact same thing about office workers making twice their salary and not doing anything all day.

So basically who are you to say that Zuckerberg doesn't deserve his own money. He went out there and got to the point where he is today. You can argue that the way he did it was not moral but not about how he does or does not deserve his own money.

Re:Huh...

[Alex Belits]

Thing is that mindset is propagated throughout the pay grades. The extremely poor cleaner that makes very little thinks the exact same thing about office workers making twice their salary and not doing anything all day.

And he is right, too -- if even a small percentage of "office workers" (lawyers, middle managers, etc.) people did not get their inflated salaries, he would get better education to do something productive, and his "work" would be done by robots.

However since money are squandered, it's easier to stop progress in technology, sabotage education, and hire desperate poor people to do jobs that can be easily replaced by machines if only there were enough educated engineers to make those machines.

Re:Huh...

[salmosri]

Likewise, i do consider it to be a great moral story to show that you do not necessarily need to fix everything, or have a solution for everything - but that every little bit of effort matters, and you can make a difference regardless how small it might seem on the greater scheme of things...