Slashdot Mirror
A Critical Examination of Bill Gates' Philanthropic Record
sam_handelman writes "The common perception among Slashdotters is that while Bill Gates may cause us some professional difficulties, he makes up for it with an exemplary philanthropic record. His philanthropic efforts may turn out to be not as altruistic as one may think. Edweek, not ordinarily an unfriendly venue for Gates, is running a series of blog post/investigative journalism pieces into what the Gates' foundation is doing, and how it is not always well received by stakeholders."
See subject: Anyone that's worked with foundations knows it. I had some dealings with companies that set things like that up for the extremely wealthy whilst I lived in NY City in 2003.
I.E.-> It's better to spend monies on foundations than face tax penalties that would otherwise ensue. You're probably not that much different, considering you probably have monies in IRA's, property, or business investments!
* So - Does this make "King Billy" (I call him that out of respect, NOT ridicule & I have for years) some 'evil guy'? No.
(He's just doing what he has to with HIS monies, and in the most sensible manner possible. Were you in his shoes, would YOU do anything differently with YOUR money? I doubt it.)
APK
P.S.=> Conversely, does it make him a 'saint'? No, of course not - he's just a guy managing his money, and he does a good job of that... I like his educational investments the most! apk
A fair amount of Microsoft's money is going to wipe out malaria and polio and shitloads of other diseases, on people from nations who will grow up to use pirated software. No wonder the scumbag stakeholders are pissed.
Some apps are WYSIWYG. Some others are WYSIWTF.
While it seems credible that some money comes back to Bill Gates, they aren't making a strong case that this would actually be his goal. AFAIK he's getting poorer (less rich) rather than richer now. Also, he would have very little incentive to get even more money other than to pump it back into the foundation. This article does not convince me that this isn't real charity and AFAIK many projects have also been very effective and helpful.
Large nonprofit organizations get increasingly likely to be run in questionable ways. The most common failing, of course, is just the usual inefficiency and bureaucracy. But when you're moving around millions or billions of dollars, opportunities for personal interest and corruption are around many corners. As this article notes, nonprofit-corporate partnerships may benefit corporate shareholders, depending on how the partnership is structured (who fronts the money, who benefits, what long-term effects are generated, etc.). And even at levels below official big partnerships, there are always decisions being made: using a contractor here or there, adopting one technology or methodology over another one, etc. It's just really hard to move around billions of dollars without an array of consequences, sometimes intended and sometimes not (and sometimes intended by some people and not intended by others).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
It sounds like Edweek is complaining that the Gates Foundation channels its money through private enterprises to achieve its goals instead of corrupt African dictatorships?
Why do people think they have a voice in how a private not-for-profit spends their money? The Gates Foundation does a lot of good. This seems like a lot of knocking down the guy on top.
From what I read, instead of handing out money directly.. which just leads to corruption, he is leveraging it in a way that prevents the money from being abused. Free money never works when it comes to aid son.
did you forget to take your meds?
The common perception among Slashdotters is that while Bill Gates may cause us some professional difficulties, he makes up for it with an exemplary philanthropic record.
Not me. I've voiced my concerns that are not so warmly received.
The short of it is that I think what Gates is doing is great but I don't understand why they buy research facilities in America and not Africa or why all the drug companies that get to sell their cures to Africa are all American. I mean without stability, roads and other infrastructure, Africa is going to constantly need someone else to fix their problems. And the money from the B&G Foundation stays in America invested in American companies that pays out to American companies that provide "cures" for Africa. It will perpetually work that way.
Imagine aliens landed on Earth, took an assessment of us and were saddened to see war, pollution, poverty, etc. So they say they're going to help us and they buy 10 long range matter transmitters from another alien race and give them to Earth. But if we ask them on how to make the transmitters ourselves they just laugh and say "Please, you're still searching for subatomic particles. Plus, you're just going to use them for war if you can make them. And on top of that, you would have to pay sums you cannot fathom to the alien race who invented these machines. When these break, we'll get you some new ones." Meanwhile they're receiving accolades from the galactic senate and Earth remains full of war, pollution, poverty, etc.
It's a horrible truth but the one thing Africa has a lot of is humans. Life is cheap there. If you want to reverse that, you need to introduce stability and then farming and then commerce. There are huge areas where crime, corruption and warlords make it impossible to raise crops. Curing malaria is important but it isn't going to stop that from being the hungriest place on Earth. And it's not going to raise the value of human life there. Gates' idea to fix that is to pair up with Monsanto (surprise another American company with tons of IP). Right. I wonder if they'll patent the seeds they breed that grow well in regions of Africa?
Just like thinking up a new microfinancing system can win you a Nobel Prize, ideas on how to make areas secure and stable will go much further for farming in Africa than importing Monsanto seed with terminator genes.
My work here is dung.
Where is the money supposed to come from, tooth fairies?
This is a story about how philanthropic Bill Gates is, so yeah, the money comes from him. That's the whole point of charity -- you give away portions of your wealth for a cause.
Donor nations were shocked last month, when UNICEF disclosed that it has been forced to pay artificially elevated prices for vaccines under an arrangement called the Advance Market Commitment, which was brokered by Gates Foundation-dominated GAVI alliance, to greatly increase drug company profits. Stakeholders also worry that industry reports of particular vaccine's effectiveness might be skewed by marketing goals.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation proves once again that leopards dont change their spots.
This is a bad hatchet-job.
For example, it demonizes the Gates Foundation for having some partnerships with Monsanto. Without discussing the details of the actual partnership, and the expected status quo, and the change the partnership creates.
It effectively creates a vast conspiracy of things the author doesn't like. And then blames them on the Gates foundation, because it does some things they don't like. Like their portfolio is in a double-blind trust that can own stock in evil corporations like coca-cola. Which is a fair criticism, buried in the middle of a paragraph halfway down the page. There is some content in here, but it's either buried or so biased that it is like listening to Noam Chomsky.
And it mentions leverage like it's a dirty word.
The quality of slashdot is really going downhill when this kind of thing makes it onto the page.
So, do I need to RTFA to have that confirmed, or is that pretty much the gist of it?
Hey, I've got an idea. Try RTFA.
I know, new here etc etc...
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Eh, nice try. Consider ``saving as many human lives possible'' being pretty much the only goal, and all starts to fall into place. It's not about making folks happy, or not leveraging, it's about getting the most saved lives for your moneh, using whatever means [if it means using your moneh to get more moneh, good, if it means using your politics to get others to go along with you, good, etc.].
Heck, it's one of the few non-profits that does things by the numbers. Look around, see what you can do with your $$$ that saves the most lives: identify stuff like malaria, and HIV,... which one kills most folks? malaria. So HIV gets no attention, at least not while other things are much bigger killers.
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
And that is what I am talking about, if you build an entire business out of charity, you should make it profitable, you should be able to show that your management costs are very low and that the money that the charity is providing is mostly making it to the actual recipients of whatever the benefit is, and if you can show that, then you can run the charity as a business by hiring people and advertising the fact that you are a very efficient charity and those who want to donate to that cause should do it through you rather than through other charity groups, because you are the most efficient in it.
Only donating your own money is one thing and it always ends, one person's resources are not limited. Creating a steady stream of donations by running a successful charity business is another.
You can't handle the truth.
Yet people have been denying this from day one on the phrase of "oh it's philanthropic".
If someone can't figure out that working with Glaxosmithkline, Monsanto and Coca Cola (who happily works with Cargill, as if they aren't bad enough on their own) might be a bad thing, then they deserve to have a fast one pulled on them by the Gates foundation.
Maybe now people will realize that Bill Gates didn't step down to do "Great things for the world". He stepped down to continue the Microsoft concept of business and expand it *further*, outside of the US's reach.
Shout all you like that the problem with health care is the US government, nobody can hold up an example country with fully privatized health care which is being run well (Well as in, people dont die early or have to live with treatable health problems for lack of income, not well as in it makes corporates boatload of money).
Mr.Gates resources are actually pretty close to not limited. He could easily set enough aside for the foundation that only the interest would ever have to be spent.
No matter how you run it though there is no need to use it as a tool to make people spend more money.
Well I know this won't be popular, but you shouldn't build a "business" out of a charity. You should, however, run your charity like a business to make sure it is efficient. If you make your charity a true business then it is no longer a charity...it's a business. I'm thinking not-for-profit or non-profit here, but I am not intelligent enough to understand the nuances.
In an inflationary environment created by the government the real return on interest is negative.
You can't handle the truth.
Their problem seems to be that Gates is focussed on building sustainable businesses that can survive after the charity taps get turned off. That bastard!
Doesn't he realise that he is just supposed to pump money into Africa and hope that amongst the missile launchers and the AK47s, someone manages to smuggle in some penicillin?
Are we supposed to be shocked that a man who made a huge fortune in the private sector, favours a private sector approach when he is trying to get shit done?
Running a charity as a business ensures that the money that goes to charity is pretty steady and doesn't depend on a few wealthy one time donors. I thought this place liked charity? I don't even support charity and I have more sense about how to run it than anybody here.
You can't handle the truth.
The money is supposed to come from people who selflessly give money and time out of compassion to help others, not to make a profit. That's why charities in the US are almost always non-profit organizations.
You think otherwise, because you are an autistic narcissist. Every time you post something on Slashdot, especially when you start the discussion, you demonstrate the precisely inhuman way to act.
--
make install -not war
>Edweek, not ordinarily an unfriendly venue for Gates,
>not
>ordinarily
>unfriendly
Why. Why do you do this? Why give passive voice such a gigantic hug, kiss and grope up the skirt?
Do you mean ordinarily friendly, or usually friendly, or friendly with unfriendly articles being the exception? If so, say so. Remove extraneous logical operators and use active voice.
Your readers will thank you.
--
BMO
Until the US government got involved, running US healthcare strictly as a business left millions of us to get sick, stay sick and die, without preventive or responsive care available. That left many millions of other people to stay trapped in a sick home, unable to live fully, work properly or contribute economically or educationally.
Since the time the US government got involved in a coordinated way, through Medicaid and Medicare, the large majority of the population has been freed from the worst afflictions, healthwise and otherwise. Meanwhile the expanded healthcare economy has completely transformed health science and practice.
You and your fellow "libertarian" corporate anarchists would return us to the bad old days. Next you'll tell us war is good for the economy, so we should have more of what ruins us.
--
make install -not war
I peaked at what you wrote, and there's this:
In a free market economy, the unemployment is very low, anybody with a job can afford * health care and insurance, because those services are very cheap, just like they were prior to 1965 **.
That's obvious bullshit. The introduction of very expensive diagnosis machines (MRI, gene readup and the like) and treatments (artificial organs, radiation treatments) push costs up. Probably hospital infrastructure's more expensive now, doctors more trained etc. Also patients want the best possible care whenever they realize their life and health is at stake. Best possible care today is expensive.
Trying to use the logic of supply and demand to determine prices is doomed to fail here. If I'm healthy, my demand for chemotherapy is zero. If I'm dying, my demand is infinite. Plug those into your equations and see.
Yeah, it worked so great that in 1965 all kinds of things would have been a death sentence that are now done on an outpatient basis.
Even in a perfect free market land if you get a disease that so few people have that no money can ever be made on a cure you are totally screwed.
Even worse is that short term profit motives will slow research to a crawl on all but the most profitable sectors of drug research. We would be able to have 40 kinds of pecker medicine and not much else.
Charity comes without attachments or requirements.
If this article is in any way true, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is in no way acting charitably.
To prove the Bill & Melinda Foundation isn't perfectly run? To suggest it's a sinister organisation perhaps?
There's no love for billg here that's for sure but poo-pooing his attempts (however imperfect) at doing good in the world is just petty.
throw new NoSignatureException();
Shout all you like that the problem with health care is the US government, nobody can hold up an example country with fully privatized health care which is being run well (Well as in, people dont die early or have to live with treatable health problems for lack of income, not well as in it makes corporates boatload of money).
I hear what you are saying, and I tend to agree with you (having been in Japan, I know what good health care is, and how bad we have it here in the USA.) However, @roman_mir does have a point. Fully privatized health care DID work.
The problem here is not whether health care is privatized, or whether other countries have better health care systems with some type of government intervention. The root of the problem is the collusion of government and health care firms, which have created a self-perpetuating carcinogenic mass of middle man sitting between the patient and the physician.
Not all private enterprises are created equal. There are those that compete freely (with price controls dictated by supply and demand), and there are cartels. Two solutions to the problem exist:
1. Have a government-sponsored health care system as found in Japan or Germany
2. Have the goverment dismantle the health care middlemen cartels, forcing them to compete freely.
Either one will work, and both require goverment intervention of some form. People need to stop looking at goverment vs private enterprise as if both formed a zero-sum game, a black-n-white, matter-antimatter dichotomy. They are not. Such parrochial black-n-white window painting serve well to pander simple solutions to the simple-minded masses on both sides of the political fence, but that's the extend of its usability.
The young people love Bill Gates, but we keep telling them this is NOT the same Bill Gates we grew up with! This is an old Bill Gates whose trying to get into heaven now.
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
You're right but many will fail to understand. I'm as big a Microsft hater as anyone but find it somewhat ridiculous to criticise Gates for giving billions to charity. His foundation has an obligation to properly steward the funds under its control and investing them in a range of blue-chips - some of which have dubious practices in the 3rd world - doesn't contradict his charitable aims. The real problem is the behaviour of companies like Monsanto. It has nothing to do with Bill Gates or his charity.
Well I know this won't be popular, but you shouldn't build a "business" out of a charity. You should, however, run your charity like a business to make sure it is efficient. If you make your charity a true business then it is no longer a charity...it's a business. I'm thinking not-for-profit or non-profit here, but I am not intelligent enough to understand the nuances.
Well, I agree most with your last sentence. 8^)
I've worked for and with NGOs and non-profits large and small, from UN agencies to universities to the independent think tank where I am now. Let me assure you that the death-knell of any non-profit is to have it taken over by someone who claims it needs to run more like a business.
Profit-making and non-profit organisations are very different in their nature and -more importantly- their culture. They each have a million ways to fail, but here's the key: Non-profit organisations can and must measure success by something other than financial returns. This impacts every single aspect of its work. It sometimes means that you can (and should) spend more time on seemingly pointless details getting things just right. It sometimes means that you work on things that you know have a high chance of failure, but you take them on precisely because no profit-making outfit can't afford the risk.
The killer on both sides of the equation, though, is complacency and power. Allow either to become too apparent and the same sociopathic personalities begin to appear at the head of the organisation. And though they die in different ways, their death is a painful spectacle. Non-profits, especially those with guaranteed budgets, get over-run by careerist know-nothings who spend more time agonising over their per diems and life-saving meetings than actually thinking about what they're supposed to be achieving.
In profit-making ventures, the organisations get overrun by strategic thinking business-school types who spend more time plotting strategy and market position than actually running the fricking company.
Non-profits die like old oak trees: They rot from the inside; they remain standing for far longer than they should, providing shade for a few but hosting an increasing army of parasites.
Profit-making companies die by fire. They remain standing until the first lightning strike, then collapse in flames, sometimes taking half the countryside with them.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
I think both of those are fine.
I believe the problem is the deals with Pharm companies that demand more expensive drugs be purchased. That kind of running it like a typical MS business. If you really want to save lives you get the cheapest drugs that do the job.
Running health care as a business worked out really well for USA before the government got involved, I don't want to repeat it, so here is the argument I wrote down some time ago.
In 1920 or so? Everything stated there was a special, one of a kind situation. Look at what the other companies at large were doing. There's a reason there were major pushes to unionize workers (Ford was not a cause) Workers were generally exploited. Lifespans were significantly less than today. Various diseases ran rampant, all cured or mitigated since the government got involved. (After all, under Ron Paul, vaccinations et al would be up to the individual - wouldn't want to get the government involved in that now, would we?) The one thing I have to give Ron Paul - I believe him when he says he believes in these statements, he did watch a campaign worker and close friend die of a treatable disease after all. The thing he hasn't answered is how he feels about someone involved in an accident who doesn't have proof of insurance readily available and needs immediate and expensive care: does he let them die or treat them? If they cannot provide proof of financial capability to pay, at what point do they kick them out of the hospital (during the operation?). What if they do have insurance and die because of refusal to provide care?
No matter how you slice it, care will be given, and some won't be able to pay, which leads us down the same road we're on now, perhaps at a different rate, but the same road none the less. Unless you advocate the full set of (hopefully) unpalatable options listed above, you're in favor of the mandated insurance clause, and would actually be a proponent of at least basic universal healthcare. There's a set of diseases IMNSHO that would require additional health insurance, and of course most of the cosmetic type things would be excluded, and undergoing them might require purchase of additional insurance (as part of the procedure cost) to cover the potential complications thereof.
Of-course same thing applies to SS, etc.
SS is a different boat, I didn't but lightly skim this one after the Libertarian diatribe. SS is not quite a Ponzi scheme, and it was never meant to be the sole source of income for retired folks. Why isn't it a full Ponzi scheme, because it actually tried to set up a partial pay ahead balance system. You might want to visit the SS site for some amusing facts about internet myths.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Did you read the articles (duh, Slashdot, I know...) - the problem is the Foundation is campaigning on behalf of it's business partners to get the governments who they claim to be helping to establish policies that benefit Monsanto rather than their population. The end result is, Foundation spends x, corporate partners gain x*y. Bill Gats (personally) and Foundation then also gain from investment in corporate partner. This is not about charity at all, it is about disguising dodgy business practises as charity.
All of this 'run it like a business' stuff is misplaced, becase it is always meant as 'like a for profit business'. It is misplaced when applied to government and misplaced when applied to charities.
A for profit business has the single goal of making a profit. At whenever mean necessary, and even if that means is illegal, as long as the profit exceeds the penalty it should be done. No matter the external harm. If distilled down all decisions at the business should be about profit: who to hire; who to fire; changes to the product; which congressmen to lobby; etc.
If the goal is to just be efficient and mindful of the purpose of the organization's existence when making decision, there is no need use for profit businesses as a model. Efficiency isn't their exclusive domain nor are a lot of them even good at it. Look at pre-bailout GM, who could possibly consider them efficient?
People run their households in an efficient manner every day. You don't burn your furniture to heat your house.
http://www.deathhousebarber.com/images/jr-647-copy-2.jpg (another fine example of philantropy, al capone's soup kitchen)
Gates is using his fundation to:
=> Remove cash from his taxable income
=> provide a cushy long term job & tax free playground for his descendent
=> invest in feel good actions to boost his cash cow's marketing drive.
Moreover if I steal your money, or con you out by putting you in a situation where I have a monopoly on something you need it's a crime.
The fact that I might or might not give it to somebody else does not make it less of a crime, particularly if I cannot claim to be some "robin hood" equalizer if I prefer to steal from the weak and uneducated.
What is surprising is not that his philanthropic record is criticized, but that there are people who are not raving maniacs or subnormal idiots who didn't realize this earlier.
In practice churches and philantropic activities should be subjected to a flat rate tax at the highest corporate taxation level.
I know it's all the rage to bash Monsanto as the big, evil corporation that causes all the misery in the world. But I feel obligated to point out that it's the research work that companies like Monsanto and ADM do that have given us the crop yields to support 7 billion people on a planet where most people aren't even farmers anymore. Do you really think we could sustain this planet as it is with a bunch of organic backyard gardens and fields of non-GM crops?
So unless a significant portion of the population is willing to commit suicide and another large portion willing to go back to being semi-starving sustenance farmers, we kind of need that evil Monsanto and its ilk.
In a similar vein, sure it's easy to bash big pharma too. But would you rather go back to life before the vaccines that have eradicated childhood diseases that used to kill millions each year? It's easy to talk big when you don't have to watch your child die of whooping cough, of course.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Exactly, this is lobbying & bribery that is being portrayed as charity. He donates a few million for drugs if a country agrees to stop using cheap imported drugs (that violate patents but would end up saving many more lives). Its sickening and immoral.
Medicare running out of money has nothing to do with whether or not it was a good idea. It is running out of money because of the combination of a baby boom and a poor economy. Even if it single handedly made the baby boom possible, it didn't make it necessary, and so it still was not necessarily a bad idea. In fact, statistics suggest that more, not less, government aid results in better systems.
Another way of looking at it is that Medicare isn't designed to be profitable. The amount of money it can get is determined by law makers who decide how much goes to Medicare and how much goes elsewhere, like say, the military. If the military was running out of money, it wouldn't mean having a military is a bad idea, it would mean we're not funding it enough. It's the same with Medicare.
Meanwhile Big Pharma has let farmers stuff farm animals with antibiotics until resistant bacteria (including old killers like tuberculosis) are a major health problem, while failing to develop new antibiotics. I, like many older people, depend on a couple of drugs to remain healthy and reasonably comfortable, but I believe that the drug industry needs supervision and regulation, just like the banks.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Spending all the income on bonuses to the executives and window dressing, sounds in every way exacly like running it as a business. Running it as a business is what they should move away from, which is why charities dominated by volunteers are so much more efficient.
I think that when most people say a non-profit should be "run like a business", they really just mean that the organization should be setting concrete goals and objectively measuring progress towards those goals and evaluating all the organizations actions as they relate to achieving those goals.
No, that's precisely the kind of talk I was objecting to. For one, it leads to insane reporting requirements, often in situations where every hour and every dollar spend doing actual work saves -or at least changes- lives. For another, it leads to a desire for quantifiable metrics, which mean that a ton of really important aspects of development work get left by the wayside, because they can't be easily measured. For yet another, it turns the conversation into a financial one. That's important, sure. Nobody wants their money to be wasted. But it should not be the only topic discussed when evaluating the success of a non-profit.
All too frequently, though, that's precisely what happens when people try to run a non-profit 'like a business.'
I know it sounds whippy-dippy to say that concrete goals are of secondary interest when the real goal is saving lives, but bear with me. As a good friend of mine who worked in disarmament used to say, it's hard to know if you're doing well when you measure your success in terms of the number of people who didn't die. They don't always show up when you're forced to measure your progress in terms of 'concrete goals.'
I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. Good financial controls are essential. We're in screaming agreement on that count. But that's not nearly as big a part of the conversation as you might think when it comes to measuring success in this kind of work.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Why is it harder for large countries to fund healthcare than small countries? I don't understand the rationale behind claiming that it does.
GDP per capita is surely a better indication of how good healthcare _should_ be, generally. Low population density can add problems, but countries like Canada and Norway seem to manage ok with this.
All other countries with more than 100m people are much poorer than the US, so a straight comparison is a little worthless, IMO.
You can make an interesting correlation lines between visits of the BMG fundation to emerging countries, and the influence on copyright laws, patents protections, and the type of software these government select (after the visit).
The fundation is only charitable if you believe that charity starts on ones door (preferably on the inside side where you personally live).
It seems many Ayn Rand fans literally had their mind blown away, ... :-)
And they are still searching for it
Mr.Gates resources are actually pretty close to not limited. He could easily set enough aside for the foundation that only the interest would ever have to be spent.
Actually, one of the characteristics of Mr. Gates's charity is that this will not happen.
Gates's position is that while this sounds good, what you end up with is a charity that exists to function like a business. And then, like a business (let's take Microsoft for example), you end up with an organization that's weighed down with layers of middle managers, most of whose chief priority is to keep the business (charity) running -- not to achieve its goals, but to protect their own jobs.
Gates rejected that model. Instead his charity has a mandate that it must spend ALL of its money by XYZ date. After that date, the Gates Foundation will be broke, and it will disappear. Personally I admire this decision.
Breakfast served all day!
Why is it harder to design a space telescope than a magnifying glass? A space telescope is much more complex. More people + lower population density ==> Higher complexity.
Call me crazy, but I don't think business should be run like a for-profit business either. That is to say, I don't think people should generally be motivated by, "what's going to generate the most possible profit at the lowest investment over the course of the next quarter."
If you're making a computer OS, then focus on making a kickass computer OS. If you're building hardware, make awesome hardware. Build your business around your business, around doing a good job at the thing your company does, and not around generating short-term profit.
Sure, yes, obviously you need to make a profit. You need to at least break even, or you'll go out of business. But so long as a business is making enough profit to keep their doors open, then in my not-so-humble opinion, they should devote their attention to doing a better job at serving the clients/customers and providing good products, services, and support.
Oh, and yeah, I know. Shareholders, shareholders, bla bla bla. Fuck'em. If we can't run our businesses responsibly because everyone needs to constantly kowtow to the abstract idea of "maximizing investors' profits", then it's time to reevaluate our system of investment.
Even if his charities were genuine (which they are only to a very limited degree, as anybody really looking could see early on), how massive counter-innovative work, his arrogance and incompetence pushed on countless people (I will never, ever, understand how Office users put up with this much pain) is staggering. One lifetime is not enough to make up for so much evil, even if he tried really hard. BG is scum did incredible damage without any redeeming qualities in his professional work.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The population of the U.S. is not growing unsustainably, were it not for immigrants, we'd have a net loss in population. The U.S. stopped producing more than replacement about 1999.
Medicare and Medicaid are running out of money because the population is getting older and poorer, the latter mainly due to the current recession. The former due to the Me Generation finally getting read to pop their clogs.
What the U.S. will be forced to do is reduce benefits either by raising the age limit for Medicare and/or taxing to spend on Medicaid. The new health bill contains quite a few new taxes to pay for the increases they want the States to make in Medicaid. There's no fixing Medicare with increased taxes mainly because the younger generation is too small for the Baby Boom Blob.
Other nations haven't necessarily avoided the problems either. Usually they use some form of rationing. In the U.S., we use the insurance companies and their "death panels" (someone has to determine what gets covered, they just aren't government death panels, the former apparently do not distress Conservative Republicans whereas the latter are presumably the spawn of Satan). Also, the U.S. as allowed the growth of "specialty" medicine to provide extraordinary life styles for the specialists. And the U.S. allows the Court system to rape the doctors in malpractice thus requiring those nice insurance companies to get another paycheck.
Another post on the site asked rhetorically: Who elected them? Why do they get to influence government policy? The post was complaining about the Gates Foundation's effort to support school vouchers ( which I too support, as a step toward making education voluntary ), but I would also tend to agree that Bill Gates' or my voice should not be able to drown out Joe Shmoe's.
If corporate donations influence the policies of politicians, then they can influence the policies of charitable foundations. Not only that, but one may imagine a world where humans patronize their employers as workers and other businesses as customers, while those entities in turn patronise politicians and also charitable organizations.
The vast majority of the value the average person has as a patron ends is reified as who they work for and what they buy rather than what they believe would be best for them politically. Vast swathes of idiocy make considered voting largely irrelevant.
People ( me included ) don't know what is best for them anyway, and must rely on the sources of information and opinion around them to make a best guess. Often people look for an attractive style or group and trust the consensus to have been well arrived at. Turn up the heat slowly and people will happily boil like a lobster in a pot.
In the Red States, they elect Cokelicans, in the Blue States, it's the Pepsicrats. There's no need to vote with anything but your wallet. It's a matter of taste preference. Elect Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho ( Brought to you by Carl's Jr )
Privatized X is no more efficient than public X unless there is perfect competition. Monopoly, oligopoly, and imperfect competition is inefficient wrt consumers, which is WHY government is inefficient as it monopolizes force ( hopefully ).
Charities trying to direct the use of taxpayer dollars by contributing is an attempt to purchase the force ( power to collect taxes ) that the governent monopolizes.
Charities ultimately benefit the donors. When the donors are human, mostly the charities provide the service of making the donors feel good. Often the act of Charity is ill considered. Beneficiarys don't control Charities as a rule, when something is free, you take it, even if you don't like the idea of it being given away for free, such as printed ( or borrowed ) money from the government. If you depend on it, you won't want to see it go ( like any other dole ).
Considered Charity of any kind is inherently a rebellious act. It's voluntary unlike paying taxes. The effects can be good or bad for a bystander, or for the one committing the willful act of Charity.
Consider Charity, and the Charity of others.
...
Well, to be fair, it's not just the US government who makes this stuff fail. Countries like, oh, Sweden (or wherever it reputedly works out well financially and effectively, I think this was pretty much the only country that fits the mold) don't have the other socioeconomic problems the US does which exasperate the issue: obesity, obesity, diabetes epidemic, and of course, a health system itself which is merely a shell of a host for the pharmaceutical and "healthcare assisting" companies.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
One of the problems with these perpetual trusts is that long after the founder is dead they become sinecures for the people running them, making the occasional nominal grant while absorbing most of the trust income in salary.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I've worked in the non-profit world myself, and it's equally a death-knell not to be run like a business at all. For example no organization that fails to watch its cash flow can continue to operate. Believe me an irreversible negative cash flow is a financial fire, just as much in a non-profit as a for-profit. I've seen up front what happens to a non-profit that fails to attend to financial realities, and it is not pretty.
We used to sometimes say that the difference between for-profit and non-profit was that "owner's equity" on the balance sheet was re-labelled "retained earnings". Of course we *knew* that a non-profit has different priorities than a for-profit; and that non-profit and government budgets are run according to stricter principles (spending is *authorized* rather than *estimated*). But the point is that you still have to manage finite resources, coordinate people, set and achieve objectives, etc. So for many of us who were in support positions rather than line positions, being in a non-profit made very little difference in how we did our job, other than we took a lower salary for the privilege of doing good in the world.
In fact, business and non-profit management shares a very significant failure mode that you point out. You take an interesting organization and you give it a leader who is uses it primarily as a vehicle for ego-gratification. The difference is that in the non-profit world you have this co-dependency relationship with donors who equally see the organization as a vehicle for ego-gratification, which sometimes allows brain-dead organization to stumble forward for a few more years.
The difference between non-profit and for-profit management, aside from accounting technicalities, is *ethics*. In the non-profit world you have many more ethical duties, but as in for-profit enterprises, the only ethical issues that get *consistently* attended to are those that outsiders consistently check on. It is rare that anyone attempts to hold a non-profit to account -- there's no political glory for an attorney general to become known as the scourge of charities. So in the non-profit world you need the good fortune to have leaders of exceptional moral character. Unfortunately, a lot of what passes for that is sanctimonious hypocrisy.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.