Microsoft Starts Its Own Charity Organization: Microsoft Philanthropies (microsoft.com)

SmartAboutThings writes: Bill Gates is known as a big philanthropist, and now his own company will commit to even more charity work by launching a new organization, Microsoft Philanthropies. Microsoft's president and Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith outlined the goals for the new organization, saying it will partner with nonprofit organizations to help expand technology projects to people who need it. He said, "Just as there is an extremely effective commercial ecosystem which brings the promise of technology to life in the marketplace, there must be a strong societal ecosystem that brings the promise of technology to life in the community space, especially where there is the greatest need." Mary Snapp, who joined Microsoft as its first female attorney in 1988, will lead Microsoft Philanthropies report directly to Smith.

Comments

So now /. is slashvertising for Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just... wow

We should not get excited about private charity

[Kethinov]

Pet charity projects throwing money haphazardly at random causes a few billionaires feel strongly about is an undemocratic disgrace. Had more of their largesse been taxed, we the people could've put it to better use dealing with our deficit, fixing our failing infrastructure, or even using it to help pay for ambitious new programs like universal basic income and single payer healthcare. Those ideas have the potential to totally end poverty. Pet charity projects like Gates' or Zuckerberg's hold no such potential.

Instead of praising this, we should be asking ourselves what kind of society we want to live in.

From the article: "Who should fund our general societal needs and how? Charities rarely fund quotidian yet vital needs. What would $40 billion mean for job creation or infrastructure spending? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a budget of about $7 billion. Maybe more should go to that. Society, through its elected members, taxes its members. Then the elected officials decide what to do with sums of money."

See also: public vs. private social expenditures as a percentage of GDP.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[Kethinov]

Oh please.. Money != power in our republic. Poor people get as many votes per person as the rich.

That is not the case. Numerous studies have shown that money buys power in this country.

taking money from the "rich" and giving it to the "poor" may provide an immediate reduction in poverty, but it lowers everyone's standard of living.

I am fine with lowering the standard of living of the wealthiest x% people in this country to provide a humane minimum standard of living for everyone else. (Where x is defined as roughly a very low single digit percentage give or take one or two percent.)

Today we have millions living in abject poverty while the wealthiest are wealthier than ever. The country can survive taking from the top just enough to end poverty.

But taking from the rich only goes so far, so we as a country are going into debt to provide welfare, healthcare and anti-poverty campaigns.

Back when taxes were higher, we didn't have a debt problem like we do today. One man's "government spends too much!" is another man's "maybe we should increase government's income so it can pay its bills."

The CBO says that repealing the ACA (Obamacare) would actually lower the deficit, raise employment, cut taxes and actually end up putting more on health insurance roles, which is EXACTLY what the right was saying when this got rammed though congress...

First of all, the right came up with the idea. The left wanted single payer, and continues to argue in favor of it on the grounds that it would be less expensive in the long run than the current public/private mess we have today.

Second, that CBO analysis you're referring to is a lot more complicated than you're making it sound. You might want to read about it in more detail. Depending on how you interpret the data, some analysts say repeal would lower the deficits, others say it would add to the deficit dramatically.

Conservatives are driven by what's best in the long term and what's going to do the most good for people.

That doesn't seem like a very well supported statement to me. Conservatives oppose policies that would end poverty on the grounds that it's morally wrong to take from rich people. That's by definition elitist, not "what's good for most people."

Your classic teach a man to fish rather than give a man a fish analogy is a perfect illustration of that. You see other men as only deserving of fish if they're capable of fishing for them themselves. If you see it is morally acceptable to deny a man a fish who is unable or unwilling to fish it up himself, then your ideology is not "what's going to do the most good for people" because it's predicated on unnecessary starvation of those you deem unworthy of eating.

The ideology that will "do the most good for people" is the one that doesn't impose conditions on the basic needs of others. Imposing conditions kills people. Personally, I'm not a fan of social darwinism.