I don't believe people should question the motives or reasons for someone's charitable actions.
Especially not when those charitable actions are helping to lead the way in pretty important stuff like AIDS and Cancer research. Who cares about the obvious tax breaks if a sizable donation leads to the funding that finds the cure for cancer?
I don’t have a problem with people questioning the motivation behind a charitable action. Of course it’s a good thing if the donation leads to breakthroughs…But if the person’s motivation has more to do with personal gain (or gain for those close to them), then they don’t necessarily deserve to be held up as some kind of champion of the underprivileged.
There are legitimate concerns about venture philanthropy. I don’t want to get into a pissing match about it, as I don’t fully understand the workings of charitable organizations, and it’s difficult to say if there is a better way of distributing the money ….but it’s concerning that this organization can single-handedly influence policy on paramount national or international issues, can change the course of medical research, can stifle good science or promote bad science on a whim, etc.
For example, the Foundation is taking a leading role in reshaping the educational system in the US, for good bad or otherwise…also, they refuse to take a stance on abortion, intentionally focusing their female reproductive efforts ‘upstream’, on prevention and birth control….which completely ignores every reason for abortion other than inadequate access to birth control, and all of the women dying in botched abortions worldwide.
I believe they’ve minimized their investments in Big Pharma over the last couple years, but there is still a conflict of interest in investing in, and giving grants to, companies that work contrary to the goals of increased access to drugs in the third world. They are tied heavily to big business and international organizations like the World Bank, the WTO, and the WHO, who would seem to often be the adversary in the challenges the Foundation faces. If these organizations are partially responsible for malnourishment in a developing country, is working with them to get drugs to people who can't take them without food going to do any good? (aside from adding to the coffers of the pharma company???)
There are complaints of cronyism/nepotism in who is receiving the money, with lesser qualified organizations or individuals receiving grants because of relationships with foundation members. Apparently there is less oversight for this kind of thing within the Gates Foundation than there is in most charities (but this is where my ignorance on the system becomes obvious; I have no idea how this works)…anyway....more rambling food for thought.
…this website is interesting for anyone who'd like to follow the actions of this ‘venture philanthropy juggernaut’: http://gateskeepers.civiblog.org/
And if you could set up your decendents for life wouldn't you?
There are more important things in the world than money. Even some people with money know that.
True. But wouldn't you want your loved ones to be able to enjoy life and not have to worry about paying the bills? I know I'd make sure my family would never have to worry about college tuition.
And if you could set up your decendents for life wouldn't you?
There are more important things in the world than money. Even some people with money know that.
And we your family doesn't have to worry about $, they are free to focus on those more important things, no?
I think it's great that they are donating lots of money. But I never would hold it against someone to leave a bunch of $ for their kids/grandkids, etc.
also, they refuse to take a stance on abortion, intentionally focusing their female reproductive efforts ‘upstream’, on prevention and birth control….which completely ignores every reason for abortion other than inadequate access to birth control, and all of the women dying in botched abortions worldwide.
I'm not completely following your line of reasoning here. I think focusing your efforts up-stream is a great & effective public health strategy.
True. But wouldn't you want your loved ones to be able to enjoy life and not have to worry about paying the bills? I know I'd make sure my family would never have to worry about college tuition.
I'm not really sure how this conversation took this strange turn. Unsung said these people were donating to charity BECAUSE it would leave more money for their families and I said Warren Buffett is not doing that and that some people think there are more important things than money. I never said I would or wouldn't accept or leave an inheritance and I don't see how that's in any way relevant to this thread.
also, they refuse to take a stance on abortion, intentionally focusing their female reproductive efforts ‘upstream’, on prevention and birth control….which completely ignores every reason for abortion other than inadequate access to birth control, and all of the women dying in botched abortions worldwide.
I'm not completely following your line of reasoning here. I think focusing your efforts up-stream is a great & effective public health strategy.
Abortion-rights advocates see the issues of maternal health and abortion as inseparable. That line of reasoning posits: if, as the United Nations Population Fund states, 68,000 women die every year from botched abortions, and 20 times that number are injured during the same, women's health must, necessarily, address the question of abortion. Providing funding without addressing this subject may be politically savvy, but practically impossible. Not to mention the fact that many women having abortions are already mothers.
I realize this is the Gate's money, and theirs to do with as they see fit....but that is part of what I find so intriguing about this pledge...the way wealth is actually being redistributed....according to the beliefs of a few....
This was just posted on the blog I posted a link to earlier.
Some good points made. Everyone is tip-toeing around criticizing the pledge itself, but it's interesting to see some of the discussion arising from people putting some thought into just how fucking RICH some people are, and how imbalanced our world has become.
As prefaced by the mod on the gateskeeper blog:
"The editor of the Atlantic Wire is the husband of the former CEO of the Gates Foundation. The links in the original article lead to some interesting views." http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions ... ledge-4623
The Backlash Against the Billionaires' Pledge
By Heather Horn on August 06, 2010 12:23pm
Even as the praise continues to roll in for the 40 billionaires pledging to donate a full 50 percent of their wealth to charity, a few writers are beginning to see the darker side to the story. While all are careful to call the pledge "admirable," some journalists and pundits worry about the initiative's echoes of robber-baron philanthropy in the Gilded Age. A roundup of commentators taking a closer look at the pros and cons of philanthropy, writ large:
Back to the Robber Barons The donations themselves are great, says Berkeley public policy professor Robert Reich. What's troubling is what these large sums of money mean--"how much money is now concentrated in so few hands"--and how reminiscent it is of an earlier era:
It's more evidence we're back in the late 19th century when robber barons lorded over the economy and almost everyone else lost ground. The Vanderbilts, Carnegies, Rockefellers made so much money they too could give away large chunks to charity and still maintain their outsize fortunes and their power and influence ... America's median hourly wage, meanwhile, dropped last year, and it continues to drop. That's not even counting the 15 million Americans still out of work. Most Americans don't need charity. They need good jobs.
Confirmed: Carnegie Returns "40 of the country's billionaires have resurrected and updated Andrew Carnegie's doctrine of the 'gospel of wealth,'" writes Steven Pearlstein in The Washington Post. He's not taking issue with the billionaires or their donations. "There can be little doubt, however, that their commitment has raised the bar on social responsibility even as it raises questions about the social value of large personal fortunes." Pearlstein then launches into a review of the "gradual hollowing out of the middle of the U.S. economy," growth since the 90s coming "at the top and bottom of the skills ladder," resulting in the "'polarization' of the labor force," exacerbated during the recession.
'Noblesse Oblige That Might Have Embarrassed Even John D. Rockefeller' While pointing out that he's not "pick[ing] on the billionaires for their charity," The Wall Street Journal's Evan Newmark compares the gesture to Obama's "workers-of-the-world" rhetoric at a recent AFL-CIO meeting: they're both "condescending, nearly cartoonish PR exercises--the exact opposite of good leadership." He's also irritated that, on the same day as the Giving Pledge announcement, Secretary Geithner made another case against tax cuts for the wealthy. Newmark doesn't like the Giving Pledgers being confused with America's "wealthy," who, according to the tax code, aren't so much the Gates and Buffet types as "the local doctors who treat your mother, the McDonald’s franchise owners who feed your family, the Toyota dealers who sell you a car."
Donations? How About Actually Paying Taxes Peter Wilby takes the opposite approach in the Guardian, with a more comprehensive critique of so-called philanthrocapitalism. "The US treasury already loses at least $40bn ... a year from tax breaks for donations," he writes. Not only does the government lose the money, but the billionaires then get to determine what the "good causes" are. Other problems with philanthrocapitalism include that it tends to "[tackle] symptoms of poverty and distress rather than underlying causes," and tends to towards "do[ing] things to the poor, rather than with them."
Just as market approaches carry dangers when applied to public services, so they do when applied to charities. The emphasis on "rates of return" and "value for money" may exclude people in great need who happen to be difficult to reach or, even if made fit and healthy, would be of marginal economic utility ... If the rich really wish to create a better world, they can sign another pledge: to pay their taxes on time and in full; to stop lobbying against taxation and regulation; to avoid creating monopolies; to give their employees better wages, pensions, job protection and working conditions; to make goods and use production methods that don't kill or maim or damage the environment or make people ill.
I'm not saying that this is the only reason that they are doing it, but I am saying I bet it has crossed their mind. You don't amass that size of a fortune by being stupid. Yes they want to do good for the world but they also want to make sure their families are set up for eternity.
Or should they just keep everything and let the government tax them 55% or more?
Actually, I believe Warren Buffett has said his family can't have his money - now or when he dies.
This is correct I recent heard and interview with his son, I think the most he got was 100K to invest anyway he wanted... other then that he is more or less on his own
I'm not saying that this is the only reason that they are doing it, but I am saying I bet it has crossed their mind. You don't amass that size of a fortune by being stupid. Yes they want to do good for the world but they also want to make sure their families are set up for eternity.
Or should they just keep everything and let the government tax them 55% or more?
Actually, I believe Warren Buffett has said his family can't have his money - now or when he dies.
This is correct I recent heard and interview with his son, I think the most he got was 100K to invest anyway he wanted... other then that he is more or less on his own
See, I think this is where the PR aspect of what these people are doing is interesting. Do you really think Buffett's kids need the money?
One of them is a director (in line to be chairman) at Birkshire Hathaway! I'm pretty sure they'll be ok.
Actually, I believe Warren Buffett has said his family can't have his money - now or when he dies.
This is correct I recent heard and interview with his son, I think the most he got was 100K to invest anyway he wanted... other then that he is more or less on his own
See, I think this is where the PR aspect of what these people are doing is interesting. Do you really think Buffett's kids need the money?
One of them is a director (in line to be chairman) at Birkshire Hathaway! I'm pretty sure they'll be ok.
I don't know what PR has to do with it. I'm pretty sure Buffett's been saying this about his family not getting his money since long before he started giving most of it away like this.
also, they refuse to take a stance on abortion, intentionally focusing their female reproductive efforts ‘upstream’, on prevention and birth control….which completely ignores every reason for abortion other than inadequate access to birth control, and all of the women dying in botched abortions worldwide.
I'm not completely following your line of reasoning here. I think focusing your efforts up-stream is a great & effective public health strategy.
Abortion-rights advocates see the issues of maternal health and abortion as inseparable. That line of reasoning posits: if, as the United Nations Population Fund states, 68,000 women die every year from botched abortions, and 20 times that number are injured during the same, women's health must, necessarily, address the question of abortion. Providing funding without addressing this subject may be politically savvy, but practically impossible. Not to mention the fact that many women having abortions are already mothers.
I realize this is the Gate's money, and theirs to do with as they see fit....but that is part of what I find so intriguing about this pledge...the way wealth is actually being redistributed....according to the beliefs of a few....
Well the pledge itself doesn't preclude funding safe abortions and I'm sure much of the money is donated to that cause - just not the money publicly donated by the Gates Foundation.
While I agree that maternal health & abortion are inseparable, I also agree that the best way to address it is through prevention efforts, which is what they are doing. The absolute best way to prevent unsafe abortion is to prevent unintended pregnancy. Besides, abortion is unsafe primarily because it's illegal. What are they supposed to do about that?
and why should they??? ive never understood the expectation of inheritance.
Well, you know, sometimes a person's family actually helps them in life. And...well, while someone is off making a fortune they can often be neglecting things at home. So, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for the family of someone to inherit that $. They aren't all douchebags.
who said anything about douchebags.. certainly not me.
im just saying why expect anything???
personally i see it as more benficial to have brought the family members into the business... that way theyre aware of how the money was accumulated plus theyve got the chance to acquire their own fortunes, if that is their want, without need or expectation of an inheritence.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I don't know what PR has to do with it. I'm pretty sure Buffett's been saying this about his family not getting his money since long before he started giving most of it away like this.
I'm pointing out that the kids don't need the money; they're hardly struggling. To sit there and say "I'm only leaving my son $100,000" when he's a director of your mega-firm is kinda blowin smoke IMO. I don't know what context this was stated, but I don't see any reason to publicly state as much. The positive PR spin from the philanthropy functions to limit discussion about the imbalance of wealth these days. No one wants to criticize these guys, or the system that allowed them to build such massive empires, because they're doing good in the world. I think the article I posted above makes some valid points about this.
Well the pledge itself doesn't preclude funding safe abortions and I'm sure much of the money is donated to that cause - just not the money publicly donated by the Gates Foundation.
While I agree that maternal health & abortion are inseparable, I also agree that the best way to address it is through prevention efforts, which is what they are doing. The absolute best way to prevent unsafe abortion is to prevent unintended pregnancy. Besides, abortion is unsafe primarily because it's illegal. What are they supposed to do about that?.
I don't know scb. I never said I had the answers. I was just putting some info, and other perspectives out there. This topic is obviously your forte; I actually used that example specifically to get your attention and your opinion on what was mentioned in the article.
I admit I have a general distrust of billionaires and the motivations behind what they do, so I was curious as to what kind of negative chatter the pledge was generating. I'm just posting what I've found.
The people that contributed to this article are assholes. They don't want people hording wealth, yet they are critical when it is given to charity. They want the companies to pay lots of taxes, but the don't want them to be successful (i.e. paying more to turn out a product then their competitors), thus preventing them from paying more taxes.
Can't we for just once give a "thumbs up" signal and a tip of the cap when a group of individuals is this generous?
This was just posted on the blog I posted a link to earlier.
Some good points made. Everyone is tip-toeing around criticizing the pledge itself, but it's interesting to see some of the discussion arising from people putting some thought into just how fucking RICH some people are, and how imbalanced our world has become.
As prefaced by the mod on the gateskeeper blog:
"The editor of the Atlantic Wire is the husband of the former CEO of the Gates Foundation. The links in the original article lead to some interesting views." http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions ... ledge-4623
The Backlash Against the Billionaires' Pledge
By Heather Horn on August 06, 2010 12:23pm
Even as the praise continues to roll in for the 40 billionaires pledging to donate a full 50 percent of their wealth to charity, a few writers are beginning to see the darker side to the story. While all are careful to call the pledge "admirable," some journalists and pundits worry about the initiative's echoes of robber-baron philanthropy in the Gilded Age. A roundup of commentators taking a closer look at the pros and cons of philanthropy, writ large:
Back to the Robber Barons The donations themselves are great, says Berkeley public policy professor Robert Reich. What's troubling is what these large sums of money mean--"how much money is now concentrated in so few hands"--and how reminiscent it is of an earlier era:
It's more evidence we're back in the late 19th century when robber barons lorded over the economy and almost everyone else lost ground. The Vanderbilts, Carnegies, Rockefellers made so much money they too could give away large chunks to charity and still maintain their outsize fortunes and their power and influence ... America's median hourly wage, meanwhile, dropped last year, and it continues to drop. That's not even counting the 15 million Americans still out of work. Most Americans don't need charity. They need good jobs.
Confirmed: Carnegie Returns "40 of the country's billionaires have resurrected and updated Andrew Carnegie's doctrine of the 'gospel of wealth,'" writes Steven Pearlstein in The Washington Post. He's not taking issue with the billionaires or their donations. "There can be little doubt, however, that their commitment has raised the bar on social responsibility even as it raises questions about the social value of large personal fortunes." Pearlstein then launches into a review of the "gradual hollowing out of the middle of the U.S. economy," growth since the 90s coming "at the top and bottom of the skills ladder," resulting in the "'polarization' of the labor force," exacerbated during the recession.
'Noblesse Oblige That Might Have Embarrassed Even John D. Rockefeller' While pointing out that he's not "pick[ing] on the billionaires for their charity," The Wall Street Journal's Evan Newmark compares the gesture to Obama's "workers-of-the-world" rhetoric at a recent AFL-CIO meeting: they're both "condescending, nearly cartoonish PR exercises--the exact opposite of good leadership." He's also irritated that, on the same day as the Giving Pledge announcement, Secretary Geithner made another case against tax cuts for the wealthy. Newmark doesn't like the Giving Pledgers being confused with America's "wealthy," who, according to the tax code, aren't so much the Gates and Buffet types as "the local doctors who treat your mother, the McDonald’s franchise owners who feed your family, the Toyota dealers who sell you a car."
Donations? How About Actually Paying Taxes Peter Wilby takes the opposite approach in the Guardian, with a more comprehensive critique of so-called philanthrocapitalism. "The US treasury already loses at least $40bn ... a year from tax breaks for donations," he writes. Not only does the government lose the money, but the billionaires then get to determine what the "good causes" are. Other problems with philanthrocapitalism include that it tends to "[tackle] symptoms of poverty and distress rather than underlying causes," and tends to towards "do[ing] things to the poor, rather than with them."
Just as market approaches carry dangers when applied to public services, so they do when applied to charities. The emphasis on "rates of return" and "value for money" may exclude people in great need who happen to be difficult to reach or, even if made fit and healthy, would be of marginal economic utility ... If the rich really wish to create a better world, they can sign another pledge: to pay their taxes on time and in full; to stop lobbying against taxation and regulation; to avoid creating monopolies; to give their employees better wages, pensions, job protection and working conditions; to make goods and use production methods that don't kill or maim or damage the environment or make people ill.
Can't we for just once give a "thumbs up" signal and a tip of the cap when a group of individuals is this generous? .
[/quote]
What is the saying? Looking in the mouth of a gift horse? Sure it's a drop in the ocean for these guys and it's money they won't miss (and make up quickly) but whatever motives are for giving such large amounts , this money will be helping lots of people for years to come. That's what is important.
The people that contributed to this article are assholes. They don't want people hording wealth, yet they are critical when it is given to charity. They want the companies to pay lots of taxes, but the don't want them to be successful (i.e. paying more to turn out a product then their competitors), thus preventing them from paying more taxes.
Can't we for just once give a "thumbs up" signal and a tip of the cap when a group of individuals is this generous?
Maybe. But the people who wrote the article are either in a good position to comment, or have a bone to pick:
"The editor of the Atlantic Wire is the husband of the former CEO of the Gates Foundation."
I don't know which applies.
And see what I mean about the PR? Everyone seems to think it's classless and wrong to ask questions about these people now that they're giving money away. That article raises valid points about taxes, wage disparity, PR, and comparisons to the 'golden age' of american monopolies.
So if these guys became bazillionaires on the backs of the poor and/or through shady business practices...then they decide to give some money back to the poor (well...not directly; via their friends and companies they choose to invest in, of course), it's all good?
So if these guys became bazillionaires on the backs of the poor and/or through shady business practices...?
You'll probably find that most mega rich have done that. They are ruthless - that's how they build empires and make money you and I can't even contemplate. None of these guys come out of this smelling like roses....
I don't know what PR has to do with it. I'm pretty sure Buffett's been saying this about his family not getting his money since long before he started giving most of it away like this.
I'm pointing out that the kids don't need the money; they're hardly struggling. To sit there and say "I'm only leaving my son $100,000" when he's a director of your mega-firm is kinda blowin smoke IMO. I don't know what context this was stated, but I don't see any reason to publicly state as much. The positive PR spin from the philanthropy functions to limit discussion about the imbalance of wealth these days. No one wants to criticize these guys, or the system that allowed them to build such massive empires, because they're doing good in the world. I think the article I posted above makes some valid points about this.
Well the pledge itself doesn't preclude funding safe abortions and I'm sure much of the money is donated to that cause - just not the money publicly donated by the Gates Foundation.
While I agree that maternal health & abortion are inseparable, I also agree that the best way to address it is through prevention efforts, which is what they are doing. The absolute best way to prevent unsafe abortion is to prevent unintended pregnancy. Besides, abortion is unsafe primarily because it's illegal. What are they supposed to do about that?.
I don't know scb. I never said I had the answers. I was just putting some info, and other perspectives out there. This topic is obviously your forte; I actually used that example specifically to get your attention and your opinion on what was mentioned in the article.
I admit I have a general distrust of billionaires and the motivations behind what they do, so I was curious as to what kind of negative chatter the pledge was generating. I'm just posting what I've found.
It's my understanding that Buffett has been saying that his kids wouldn't get his money since before they were rich and just in casual conversation, like when asked about it in interviews - not like he made some press conference announcement to make himself and his pledge look good or something. I know you didn't say he did; I'm just saying I don't think the two are related.
I also don't think the things mentioned in the article are relevant to this pledge. Yes, I agree that we have a seriously fucked up system when so few people are able to get so rich and we need to ask ourselves what we can/should do about it (and I think some of the billionaires would agree). But the fact is that they already are super-rich and now they want to donate their money to good causes. I guess I don't really see what the objective is in brining up the flawed system now, in relation to this pledge. Yes, the flawed system allowed these people to have this money to donate. But just because we shouldn't have such a system, does that mean these people shouldn't donate the money? I think that would be absurd.
I couldn't be happier that they have decided to do this. And, from what I've read so far, I agree with the causes they've decided to support. I guess we should pay attention to whether their emphasis on some things detracts from other important causes or technologies, or somehow changes the course of public health in a bad way or something. I'll be sure and keep my eye out for that.... maybe it would help if I could get closer to some of that money....
I noticed George Lucas is on the list. Perhaps he is trying to be contrite for the creation of Jar Jar Binks. Damn, he has made a ton of money (which I have willingly contributed to) off a SciFi series. Anyway, I think there are a few Spaceballs quotes that are fitting for this subject:
Yogurt: "Merchandising, merchandising, where the real money from the movie is made. Spaceballs-the T-shirt, Spaceballs-the Coloring Book, Spaceballs-the Lunch box, Spaceballs-the Breakfast Cereal, Spaceballs-the Flame Thrower."
AND
Barf: “I know we need the money, but …”
Lone Star: “Listen! We’re not just doing this for the money!
Barf: We’re not?
Lone Star: “We’re doing it for a SHIT LOAD of money!
Maybe. But the people who wrote the article are either in a good position to comment, or have a bone to pick:
"The editor of the Atlantic Wire is the husband of the former CEO of the Gates Foundation."
I don't know which applies.
And see what I mean about the PR? Everyone seems to think it's classless and wrong to ask questions about these people now that they're giving money away. That article raises valid points about taxes, wage disparity, PR, and comparisons to the 'golden age' of american monopolies.
So if these guys became bazillionaires on the backs of the poor and/or through shady business practices...then they decide to give some money back to the poor (well...not directly; via their friends and companies they choose to invest in, of course), it's all good?
I don't know if it is 100% good, but it has to be at least 95% good. The money will go to non-profit charities and I think it is fair that the person who donates controls where it goes.
As for how the wealth was developed and what wrongs were committed in the past, there isn't much that can be done about that now, other then giving money back.
As for how the wealth was developed and what wrongs were committed in the past, there isn't much that can be done about that now, other then giving money back.
I don't know if it is 100% good, but it has to be at least 95% good. The money will go to non-profit charities and I think it is fair that the person who donates controls where it goes.
As for how the wealth was developed and what wrongs were committed in the past, there isn't much that can be done about that now, other then giving money back.
Will all of it go to non-profits tho? Or even most of it? That's not my understanding of how this works. It sounds a lot more like a venture capital firm than a charity.
I'm having trouble finding the article right now, but I read one yesterday that explained one scenario where an online auction company which catered to the insurance industry was given a multi-million dollar grant to increase it's business, with the social metric of job creation. The plan was to help the CEO develop the business until it reached a benchmark profit, then sell out at a large profit. Is that something worthy of a tax loophole in your eyes? Most of the fund's money is invested, making (tax-free?) profits on the stock market.
From what I've read, the bulk of the money is being doled out as research grants to universities and private research firms. The main criticism of this is that the schools which are on the cutting edge of R&D are already extremely well-funded. Schools and organizations that support or teach low income people are shunned, as are many less high-profile causes, which only serves to increase the divide between rich and poor.
Regardless, I'm glad you guys aren't jumping down my throat for asking some questions about this...I see this pledge as a good thing, but it's only prudent to watch the cause and effect, equal/opposite aspect to see what's happening in the wake of all this money being thrown around without public oversight.
I don't know if it is 100% good, but it has to be at least 95% good. The money will go to non-profit charities and I think it is fair that the person who donates controls where it goes.
As for how the wealth was developed and what wrongs were committed in the past, there isn't much that can be done about that now, other then giving money back.
Will all of it go to non-profits tho? Or even most of it? That's not my understanding of how this works. It sounds a lot more like a venture capital firm than a charity.
I'm having trouble finding the article right now, but I read one yesterday that explained one scenario where an online auction company which catered to the insurance industry was given a multi-million dollar grant to increase it's business, with the social metric of job creation. The plan was to help the CEO develop the business until it reached a benchmark profit, then sell out at a large profit. Is that something worthy of a tax loophole in your eyes? Most of the fund's money is invested, making (tax-free?) profits on the stock market.
From what I've read, the bulk of the money is being doled out as research grants to universities and private research firms. The main criticism of this is that the schools which are on the cutting edge of R&D are already extremely well-funded. Schools and organizations that support or teach low income people are shunned, as are many less high-profile causes, which only serves to increase the divide between rich and poor.
Regardless, I'm glad you guys aren't jumping down my throat for asking some questions about this...I see this pledge as a good thing, but it's only prudent to watch the cause and effect, equal/opposite aspect to see what's happening in the wake of all this money being thrown around without public oversight.
I think the group has just signed a pledge at this point (I'm still trying to find out the names of all 40 people). As it appears that Gates and Buffet have had the most influence on this, the rest may instill a similar structure. The following is how the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation addresses grants:
To invest resources most responsibly, the foundation begins by asking:
What affects the most people?
What has been neglected?
Where can we make the greatest change?
How can we harness innovative solutions and technologies?
How can we work in partnership with experts, governments, and businesses?
Next, we look for projects that:
Produce measurable results
Use preventive approaches
Promise significant and long-lasting change
Leverage support from other sources
Accelerate work the foundation already supports
Examples of areas the foundation does not fund include:
Projects addressing health problems in developed countries
Political campaigns and legislative lobbying efforts
Building or capital campaigns
Projects that exclusively serve religious purposes
Direct support for individuals
Regardless, I'm glad you guys aren't jumping down my throat for asking some questions about this...
I try not to. I hope my first response wasn't too aggressive.
The way I see it, very few of us are experts on any given subject, especially political issues which can be spun around. Questions are a good thing. (it's just the tone and delivery we all need to work on :wave: )
I think the group has just signed a pledge at this point (I'm still trying to find out the names of all 40 people). As it appears that Gates and Buffet have had the most influence on this, the rest may instill a similar structure.
Does this info dispute my points tho? Doesn't really seem to.
How exactly was the $13B in grants for "Global Health Programs" allocated?
Those are pretty far-reaching categories. Donations to upscale American universities for medical R&D would likely fall under the GHP category, right?
Totally agree on your other post, btw....you weren't too aggressive, not that I recall anyway. Doesn't usually get to me, even if you were. I bite back on occasion, and can be an arrogant smart ass at times.....but I'm usually amusing myself more than directing anger
I think the group has just signed a pledge at this point (I'm still trying to find out the names of all 40 people). As it appears that Gates and Buffet have had the most influence on this, the rest may instill a similar structure.
Does this info dispute my points tho? Doesn't really seem to.
How exactly was the $13B in grants for "Global Health Programs" allocated?
Those are pretty far-reaching categories. Donations to upscale American universities for medical R&D would likely fall under the GHP category, right?
Totally agree on your other post, btw....you weren't too aggressive, not that I recall anyway. Doesn't usually get to me, even if you were. I bite back on occasion, and can be an arrogant smart ass at times.....but I'm usually amusing myself more than directing anger
The following link list all 6,349 grants that the Gates Foundation has . . . granted
I noticed George Lucas is on the list. Perhaps he is trying to be contrite for the creation of Jar Jar Binks. Damn, he has made a ton of money (which I have willingly contributed to) off a SciFi series. Anyway, I think there are a few Spaceballs quotes that are fitting for this subject:
Yogurt: "Merchandising, merchandising, where the real money from the movie is made. Spaceballs-the T-shirt, Spaceballs-the Coloring Book, Spaceballs-the Lunch box, Spaceballs-the Breakfast Cereal, Spaceballs-the Flame Thrower."
AND
Barf: “I know we need the money, but …”
Lone Star: “Listen! We’re not just doing this for the money!
Barf: We’re not?
Lone Star: “We’re doing it for a SHIT LOAD of money!
no act of contrition could ever make up for the creation of jar jar binks.
dont forget in doing the star wars films lucas' companies developed a whole lot of technology that changed film making forever. so it was more than just merchandising and bums on seats watching tie fighters that made him richer than midas.
p.s. have you seen his library?? envy isnt something i usually do but...
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
Comments
I don’t have a problem with people questioning the motivation behind a charitable action. Of course it’s a good thing if the donation leads to breakthroughs…But if the person’s motivation has more to do with personal gain (or gain for those close to them), then they don’t necessarily deserve to be held up as some kind of champion of the underprivileged.
There are legitimate concerns about venture philanthropy. I don’t want to get into a pissing match about it, as I don’t fully understand the workings of charitable organizations, and it’s difficult to say if there is a better way of distributing the money ….but it’s concerning that this organization can single-handedly influence policy on paramount national or international issues, can change the course of medical research, can stifle good science or promote bad science on a whim, etc.
For example, the Foundation is taking a leading role in reshaping the educational system in the US, for good bad or otherwise…also, they refuse to take a stance on abortion, intentionally focusing their female reproductive efforts ‘upstream’, on prevention and birth control….which completely ignores every reason for abortion other than inadequate access to birth control, and all of the women dying in botched abortions worldwide.
I believe they’ve minimized their investments in Big Pharma over the last couple years, but there is still a conflict of interest in investing in, and giving grants to, companies that work contrary to the goals of increased access to drugs in the third world. They are tied heavily to big business and international organizations like the World Bank, the WTO, and the WHO, who would seem to often be the adversary in the challenges the Foundation faces. If these organizations are partially responsible for malnourishment in a developing country, is working with them to get drugs to people who can't take them without food going to do any good? (aside from adding to the coffers of the pharma company???)
There are complaints of cronyism/nepotism in who is receiving the money, with lesser qualified organizations or individuals receiving grants because of relationships with foundation members. Apparently there is less oversight for this kind of thing within the Gates Foundation than there is in most charities (but this is where my ignorance on the system becomes obvious; I have no idea how this works)…anyway....more rambling food for thought.
…this website is interesting for anyone who'd like to follow the actions of this ‘venture philanthropy juggernaut’:
http://gateskeepers.civiblog.org/
The Gates have stipulated that all funds must be dispersed within 50 years of their deaths.
So if you receive an inheritance, you’ll be donating it all to charity, I presume?
True. But wouldn't you want your loved ones to be able to enjoy life and not have to worry about paying the bills? I know I'd make sure my family would never have to worry about college tuition.
Hmm... and I didn't say I would either.
I'm not completely following your line of reasoning here. I think focusing your efforts up-stream is a great & effective public health strategy.
I'm not really sure how this conversation took this strange turn. Unsung said these people were donating to charity BECAUSE it would leave more money for their families and I said Warren Buffett is not doing that and that some people think there are more important things than money. I never said I would or wouldn't accept or leave an inheritance and I don't see how that's in any way relevant to this thread.
Don't worry, I'm not either
This is the article I was thinking of when posting that:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/14 ... ntroversy/
This is the paragraph that jumped out at me:
Abortion-rights advocates see the issues of maternal health and abortion as inseparable. That line of reasoning posits: if, as the United Nations Population Fund states, 68,000 women die every year from botched abortions, and 20 times that number are injured during the same, women's health must, necessarily, address the question of abortion. Providing funding without addressing this subject may be politically savvy, but practically impossible. Not to mention the fact that many women having abortions are already mothers.
I realize this is the Gate's money, and theirs to do with as they see fit....but that is part of what I find so intriguing about this pledge...the way wealth is actually being redistributed....according to the beliefs of a few....
Some good points made. Everyone is tip-toeing around criticizing the pledge itself, but it's interesting to see some of the discussion arising from people putting some thought into just how fucking RICH some people are, and how imbalanced our world has become.
As prefaced by the mod on the gateskeeper blog:
"The editor of the Atlantic Wire is the husband of the former CEO of the Gates Foundation. The links in the original article lead to some interesting views."
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions ... ledge-4623
The Backlash Against the Billionaires' Pledge
By Heather Horn on August 06, 2010 12:23pm
Even as the praise continues to roll in for the 40 billionaires pledging to donate a full 50 percent of their wealth to charity, a few writers are beginning to see the darker side to the story. While all are careful to call the pledge "admirable," some journalists and pundits worry about the initiative's echoes of robber-baron philanthropy in the Gilded Age. A roundup of commentators taking a closer look at the pros and cons of philanthropy, writ large:
Back to the Robber Barons The donations themselves are great, says Berkeley public policy professor Robert Reich. What's troubling is what these large sums of money mean--"how much money is now concentrated in so few hands"--and how reminiscent it is of an earlier era:
It's more evidence we're back in the late 19th century when robber barons lorded over the economy and almost everyone else lost ground. The Vanderbilts, Carnegies, Rockefellers made so much money they too could give away large chunks to charity and still maintain their outsize fortunes and their power and influence ... America's median hourly wage, meanwhile, dropped last year, and it continues to drop. That's not even counting the 15 million Americans still out of work. Most Americans don't need charity. They need good jobs.
Confirmed: Carnegie Returns "40 of the country's billionaires have resurrected and updated Andrew Carnegie's doctrine of the 'gospel of wealth,'" writes Steven Pearlstein in The Washington Post. He's not taking issue with the billionaires or their donations. "There can be little doubt, however, that their commitment has raised the bar on social responsibility even as it raises questions about the social value of large personal fortunes." Pearlstein then launches into a review of the "gradual hollowing out of the middle of the U.S. economy," growth since the 90s coming "at the top and bottom of the skills ladder," resulting in the "'polarization' of the labor force," exacerbated during the recession.
'Noblesse Oblige That Might Have Embarrassed Even John D. Rockefeller' While pointing out that he's not "pick[ing] on the billionaires for their charity," The Wall Street Journal's Evan Newmark compares the gesture to Obama's "workers-of-the-world" rhetoric at a recent AFL-CIO meeting: they're both "condescending, nearly cartoonish PR exercises--the exact opposite of good leadership." He's also irritated that, on the same day as the Giving Pledge announcement, Secretary Geithner made another case against tax cuts for the wealthy. Newmark doesn't like the Giving Pledgers being confused with America's "wealthy," who, according to the tax code, aren't so much the Gates and Buffet types as "the local doctors who treat your mother, the McDonald’s franchise owners who feed your family, the Toyota dealers who sell you a car."
Donations? How About Actually Paying Taxes Peter Wilby takes the opposite approach in the Guardian, with a more comprehensive critique of so-called philanthrocapitalism. "The US treasury already loses at least $40bn ... a year from tax breaks for donations," he writes. Not only does the government lose the money, but the billionaires then get to determine what the "good causes" are. Other problems with philanthrocapitalism include that it tends to "[tackle] symptoms of poverty and distress rather than underlying causes," and tends to towards "do[ing] things to the poor, rather than with them."
Just as market approaches carry dangers when applied to public services, so they do when applied to charities. The emphasis on "rates of return" and "value for money" may exclude people in great need who happen to be difficult to reach or, even if made fit and healthy, would be of marginal economic utility ... If the rich really wish to create a better world, they can sign another pledge: to pay their taxes on time and in full; to stop lobbying against taxation and regulation; to avoid creating monopolies; to give their employees better wages, pensions, job protection and working conditions; to make goods and use production methods that don't kill or maim or damage the environment or make people ill.
This is correct I recent heard and interview with his son, I think the most he got was 100K to invest anyway he wanted... other then that he is more or less on his own
One of them is a director (in line to be chairman) at Birkshire Hathaway! I'm pretty sure they'll be ok.
I don't know what PR has to do with it. I'm pretty sure Buffett's been saying this about his family not getting his money since long before he started giving most of it away like this.
Well the pledge itself doesn't preclude funding safe abortions and I'm sure much of the money is donated to that cause - just not the money publicly donated by the Gates Foundation.
While I agree that maternal health & abortion are inseparable, I also agree that the best way to address it is through prevention efforts, which is what they are doing. The absolute best way to prevent unsafe abortion is to prevent unintended pregnancy. Besides, abortion is unsafe primarily because it's illegal. What are they supposed to do about that?
who said anything about douchebags.. certainly not me.
im just saying why expect anything???
personally i see it as more benficial to have brought the family members into the business... that way theyre aware of how the money was accumulated plus theyve got the chance to acquire their own fortunes, if that is their want, without need or expectation of an inheritence.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I don't know scb. I never said I had the answers. I was just putting some info, and other perspectives out there. This topic is obviously your forte; I actually used that example specifically to get your attention and your opinion on what was mentioned in the article.
I admit I have a general distrust of billionaires and the motivations behind what they do, so I was curious as to what kind of negative chatter the pledge was generating. I'm just posting what I've found.
Can't we for just once give a "thumbs up" signal and a tip of the cap when a group of individuals is this generous?
What is the saying? Looking in the mouth of a gift horse? Sure it's a drop in the ocean for these guys and it's money they won't miss (and make up quickly) but whatever motives are for giving such large amounts , this money will be helping lots of people for years to come. That's what is important.
"The editor of the Atlantic Wire is the husband of the former CEO of the Gates Foundation."
I don't know which applies.
And see what I mean about the PR? Everyone seems to think it's classless and wrong to ask questions about these people now that they're giving money away. That article raises valid points about taxes, wage disparity, PR, and comparisons to the 'golden age' of american monopolies.
So if these guys became bazillionaires on the backs of the poor and/or through shady business practices...then they decide to give some money back to the poor (well...not directly; via their friends and companies they choose to invest in, of course), it's all good?
Thus, explains the wealth of Paris Hilton.
Hail, Hail!!!
You'll probably find that most mega rich have done that. They are ruthless - that's how they build empires and make money you and I can't even contemplate. None of these guys come out of this smelling like roses....
It's my understanding that Buffett has been saying that his kids wouldn't get his money since before they were rich and just in casual conversation, like when asked about it in interviews - not like he made some press conference announcement to make himself and his pledge look good or something. I know you didn't say he did; I'm just saying I don't think the two are related.
I also don't think the things mentioned in the article are relevant to this pledge. Yes, I agree that we have a seriously fucked up system when so few people are able to get so rich and we need to ask ourselves what we can/should do about it (and I think some of the billionaires would agree). But the fact is that they already are super-rich and now they want to donate their money to good causes. I guess I don't really see what the objective is in brining up the flawed system now, in relation to this pledge. Yes, the flawed system allowed these people to have this money to donate. But just because we shouldn't have such a system, does that mean these people shouldn't donate the money? I think that would be absurd.
I couldn't be happier that they have decided to do this. And, from what I've read so far, I agree with the causes they've decided to support. I guess we should pay attention to whether their emphasis on some things detracts from other important causes or technologies, or somehow changes the course of public health in a bad way or something. I'll be sure and keep my eye out for that.... maybe it would help if I could get closer to some of that money....
Yogurt: "Merchandising, merchandising, where the real money from the movie is made. Spaceballs-the T-shirt, Spaceballs-the Coloring Book, Spaceballs-the Lunch box, Spaceballs-the Breakfast Cereal, Spaceballs-the Flame Thrower."
AND
Barf: “I know we need the money, but …”
Lone Star: “Listen! We’re not just doing this for the money!
Barf: We’re not?
Lone Star: “We’re doing it for a SHIT LOAD of money!
As for how the wealth was developed and what wrongs were committed in the past, there isn't much that can be done about that now, other then giving money back.
Which is exactly what I would say they're doing.
I'm having trouble finding the article right now, but I read one yesterday that explained one scenario where an online auction company which catered to the insurance industry was given a multi-million dollar grant to increase it's business, with the social metric of job creation. The plan was to help the CEO develop the business until it reached a benchmark profit, then sell out at a large profit. Is that something worthy of a tax loophole in your eyes? Most of the fund's money is invested, making (tax-free?) profits on the stock market.
From what I've read, the bulk of the money is being doled out as research grants to universities and private research firms. The main criticism of this is that the schools which are on the cutting edge of R&D are already extremely well-funded. Schools and organizations that support or teach low income people are shunned, as are many less high-profile causes, which only serves to increase the divide between rich and poor.
Regardless, I'm glad you guys aren't jumping down my throat for asking some questions about this...I see this pledge as a good thing, but it's only prudent to watch the cause and effect, equal/opposite aspect to see what's happening in the wake of all this money being thrown around without public oversight.
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/grantseeker/Pages/foundation-grant-making-priorities.aspx
How We Focus Our Grantmaking
To invest resources most responsibly, the foundation begins by asking:
What affects the most people?
What has been neglected?
Where can we make the greatest change?
How can we harness innovative solutions and technologies?
How can we work in partnership with experts, governments, and businesses?
Next, we look for projects that:
Produce measurable results
Use preventive approaches
Promise significant and long-lasting change
Leverage support from other sources
Accelerate work the foundation already supports
Examples of areas the foundation does not fund include:
Projects addressing health problems in developed countries
Political campaigns and legislative lobbying efforts
Building or capital campaigns
Projects that exclusively serve religious purposes
Direct support for individuals
The way I see it, very few of us are experts on any given subject, especially political issues which can be spun around. Questions are a good thing. (it's just the tone and delivery we all need to work on :wave: )
Does this info dispute my points tho? Doesn't really seem to.
How exactly was the $13B in grants for "Global Health Programs" allocated?
Those are pretty far-reaching categories. Donations to upscale American universities for medical R&D would likely fall under the GHP category, right?
Totally agree on your other post, btw....you weren't too aggressive, not that I recall anyway. Doesn't usually get to me, even if you were. I bite back on occasion, and can be an arrogant smart ass at times.....but I'm usually amusing myself more than directing anger
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/grants/Pages/search.aspx
no act of contrition could ever make up for the creation of jar jar binks.
dont forget in doing the star wars films lucas' companies developed a whole lot of technology that changed film making forever. so it was more than just merchandising and bums on seats watching tie fighters that made him richer than midas.
p.s. have you seen his library?? envy isnt something i usually do but...
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
happy birthday to scb
and many more
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
Hey, thanks!!
Nothing is perfect.