philanthropy
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| purplewizard Jan 16, 2007 6:03 AM EDT |
Only vaguely relevant to this but I had a thought. Bill Gates is appearing in the news so much having given so many billions to charitable foundations. And pointed at by so many people I know as being so great. What I wondered is the total value of all Free Software if you had to pay for proprietary equivalents and therefore if you pick on the notables like RMS, Linus as being equivalents to Gates in this how much does their philanthropic contribution add up to? Who really is the greatest philanthropist of our times? |
| dinotrac Jan 17, 2007 9:21 AM EDT |
>Who really is the greatest philanthropist of our times? Fortunately, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that more and more people give more and more to address real problems. The sad fact is that scoundrels try to redeem their images later in life by giving away what they have stolen earlier. My position is to pat them on the back and say thank you. Doesn't make them all ok, but does some good and, at least, makes them better than the thieves who don't feel guilty enough to give anything back. |
| tuxchick Jan 17, 2007 9:49 AM EDT |
Yep, straight out of the Robber Baron Handbook. Spend the first part of your life amassing wealth by the most ruthless, destructive means you have the stomach for. Then spend the second half of your life trying to buy your way into heaven, and into the history books as a Benevolent Personage. I haven't paid all that much attention, but some folks claim that BillG's philanthropy has just as many strings attached as any Microsoft product. Strings or no, he's still a ruthless pirate who has done more to damage computing and the Internet than all the l33t haxX0rs in the world combined. Or even multiplied by whatever exponent you care to choose. I ran across an interesting datum the other day- Microsoft's projected revenues for FY 2007 are about $50 billion. The costs of dealing with spam, malware, botnets, etc. are conservatively estimated at $50 billion worldwide for 2006. It's going to take an awful lot of philanthropy to make up for that. They throw people in prison for sending contributions to mosques that allegedly shelter terrorists. Seems to me that if the law is going to be applied evenly, they need to go after BallmerGates as well. |
| Abe Jan 17, 2007 10:53 AM EDT |
Quoting:Seems to me that if the law is going to be applied evenly, they need to go after BallmerGates as well. TC, In case you didn't know, Philanthropy is a big business now in the US and the law doesn't apply. Just like it didn't apply to MS when they were convicted over abusing their monopoly power. |
| hkwint Jan 17, 2007 1:10 PM EDT |
Well, it's serious misinformation the Bill & M Gates foundation is a charitable foundation. It's not. It's a for profit organization. Currently, I'm planning to write an article on this. Please, don't ever trust a foundation. Al Qaida used a web of more than 50 US foundations to raise money for their goals. Because they don't have to reveal where the money comes from, you cannot trust them. The same with all foundations that fund the 'think tanks'. They are just an extension of US Business. Because they give 5% of their money to charities each year, they don't have to pay tax for the profit of their organization. Their organization has invested in AIDS-drugs firms, who sell AIDS-drugs for prices people in Africa can't pay, and they invested in chemical companies, who polute the air in Africa in a high degree. They make a lot of profits from this. Also, Warren Buffet gave some of his money to the 'charitable' foundation. Hehe, don't let me laugh. The Bill Gates foundation in turn invested $ 1,5 million in Buffets investment-company, Berkshire Hathaway. Therefore, the Bill Gates foundation even has a share in 'our' Dutch oil company, Royal Shell, but also in Coca Cola etc. Of course, you want to see sources. Well, here you go: http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bill_&_Melinda_Gates_... The generic articles hold it all. It's a very recent topic. Especially, read (carefully!) the LA Times article (of 8 pages!) they link to. It's here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx0... |
| jimf Jan 17, 2007 1:19 PM EDT |
> AIDS-drugs for prices people in Africa can't pay, and they invested in chemical companies, who polute the air in Africa in a high degree In other words a few more stay alive longer so they can die later of TB and lung related diseases. Yeah, I saw that one. Or the one where Bill gave India 3 mil in aids relief with the return of 6 mil in MS contracts. These cruds make money however they can, and, the 'charity' is only for themselves. |
| jezuch Jan 17, 2007 2:52 PM EDT |
Correction: A few more stay alive to pay for Windows licenses... and then die. |
| dinotrac Jan 17, 2007 3:18 PM EDT |
>It's not. It's a for profit organization. Where did you get that information? I haven't seen anything to that effect. |
| jimf Jan 17, 2007 3:36 PM EDT |
> Correction: A few more stay alive to pay for Windows licenses... and then die. Those people don't and never will have the money for a Windows license, so, it's best that they just die. Their only value to MS is favorable press. |
| hkwint Jan 17, 2007 4:17 PM EDT |
Quoting:Where did you get that information? I haven't seen anything to that effect. It's more an opinion (exaggeration, yes), but fact is they earn as much as they give away. I merely thought about it since they invest in Berkshire Hathaway, which doesn't seem like charity to me. Check my new 'feature', which is no feature but a summary, but anyway. http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/78423/index.html |
| dinotrac Jan 17, 2007 6:31 PM EDT |
>It's more an opinion (exaggeration, yes), but fact is they earn as much as they give away. I merely thought about it since they invest in Berkshire Hathaway, which doesn't seem like charity to me Any foundation of size will invest it's endowment as a way of preserving assets and maintaining its ability to do whatever it was set up to do. That may seem silly for a foundation with $60 billion in assets, but think of what can be done with a 15% rate of return. They could dole out $8-9 billion a year (yeah, I know I'm not accounting for overhead, inflation, etc) without touching the principle. |
| azerthoth Jan 17, 2007 7:04 PM EDT |
Ah, so the richer they are the more they can give ... just to be the antogonist here, but which factor is in primacy? Most 'charitable' organazations have some really well paid executives. I tend to question altruism because I dont believe humans are capable of it, even the Pope prolly gets a warm fuzzy when he does a good dead, and that too can be a powerfull addiction. Just because good came of it doesnt make it altuistic. |
| hkwint Jan 18, 2007 12:46 AM EDT |
Indeed, it's a logical thing a foundation invests its money. There's nothing wrong with that. But, every foundation has a goal. If you have a charitable foundation, than making the world better in whatever form, is the goal. But if you invest in companies which make the world 'worse', or could easily make the world better but don't, and you don't use your influence as a shareholder to try to change that behavior, I'm sorry, but I can't see it as a charitable foundation anymore. An investment company having a net profit of 1,5 billion and not having to pay most taxes because they do charity, would still be OK. But, if you look at how they invest it, you also wonder if they want to influence other business as well. Looking at it this way, it may seem like the foundation is just a body to increase the power of Bill Gates way beyond Microsoft. Also, the investments in other companies might be used to 'help' Microsoft. Of course, the foundation says it is only a passive owner of a share in companies. Can be true, but I suspect Bill Gates might have his opinion passed on to the companies bosses without people like us knowing it. |
| dinotrac Jan 18, 2007 3:14 AM EDT |
>I tend to question altruism because I dont believe humans are capable of it Not keeping up with the science, eh? Hate to sound harsh, but I usually interpret such statements, in the face of so much contrary evidence, to be a rationalization of one's own selfishness. |
| jdixon Jan 18, 2007 4:23 AM EDT |
> I tend to question altruism because I dont believe humans are capable of it You must have a strange definition of altruism. Most people have no wish to harm others and will actually make some (but usually not a lot) of effort to help them, if they can see a way to do so. > Just because good came of it doesnt make it altuistic. And just because harm comes from an action it doesn't mean the person acting is evil. However, knowingly causing good or harm is a different matter. |
| dcparris Jan 18, 2007 4:54 AM EDT |
I think one would be hard pressed to find a purely altruistic person. But it has been said that the people who are most truly selfish are those who are the most giving. That is, they give freely, knowing that they will receive back something at some point. The old "give and it shall be given to you" rule applies. The problem I have with the Gates Foundation is that (1) much of that money is, imo, ill-gained (morally speaking, not necessarily illegally), and (2) giving to conflicting charities and investments gives the appearance of internal conflict. While it is one thing to give to 2 different religious groups (whose views may conflict), it is another matter entirely to donate money to helping people fight Ameriquest while simultaneously supporting Ameriquest. One might understand if the Foundation was unaware of a problem, and then worked to correct it. However, when the Foundation's founder says that the important thing is "helping", not worrying about the conflicts of the "help", flags start popping up in my mind. Had Gates said, "Oh, there's a problem here; let me fix that", and then delegated someone to work with Ameriquest to change its ways, that would be much more acceptable. |
| dinotrac Jan 18, 2007 7:04 AM EDT |
Rev - It really is bothersome that the Gates Foundation doesn't seem to care about any correlation between its financial activities and its philanthropy. Especially bothersome as Bill, Melinda, and Warren are all foundation trustees, though I'm not completely sure why that bothers me. One can argue that a philanthropic organization is obligated to maximize its funds so that it can maximize its help -- not irrational. However, help is a net effect...You must also subtract the harm you encourage, support, or directly do by your actions. |
| tuxchick Jan 18, 2007 8:36 AM EDT |
dino, you mean like don't pee in the water supply, then fund shipments of bottled water? But then your friends who sell bottled water will be harmed. |
| dinotrac Jan 18, 2007 9:09 AM EDT |
tc - Hmmm. Reminds me of something I heard...what was it? Oh yeah: A smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section in a pool. |
| tuxchick Jan 18, 2007 9:17 AM EDT |
hee, that's a good one. I think I have a new sig. :) |
| jimf Jan 18, 2007 9:28 AM EDT |
> when the Foundation's founder says that the important thing is "helping", not worrying about the conflicts of the "help", flags start popping up in my mind. Kinda like a Chinese political rally in my mind... lots and lots of red flags ;-). |
| mvermeer Jan 18, 2007 10:46 AM EDT |
> It really is bothersome that the Gates Foundation doesn't seem
> to care about any correlation between its financial activities and
> its philanthropy. Dean, the good news is that you find it bothersome. But don't you think it's a perfect example of "compartmentalization"? Just like treating the construction of an operating system and the provision of OS security as two seperate, unrelated packages/products, and considering morality something that belongs in church (or in the bedroom!), not in working life; so it is here... holism is hard. |
| dinotrac Jan 18, 2007 11:11 AM EDT |
>But don't you think it's a perfect example of "compartmentalization"? Absolutely. I don't know why it is, but we seem to have arrived at an age where people have lost their ability to think organically, eschewing the whole for pieces. Yuck. No wonder so much software stinks. |
| jdixon Jan 18, 2007 11:20 AM EDT |
> I don't know why it is, but we seem to have arrived at an age where people have lost their ability to think organically... Well, while I've never bought into the "life is harder now" idea, it is true that life is more complex now than it used to be, and that the rate of change has been increasing. It's entirely possible that we've reached a limit in people's ability to deal with the complexities and rate of change in their lives, and that compartmentalization is the natural result. It would be rather difficult to even test this, much less prove it, but it's something to consider. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!