[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by firebug

I am lost here. Could you direct me to the part where 10% of the GNP is being given away?

Remember that GNP is a measure of a country's productive capacity and not a measure of stored value. i.e. giving up 10% of GNP would require giving away 10% of the labour and capital of a nation without compensation.

2nd, if it is a reference to the ratio of the billionaires combined wealth being given away compared to the savings of a nation, that wealth isn't actually being given away or removed from the economy, but rather being re-purposed. There will be many economic benefits from the charitable activities undertaken by these philanthropists.

Also, this is not necessarily a completely new idea. The Carnegie Foundation (among many others) has been doing philanthropic work for many years. I think the precedent here is that they are stating this so far ahead of time and stipulating a ratio of their donations.

~bug

Sorry misquote from the original quote

What I fear is if Nader has been convincing and the focus of the foundation with its new partners has changed. Nader would have considered what Bill Gates was doing before as "soft charity". Nader thinks their money would be more effective invested in social justice issues. Actually what Nader is saying makes a lot of sense. Imagine if their foundation invested a billion dollars in political organizations that were pushing to up federal giving in the third world to 10% GDP and provide free HIV medication for Africa. Their return on the dollar would be a lot higher that way than any direct investment in Africa. The only loser would be the American tax payer who would see more of their wealth taken away.