Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Yah I remember when Buffett did that and thought it was great.
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.
George Soros is now a part of Gate's foundation. Up until now Soros' charity investments has been all political in nature and I would be suprised if he has switched MO to what Nader calls "soft charity".
|
The foundation Gates setup has been so effective because it is completely void of the politics involved in aid.
The problem with getting into bed with the government is that the government often gives out aid depending on who the leader of a certain country is. And the aid often goes through government channels on BOTH ends, and more often than not doesn't actually end up helping anyone.
Gates and the rest of these rich old guys have the ability to directly setup and organization that GOES to Africa, like the Red Cross and many OTHER charity organizations and use their money to do work on the ground, without getting involved in the political implications of supporting the government with aid money.
Also, private organizations can operate outside of the government red tape. Which makes them much more effective.