Over 30 Billionaires join Buffet-Gates; Pledge 50%+ of Wealth

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Im not so sure this is great news. I was listening to an interview the CBC had with Ralph Nador a few months ago. He was out selling his new book and implied that what Gates and Buffet were doing was his idea. He said that Gates joined up with Buffet and George Soros after reading advanced copies of his new book.

In his book Nador suggests the best way to better the lives of the poor wasn't in hand outs or even digging wells, providing plant seeds, ect. I forget what he called that kind of charity but, basically he seen it as changing very little long term. What Nador was suggesting is that the money should be invested in organizations whoes aim is the changing of governmental policies to make them more favourable to the poor. I don't think he was thinking so much about the governments of these poor countries but, rather the Western ones. I could be wrong on that one though.

What is scary is the thought of the kinds of millions these guys have being used to influence politics for the poor. Our governments already often seems to be out of step with the needs of the average citizen. The influence such wealth could have on our political leaders can't be good. Basically in Ralph Nador's model you take the Billion dollars you were going to give away in Africa and use it to support organizations who will work towards getting people elected to public office who will spend 10 times that in aid to Africa. Unfortunately that means guys like you and me see more of their limited wealth taken away.

Well Nader was at the Berkshire Hathaway meeting this year and I had a chance to meet him and chat a little bit. (That adds nothing, but I just thought that I would name drop!).

Buffett had planned to give away his money years ago. I am not going to dig for the quotes, but basically his feeling was that the Gates run an excellent foundation and they could do far more good with the money he's amassed than he could. He seems to feel that an organization that basically specializes in creating positive change would be far more beneficial for the worlds future as these poeple are already doing amazing things without the billions of dollars.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Bill Gates is a piece of crap.

He pushes the man-made global warming scam, and actually supports de-populating the planet with vaccines and other methods in order to reduce CO2 emmissions and pollution. He supports cap/trade, carbon taxes and all that crap.

He is globalist scum and a eugenicist...
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source...Wv3MzgDJ8JOH_g

[henriksedin33]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Bill Gates is a piece of crap.

He pushes the man-made global warming scam, and actually supports de-populating the planet with vaccines and other methods in order to reduce CO2 emmissions and pollution. He supports cap/trade, carbon taxes and all that crap.

He is globalist scum and a eugenicist...
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source...Wv3MzgDJ8JOH_g

Are you serious? That's been completely taken out of context. He's not talking about "reducing population" as the article is misleadingly titled, but reducing the rate of population growth to prevent overpopulation. Increasing education, quality of life, life expectancy, etc. The whole article is based on skewing the meaning of one poorly worded sentence he made.

[CaptainCrunch]

Another member of the Alex Jones lunacy club.

I like the fact that Engdahl is a believer that Oil wasn't created by in the conventional way but is created by mysterious conditions deep in the world.

Most non global warming people should love this guy as he believes that global warming is a scare tactic created by the rich and powerful so he can rule the world.

http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.ne...___russia.html

And yeah, a total misinterpretation of what Bill Gates actually said.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well Nader was at the Berkshire Hathaway meeting this year and I had a chance to meet him and chat a little bit. (That adds nothing, but I just thought that I would name drop!).

Buffett had planned to give away his money years ago. I am not going to dig for the quotes, but basically his feeling was that the Gates run an excellent foundation and they could do far more good with the money he's amassed than he could. He seems to feel that an organization that basically specializes in creating positive change would be far more beneficial for the worlds future as these poeple are already doing amazing things without the billions of dollars.

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".

[GGG]

I think the focus of soft charity isn't for the government to produce more direct aid but for the government to change policies and laws so that capitalism works to help the poor.

Things like 3rd world debt forgiveness, changing laws to allow generics and cheap drugs to be shipped to Africa sooner simply convincing the government to spend more on charity is really as ineffective as rich people making direct donations.

The other thing is before we pat these guys on the back none of them are changing their standard of living to make these donations. Gates and Buffet have said as much. So really them giving these billions is like us giving our spare change to the salvation army at christmas time.

[bcb]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Bill Gates is a piece of crap.

He pushes the man-made global warming scam, and actually supports de-populating the planet with vaccines and other methods in order to reduce CO2 emmissions and pollution. He supports cap/trade, carbon taxes and all that crap.

He is globalist scum and a eugenicist...
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source...Wv3MzgDJ8JOH_g

So you're a Mac person then, are you?

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Bill Gates is a piece of crap.

He pushes the man-made global warming scam, and actually supports de-populating the planet with vaccines and other methods in order to reduce CO2 emmissions and pollution. He supports cap/trade, carbon taxes and all that crap.

He is globalist scum and a eugenicist...
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source...Wv3MzgDJ8JOH_g

I honestly can't tell if you are trying to live up to your username, or if you are just screwing with us.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Bill Gates is a piece of crap.

He pushes the man-made global warming scam, and actually supports de-populating the planet with vaccines and other methods in order to reduce CO2 emmissions and pollution. He supports cap/trade, carbon taxes and all that crap.

He is globalist scum and a eugenicist...
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source...Wv3MzgDJ8JOH_g

Now THATS the mikey_the_redneck we've all grown to know and love. Let it all out mikey. Don't hide your feelings.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Bill Gates is a piece of crap.

He pushes the man-made global warming scam, and actually supports de-populating the planet with vaccines and other methods in order to reduce CO2 emmissions and pollution. He supports cap/trade, carbon taxes and all that crap.

He is globalist scum and a eugenicist...
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source...Wv3MzgDJ8JOH_g

At first I was all like "Whoa, who the hell is this poster?" and then I was all like "Oooooh its just mikey_the_redneck"

[CaptainCrunch]

Then I was dude, so much for not inhaling.

[peter12]

I also didn't know that Calgaryborn was a communist.

[CaptainCrunch]

Wouldn't giving away 10% of a nations GNP pretty much cripple your economy, and prevent you from doing any managible debt repayments.

I'm all for foreign help, but I think we have significant social and infrastructure problems right here at home that should take some priority.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GGG

The other thing is before we pat these guys on the back none of them are changing their standard of living to make these donations. Gates and Buffet have said as much. So really them giving these billions is like us giving our spare change to the salvation army at christmas time.

Really? Are you suggesting that if I have $10 billion and give $9 billion to charity that its not enough because I haven't taken a vow of pepetual poverty? That is ridiculous!

Just take a look around at what some of the other incredibly wealthy people do with their money and you'll quickly notice that this is a refreshing change. Rather than building monuments to themselves in the form of buildings, golf courses or whatever they prefer they are literally giving away their fortune for the greater good.

Also take note; this is money that they've earned. They didn't win the lottery or anything like that. These two (Gates and Buffett) built their respective businesses over their careers and rather than keep it all for themselves or give it to their heirs they are trying to put it all to use.

[GreenLantern]

I'd like to see them set up a national college fund for under priviledged kids.

A lot of the worlds problems could be solved with the proper edumacaton.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Wouldn't giving away 10% of a nations GNP pretty much cripple your economy, and prevent you from doing any managible debt repayments.

I'm all for foreign help, but I think we have significant social and infrastructure problems right here at home that should take some priority.

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

[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.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

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.

Problem with Nader is that he never developed a coherent vision that could capitalize on the legitimacy he gained after his work on car safety. Sad to say that although the man is persistent, it's not so clear that he's innovative. In that respect, I don't think he's the best person to be judging whether or not Gates' work is innovative or will be effective.

Nader's old, and the new methods of social entrepreneurship, microfinancing / microenterprise have all gone over his head.

[Azure]

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.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Slava

Really? Are you suggesting that if I have $10 billion and give $9 billion to charity that its not enough because I haven't taken a vow of pepetual poverty? That is ridiculous!

Just take a look around at what some of the other incredibly wealthy people do with their money and you'll quickly notice that this is a refreshing change. Rather than building monuments to themselves in the form of buildings, golf courses or whatever they prefer they are literally giving away their fortune for the greater good.

Also take note; this is money that they've earned. They didn't win the lottery or anything like that. These two (Gates and Buffett) built their respective businesses over their careers and rather than keep it all for themselves or give it to their heirs they are trying to put it all to use.

I have one problem with them giving their money away.

Once its gone, its gone. I think they should somehow get their business involved in those charity organizations to help sustain them.

Hopefully that IS what they're going to do.