Gates gives $750m to fight deadly childhood diseases

[Nemesis]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/microsoft/Story/0,2763,1398004,00.htmlGood old Bill ain't that bad. But I'm sure the anti-MS movement will spot a catch behind it somehow... :)

[Anthony Flack]

Heck, I could probably do one up for you right now:

$750 million to Bill Gates is like $50 to me, with the difference that all my money was earned legitimately without having to resort to unethical business practices.

Actually, it's less than that, because it's money he'll never ever use. Whereas I need every $50 I can get.

Having said that, the end result is still really beneficial so we can be happy about it. And I certainly wouldn't want him to stop giving his money away like this. But before going on about how generous Bill Gates is, consider that he hasn't sacrificed anything at all. It literally makes no difference to him.

In fact, he's so obscenely wealthy that he's practically obliged to give his money away.

[Nemesis]

Assuming Bill's worth in stocks etc. is 29 billion $ (http://evan.quuxuum.org/bgnw.html), he's just given away about 2.5% so I think his 750 milllion $ is more substantial than your $50 if taken in direct proportion.

Obviously the comparison is pretty meaningless as you said, since his loose change can keep us going for several lifetimes :)

But it just goes to show that if you're on top and everybody wants a piece of your.. pie.., no philanthropic action is ever going to make you look any better in the eyes of your rivals.

[Raptisoft]

$750 million to Bill Gates is like $50 to me, with the difference that all my money was earned legitimately without having to resort to unethical business practices.

I'm surprised anyone still has this attitude, especially you Anthony.

Would you rather get $50 from me, for $500,000 from Bill Gates? But $50 is MORE from me, man!


But it just goes to show that if you're on top and everybody wants a piece of your.. pie.., no philanthropic action is ever going to make you look any better in the eyes of your rivals.

Man, that's a fact. When I was younger, I thought the phrase "no good deed goes unpunished" was a joke, but the older I get, the more I see it not as a cynicaly remark, but as a divine Truth.

[yanuart]

well it's never about how much you give.. in my eyes I think that's a good deed and for a good cause, period.

what about gates ?? i just don't wanna judge a person.. not anymore. There are two ways you can see people in this world, first you see as if everyone r good underneath and the second you see as if everyone are evil.

[Valen]

$750 million to Bill Gates is like $50 to me.... Actually, it's less than that, because it's money he'll never ever use. Whereas I need every $50 I can get... In fact, he's so obscenely wealthy that he's practically obliged to give his money away.

It's that kind of attitude that drove the communist revolution in Russia. The People decided that rich folks don't deserve their money and that it should be distributed equally among everyone. Trouble is that poor people are poor for a reason, and rich people are rich for a reason too (read Robert Kiyosaki's "Rich Dad, Poor Dad"). Thankfully, I live in a country where there's nothing wrong with someone having a lot of money, and where they get to decide what to do with it. I believe the correct name for this strange phenomenon would be "capitalism." :)

[BongPig]

I have a friend who is heavily into helping the AIDs problem in africa. She spends most of her time over there now further educating herself. Certainly one of the good guys who puts in a massive amount of personal effort ( fulltime 24/7 ) to help others.

She suggested Gates gets a hell of alot done charity wise year in year out. Not just throwing money in, but helping in the right ways. Education. Rebuilding. Health.

I was suprised.... Shes alot more qualified to know about these things, being on the front-line and seeing the problems for herself.

Personally, my views regards Billy boy changed from that day.
( however, microsoft is a whole other entity! )

[Nexic]

Anthony: Lets say you have a house worth $100,000, a car worth $20,000. And say you had another $10,000 in other personal items. To match Bill Gates donation in % terms you would have to donate $3250, not $50.

I doubt many average people would donate 3 and a half grand to charity.

[EpicBoy]

Yes, but it's all about scale. Using your numbers, if you scale that $20,000 car up to Gate's level (the $29 billion quoted earlier), his car would have to be worth:

$4,461,538,461.00

...for this is be truly comparable. Obviously, it isn't.

Not saying Gates isn't generous - he certainly is. But that truly is pocket change for him...

[BongPig]

But we're talking about one payment to one charity. Do you think thats it for 2005 as far as gates is concerned? Do any of you have any real evidence as to how many payments he makes to charity in total? To call it pocketchange is very belittling. Should he give them MORE than they can spend so we can agree hes made a bigger dent on his savings!? ( like thats the point )
I can understand stamping on Gates for many many reasons. His work in charity isnt one of them. :confused:

[Abscissa]

But before going on about how generous Bill Gates is, consider that he hasn't sacrificed anything at all. It literally makes no difference to him.Certainly you're not saying that donating to charity is a *bad* thing if it doesn't involve personal sacrifice, are you?


Thankfully, I live in a country where there's nothing wrong with someone having a lot of money, and where they get to decide what to do with it. I believe the correct name for this strange phenomenon would be "capitalism."The United States is a mixed economy just like most of the world. It just leans closer to the "capatalism" end of the spectrum than most others. If we were a *true* captalist nation, we wouldn't have things like: the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft, the crackdown on Enron, the FDA, etc.

[Nexic]

Whether it is pocket change or not, it still makes him a nice guy - most people dont donate anything to charity at all.

[EpicBoy]

I'm not belittling it. I think it's amazing how much he gives to charity. I was just pointing out that trying to scale the money into someone elses money frame of reference wasn't relevant...

[Bmc]

I don't think anyone, anywhere would consider 750 million pocket change.

[GBGames]

People hate Microsoft, and therefore Bill Gates, for a number of reasons, whether legitimate or not.

I think it is great they donate money to charity. They have a lot to give, and they do.

But I always find it funny that there are people who defend Microsoft as "just a successful company" and that everyone is just jealous of their success.

No one can dispute that they give a lot of money to charity or that this is a good thing. If they do, they are hating just to hate.

What about their scholarships? Good charity, or a means of locking people into their product? China has a huge piracy rate with Windows, but Microsoft wouldn't dare stop them. If everyone in China uses Windows, when they can pay for software, they will choose to pay for Windows. Similarly with scholarships and their academic versions of their software. You can argue that it is good that they allow people to use computer software on the cheap, but you can also argue that it is just a way to make sure you use their software as opposed to anyone else's.

When they were called an illegal monopoly, what was being offered? "Yes, you are violating antitrust laws. Give away free copies of your software to further your ability to be a monopoly as punishment." This would be like AT&T being told "You violated antitrust laws, so spread your phone lines to more areas of the country as punishment." You can't deny that this is an outrage.

Yes, Microsoft gives to charity, and Bill Gates specifically gives a lot to charity. You can't deny this. But there are reasons why people will look first to see what's in it for Microsoft before admitting that there are some good things. For those who think that Microsoft is being unfairly attacked all the time, you are in as much denial about the facts as those who think that Microsoft is just pure evil.

Some of Microsoft's business practices are legit. Tough, competitive, but legit. People can be upset about these practices, but they can't deny that they are legal without denying the truth of their situations. Other practices, not so much. People do have legitimate gripes with the company, and Bill Gates is just a nice visible target representative of the company.

[EpicBoy]

I don't think anyone, anywhere would consider 750 million pocket change.
I give up.

[GBGames]

But I'm sure the anti-MS movement will spot a catch behind it somehow... :)

Is there an anti-MS movement somewhere? B-)

[Raptisoft]

People can be upset about these practices, but they can't deny that they are legal without denying the truth of their situations.

What I found most obscene were the companies who wanted to use their power to get the government to FORCE their competitor to stop competing with them. (Remember, only government can use force... the rest of us have to persuade).

[GBGames]

What I found most obscene were the companies who wanted to use their power to get the government to FORCE their competitor to stop competing with them. (Remember, only government can use force... the rest of us have to persuade).

Well it is sad when organizations like the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA use the government to enforce their business practices rather than compete. It is also sad when AOL claims that Netscape was being unfairly pushed out by IE, especially when AOL was one of the reasons why IE was being used more.

However, the government being used to "force" the company to extend the monopoly would be much worse. It is not even a slap on the hand so much as a reward.

And software patents also are ways that companies can leverage the government to force others from competing. And yet Bill Gates lets slip that people against software patents are the communists...I guess communists prefer a market where people can compete without government restraints.

[luggage]

Just before this thread gets closed like the last one :)

slashdot (http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/01/25/0342256.shtml?tid=109&tid=14)

Read some of the replies to the news posting about just the latest donation from the foundation - talk about irrational.

Why do you all keep saying it's just a few % of his money? He does it year in and year out - surely it's adding up. And hasn't he gone on record saying that when he dies he's leaving 30 million to each of his kids and the rest is to charity?

boooooo... hisss

[Nemesis]

Microsoft is certainly not the epitomy of honesty, and like many successful businesses is bound to resort to underhanded tactics, wether it's taking advantage of legal loopholes, misinformation, illegal tactics or whatever.

But I'm very much convinced that if there was anyone else at the the top, say, Sun, IBM, Oracle or whatever... the situation would be exactly the same, if not worse.

I've had the opportunity to work with enterprise products from all the above, and so far I've always found MS products to be the most intuitive and the most performant (most of the time at least). If there has to be a king of the hill, I'd rather have MS up there. My liking (read: substantial tolerance) to MS is based on product quality rather than how they conduct their business.. which is perhaps a little short-sighted I know... :)

[GBGames]

True story: I was working at a help desk when Windows 2000/XP were affected by a worm that exploited an RPC vulnerability. Machines were infected just by connecting to the network. I got a call from someone who was upset because she couldn't connect to ours (the university blocked people from connecting if they were detected as vulnerable and/or spreading the worm). When I explained how she was infected, she was upset, and rightfully so. She didn't download anything or do anything to get infected.

After she forced herself to calm down, she said, "Well, what can you do, right? Nothing." I quickly pointed out that I use Linux.

What did I learn from this conversation? One, that some people think that Unix/Linux is all command-line, all the time. But most importantly, I learned that people have been trained to believe that they are powerless when it comes to their computers. Computers are supposed to empower, and yet people believe that they are powerless to the whims of the computer, and indirectly to Microsoft.

Most people aren't happy to be slaves, and they will direct their anger towards the slave drivers. I think this is a big reason why some people hate Microsoft, and therefore Bill Gates.

Maybe it wouldn't be all that different if Apple was the big company at the top. It doesn't make it right to use your power to make the masses believe they are powerless.

EDIT: This still doesn't change the fact that Bill Gates is a great philanthropist. It was just in response to the undertone of "HA! Now what the hell will those illogical MS-haters have to say!" that was in this thread.

[C_Coder]

Microsoft is certainly not the epitomy of honesty, and like many successful businesses is bound to resort to underhanded tactics, wether it's taking advantage of legal loopholes, misinformation, illegal tactics or whatever.

But I'm very much convinced that if there was anyone else at the the top, say, Sun, IBM, Oracle or whatever... the situation would be exactly the same, if not worse.

I've had the opportunity to work with enterprise products from all the above, and so far I've always found MS products to be the most intuitive and the most performant (most of the time at least). If there has to be a king of the hill, I'd rather have MS up there. My liking (read: substantial tolerance) to MS is based on product quality rather than how they conduct their business.. which is perhaps a little short-sighted I know... :)

I have to agree. I worked with MS products since forever and always found the products to be quite good. There is the occasional crash and bug but hey no one is perfect! :p

[luggage]

EDIT: This still doesn't change the fact that Bill Gates is a great philanthropist. It was just in response to the undertone of "HA! Now what the hell will those illogical MS-haters have to say!" that was in this thread.

And now we know!

*ducks for cover*

:D

[george]

Whether you think Bill Gates is generous or not, I think we can all agree he is a hell of a lot more generous than most other corporate/rich people. I bet a lot of those bastards won't even give $5 if asked by a homeless person.

[Matthew]

Something to think about: http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=241&row=1

[luggage]

Something to think about: http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=241&row=1

Interesting reading.

Trouble is doesn't the author just have a hatchet to grind with the WTO and not Microsoft? Last time I checked the WTO had over 145 participating countries - seems crazy that he uses it to have a pop at Bill Gates.

Only $6 billion dollars? As I mentioned earlier - hasn't Gates promised all of his fortune to charity apart from $30 million dollars to each of his children? What percentage of his net worth will that be then?

The article had a nice headline though - I'm sure it would get a few people reading it.

[Ricardo C]

Palast is a joke. I'm very unsympathetic towards MS, but come on. It's like quoting a freeper when smearing liberals.

[Matthew]

Oh, I never said I agreed with him or found his editorial wholly truthful. I just find other angles--however fanatic and easily dismissed--interesting to consider.

[george]

most government/corporate charity is not selflessness, and sometimes is hostile. for example, america lends money to a developing country to be used to build the countrie's infrastructure. the catch: contracts can only be given to american companies, so america never really loses the money. and the country has to pay the money back, which it often can't because it's too expensive. so then america says, "ok no problem, let us have special privileges to your resources, like oil, etc. and we'll forget about the loan". i recommend reading this book to learn more:

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1576753018/qid=1106694551/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-4880735-2433604?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

as for aids and africa, the money the u.s. donates really goes to american drug companies who then give the drugs to africa (again, america doesn't lose any money). the problem is some of these drugs are experimental. another problem is, aids in africa is often diagnosed not with a blood test, but with a symptom test because there are just too many cases to diagnose, and not enough resources to do it. so if someone has dierreha, weight loss, etc., they can be diagnosed with aids (even though they don't have aids, and their illness could be due to dirty water, etc.) and then they end up taking these harsh experiemental drugs for no reason.

said but true :(

(a lot of americans have their hearts in the right place, it's just these evil money whores at the top who unfortunately control everything and reek havoc on the entire world)

[Chris Evans]

While Bill Gates is worth billions upon billions, it's not like he can go out spend every penny of it. A lot of it is in stocks or other assets, which aren't easy or even possible to spend.

I'm not saying he's in danger of becoming a poor man, but he doesn't have a tower that's just filled with money. What he's capable of spending I'm sure is much less than his net worth.

Besides, $5-10 is pretty meaningless to most of us. But how many of us donate that amount to a charity on a regular basis? Seems kind of silly to throw stones at Gates over this. As others have said, I wish more rich (and regular) people would give something back.

[Anthony Flack]

Anthony: Lets say you have a house worth $100,000, a car worth $20,000. And say you had another $10,000 in other personal items. To match Bill Gates donation in % terms you would have to donate $3250, not $50.

I doubt many average people would donate 3 and a half grand to charity.


All right, I'll revise that figure to $500, to be fair. Since I don't have a car and the bank owns most of our house. But it still doesn't equate. Because I'd really be struggling to get by without that $500. Whereas Bill Gates' $750 million is just more money from the vast amount of spare money he has that he couldn't possibly use (his kids are only getting $30 million each? How will they survive? Seriously, he's doing them a favour here by giving them enough money to live like kings without the burden of monstrously excessive weath that he has)

Since people have been so quick to paint me as a Gates-hating communist, I should point out here that I'm fairly neutral about Gates. I was just trying to explain that calling Gates extraordinarily generous just doesn't make sense, since he hasn't given up anything.

He has money far beyond any sane expectation of weathiness. In a world where money talks louder than anything, this amounts to an almost God-like power to make things happen. If Bill Gates wants to help people, he only has to snap his fingers. And yes, I think if anyone finds themselves with this kind of power, then they have an obligation to use it to help people.

It's certainly good news. I'm not saying that this is bad, in any way. I'm just objecting to it being called a great act of generosity. This has nothing to do with Microsoft (although Microsoft and Gates will certainly benefit from the good PR).

But as far as generosity goes, Bongpig's friend who has dedicated her life to fighting AIDS in Africa is the real hero. And nobody is putting her all over the news praising her for her terrific generosity.