Warren Buffett donates 30 billion dollars to Gates Foundation

[moneyp]

Thirty... BILLION. God damn. An estimated 70% of Buffett's total net worth. Gates gets shit on a lot for good reason, but I like the methodology of the Gates Foundation, which does a lot of research into where the money will do the most good and makes sure that they get verifiable results. The World Health Organisation estimated that the Gates Foundation has saved the lives of over 600,000 children through immunization programs.

Experts predict Buffett's gift may spur new wave of philanthropy

By ELIZABETH M. GILLESPIE
AP BUSINESS WRITER

SEATTLE -- Billionaire investor Warren Buffett's pledge to give most of his money away to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has experts predicting it could energize the nonprofit sector and possibly spawn a new wave of philanthropy.

"It might draw in new philanthropists, new people who are wealthy who haven't given their money yet," said Diana Aviv, president and CEO of Independent Sector, a nonprofit coalition of about 550 charities, foundations and corporate giving programs. The Gates Foundation is a member of the group, based in Washington, D.C.

Citing Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, and W.K.K. Kellogg, Aviv said: "The great business leaders of the past came into giving and changed the face of philanthropy, and this can do the same."

Buffett, the world's second-richest man, announced Sunday that he will soon begin giving about $1.5 billion a year to the Gates Foundation, essentially doubling the pot of money the world's largest philanthropy doles out each year.

Some observers found it unusual that Buffett chose to entrust his wealth to an established charity rather than start a foundation that would bear his name and support his own hand-picked causes.

"It's an interesting statement that a donor of his stature has decided to team up with another donor of similar stature. Usually with that kind of wealth, donors tend to do it by themselves - create entities by themselves, want to manage those things by themselves," said Doug Bauer, senior vice president of New York-based Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, an independent nonprofit that helps people, families, foundations and companies develop and manage giving programs.

Buffett, 75, befriended Gates, Microsoft Corp.'s founder and chairman, in the early 1990s. The two play bridge together, and Gates, 50, sits on the board of Buffett's investment company, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. With his gift, Buffett will become a trustee of the Seattle-based Gates Foundation.

In a letter to Bill and Melinda Gates, Buffett said he greatly admires the foundation's work. With an endowment of $30.6 billion, the foundation spends money on world health, poverty and increasing access to technology in developing countries. In the United States, it focuses on public schools and technology in public libraries.

Buffett said he wants his money to deepen the foundation's ability to invest in the problems it's already set out to tackle rather than broadening its mission.

On Monday, Buffett said he wasn't leaving the bulk of his riches to his children because he is "not an enthusiast for dynastic wealth, particularly when the alternative is 6 billion people having that much poorer hands than we have in life having a chance to benefit from the money."

Richard Shreve, an adjunct professor of business ethics at Dartmouth University's Tuck School of Business, said he thought Buffett's choice to give so much of his money away without demanding that his name be attached to it was both selfless and sensible.

"He's a rational businessman," Shreve said. "If he wants to do some good with his money, he'll put it in the hands of people who he thinks are very smart who've been spending a lot of time figuring out how best to do good in the world."

Bauer said he hopes Buffett's gift spurs others with wealth to forge similar ties rather than working on common goals separately.

"I would love, for example, to see two families in Seattle decide that if they're kind of working in a kind of a singular fashion on the same issues in the same community, wouldn't it be wonderful in the spirit of what the Gateses and Mr. Buffett have done, that they do the same thing?" Bauer said.

Bill Gates, the world's richest man, announced earlier this month that he would be stepping back from his day-to-day responsibilities at Microsoft Corp. in July 2008 so he can spend more time on the Seattle-based foundation. The foundation followed his announcement by saying Melinda Gates would also be taking a more active role in their philanthropic work.

[Enforcer]

Awesome. Just awesome.

[walto]

The article on this in the Boston Globe is better: it spends a good portion giving Buffett's reasons for the importance to both democracy and to sound economic policy of retaining an estate tax. He and Gates (who both actually earned their money) strongly support retention of that tax.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by walto

The article on this in the Boston Globe is better: it spends a good portion giving Buffett's reasons for the importance to both democracy and to sound economic policy of retaining an estate tax. He and Gates (who both actually earned their money) strongly support retention of that tax.

What, you have a problem with the Paris Hilton Relief Act, which would repeal the estate tax?

That's wonderful! I heard that one and half billion will go to the Yates' Foundation every year. That's heavy duty money.

[walto]

Originally Posted by rollhead

What, you have a problem with the Paris Hilton Relief Act, which would repeal the estate tax?

Actually, I could live without that tax, but only if the present tax code were altered so much as to be unrecognizable. As long as most big estates are a result of the private accumulation of land and other natural resources--the only fair thing to do is to pass around a little of that plunder when rich folks die.

[Gentle Giant]

70% of my personal fortune can barely buy me a used car.

Do you think this will inspire other rich folk to be more philanthropic, or will they say, "There's a big difference between being a billionaire and being a millionare. If I give that much away, I won't be a millionaire anymore."

Personally, I think Gates stepping down from Microsoft is the best news of all.

[Slurpy]

Originally Posted by Gentle Giant

Do you think this will inspire other rich folk to be more philanthropic, or will they say, "There's a big difference between being a billionaire and being a millionare. If I give that much away, I won't be a millionaire anymore."

Exactly what I was wondering. Of course, any philanthropic gesture is seen as good thing, right? Right??

Here's the Family Reseach Council's take:

"The press is gushing over Warren Buffett's announcement that he and his wife will give the lion's share of their immense wealth to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. A sizable chunk will also be given to foundations run by Buffett's wife and children. Here at FRC we have long memories. Consequently, we suggest one charitable project the Buffetts' have a moral obligation to fund. Back in the 1990s, the Buffett Foundation gave $2-3 million dollars to fund research and clinical trials needed to bring RU-486, the abortion pill, to market. Thanks to the Buffetts, and other promoters of abortion for population control, the drug was fast-tracked and approved under an order from President Clinton. Since then, approximately 500,000 American babies have been killed with RU-486. There has also been some "collateral damage" as they decreased the surplus population. At least, six American women have been killed following RU-486 use, and three of those women left children who are now motherless. Buffett's billions have the potential to do damage like this on a global scale. His foundation over the years has given millions to the likes of Planned Parenthood, Pathfinder International, the Population Council, and more besides. It has been reported that Buffett and Gates visited communist China in 1995 and made sure to visit a "family planning" clinic along the Yangtze. China's one-child policy has had a history of coercion, which went unremarked on the Buffett-Gates tour. It would be tragic if the new funds flowing into the Gates Foundation further today's assaults on the sanctity of human life, especially when the population bomb that is actually detonating is the one whose ideological fragments are wrecking Europe's fertility and contributed to so much pessimism about the Continent's future."


At times like these, I wish there was a Hell to await scumbags like Tony Perkins.

[Vince Kargatis]

Originally Posted by Slurpy

At times like these, I wish there was a Hell to await scumbags like Tony Perkins.

I'd be hard-pressed to think of anyone less likely to be impacted by FRC statements than Buffet or Gates.

[Enforcer]

Fixed.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

Here's the Family Reseach Council's take:

"The press is gushing over Warren Buffett's announcement that he and his wife will give the lion's share of their immense wealth to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. A sizable chunk will also be given to foundations run by Buffett's wife and children. Here at FRC we applaud this gesture. Pissing and moaning about extraneous, politically motivated bullshit would just detract from the spirit of the generosity demonstrated here, so we'll refrain from such dumbfuckery.

[claude]

Originally Posted by Slurpy

Here's the Family Reseach Council's take:

I can't even summon the energy to read crap like that.

[Sergio Zamora]

I guess when he saw that all the research into the camel demolecularizer was going nowhere, it was time to go with plan B.

[Pedantic Wretch]

Billionaire philanthropy is only evidence of how little we've moved on from the nineteenth century. The very fact that billionaires can exist at all is an indictment of the capitalist world system.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Sergio Zamora

came demolecularizer .

? I'm assuming you meant "camel demolecularizer". That would make sense.

[sonic1]

Fucking bleeding liberals.

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

? I'm assuming you meant "camel demolecularizer". That would make sense.

Yeah. corrected.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Sergio Zamora

Yeah. corrected.

Yeah, he might be late though. I think there's a working prototype.

[Doc Martin]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

? I'm assuming you meant "camel demolecularizer".

If I catch anybody demolecularizing Camels, there will be trouble….......big fucking trouble!

[Doc Martin]

Originally Posted by Pedantic Wretch

Billionaire philanthropy is only evidence of how little we've moved on from the nineteenth century. The very fact that billionaires can exist at all is an indictment of the capitalist world system.

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by Doc Martin

If I catch anybody demolecularizing Camels, there will be trouble….......big fucking trouble!

Ideally, the camels would get remolecularized on the other side of the needle. Otherwise, I don't think it counts.

I wouldn't want this to get leaked out, but I've got a cushion gov job as Chief Camel Watcher for the East Coast. If'n I see one I'll steer'em clear of the demolecularizer.

[Slurpy]

Originally Posted by Vince Kargatis

I'd be hard-pressed to think of anyone less likely to be impacted by FRC statements than Buffet or Gates.

Of course but that's not who FRC aims their transparent propaganda at. See below:

[moneyp]

Just for you, PW.

[claude]

Originally Posted by Pedantic Wretch

Billionaire philanthropy is only evidence of how little we've moved on from the nineteenth century. The very fact that billionaires can exist at all is an indictment of the capitalist world system.

I suppose the existence of a billionaire is evidence that there are ways of getting an unfair advantage within the capitalist system. That said, I don't think a system exists without an unfair advantage for someone. The idea that there is a system that will be equitable to everyone is naive at best. Are there problems with the way capitalism is practiced currently, you bet there are. But I wouldn't trade those problems for the ones that come with any of the alternatives.

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by claude

I suppose the existence of a billionaire is evidence that there are ways of getting an unfair advantage within the capitalist system. That said, I don't think a system exists without an unfair advantage for someone. The idea that there is a system that will be equitable to everyone is naive at best. Are there problems with the way capitalism is practiced currently, you bet there are. But I wouldn't trade those problems for the ones that come with any of the alternatives.

Why do we always say that: the whole, there is no better system out there. Bullshit.

I am tired of people making excuses for capitalism by comparing it to other failed ideologies. What, we are talented enough to put a library's worth of information on the head of a fucking pin, but we can't figure out a system that is more fair? Sounds like a priorities problem to me.

The problem for me, is that capitalism is getting increasingly more unfair. It isn't evening things out. Rather it is thriving on the drastic differences between how some people live. The american and european middle class (where capitalism is supposed to be at its best) is shrinking.

I am not one to believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but I have to admit that capitalism is so infested with problems, that I hardly see how it can be improved without major resistance by those in power.

[walto]

There are billionaires and billionaires, millionaires and millionaires, working poor and petty thieves. That someone is rich isn't alone enough to convict them of being an exploiter, IMHO. Similarly, that someone is poor isn't sufficient proof of holiness.

But that International Paper owns most of Maine and keeps the proceeds--that's plunder. In the states, only Alaska, with its oil dividend, seems to have any real clue about this stuff.

[Pedantic Wretch]

Originally Posted by moneyp

Just for you, PW.

Good article. That's the one people should be reading.

[claude]

Originally Posted by sonic1

Why do we always say that: the whole, there is no better system out there. Bullshit.

My problem is that every other system almost by definition involves more government control. So we transfer the unfair advantage from those with capital to those with political power, I don't see how that's better. I also agree with you that capitalism as it is practiced in much of the world leaves a lot to be desired. I just haven't heard any proposals yet that make me feel hopeful for a viable alternative.

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by claude

My problem is that every other system almost by definition involves more government control. So we transfer the unfair advantage from those with capital to those with political power, I don't see how that's better. I also agree with you that capitalism as it is practiced in much of the world leaves a lot to be desired. I just haven't heard any proposals yet that make me feel hopeful for a viable alternative.

Like I said, it is time for new ideas, not old ones. ANd I think it is lazy and pathetic that nobody is even trying. If we fall like Rome, we shall certainly deserve it.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Pedantic Wretch

Billionaire philanthropy is only evidence of how little we've moved on from the nineteenth century. The very fact that billionaires can exist at all is an indictment of the capitalist world system.

I love you.