GATES LAMBASTED FOR $50M GIFT!

The Outrage Email Edition ^ | May 10, 2002 | The Outrage (email)

[redhead]

GATES LAMBASTED FOR $50M GIFT!

Being one of the world's richest people must be great fun most of the time. But it does have its drawbacks, as we discovered while watching BBC World News on May 9. Microsoft main man Bill Gates was interviewed by a BBC correspondent about his personal foundation's $50 million gift to improve the health of poor children in the developing world. But from the tone of the interview, you might have mistaken it for a deposition in Microsoft's antitrust case. Or perhaps a murder trial.

1st question from BBC Correspondent: “Is this a way of salving your conscience?”

Outrage comment: We're not really sure that, other than being a tough and very successful businessman, Gates has really done anything that requires “salving” his conscience. Of course, only he knows, but the tone of the question might have been more appropriate if directed at OJ.

Gates response's proved that he may be a smart guy, but he should let his PR team handle the media. Instead of angrily denying that he required any such vindication, his mostly irrelevant response was that he enjoyed his foundation work, but he also enjoyed his business endeavors.

BBC question: “Do you think private contributions like this are a way of letting government off the hook for this sort of program?”

Outrage comment: Instead of saying something along the lines of “Hey Bill, $50 mill for the poor kids, nice job” the correspondent went on the attack, using the common but fallacious theory that any increase in private philanthropy must cause a corresponding decrease in government aid.

But the BBC question really implies an even more common, and more dangerous, assumption – that there is some fundamental difference between governments and the people that fund those governments. What is government aid to the poor but tax dollars that have been coerced from unwilling citizens of that government? And if rich citizens like Gates are willing to voluntarily fund those programs, why shouldn't that lessen the tax burden on those who are unable and/or unwilling to fund those programs through taxation?

Gates has an answer: “Certainly we can't let governments off the hook, because they're the only ones with the scale of resources that are large enough to solve these tough problems.” Very interesting comment – on any given day, Gates and his best bud and fellow wrong-headed philanthropist Warren Buffett have a combined net worth of over $75 billion, depending on the state of the markets. That's not enough “scale of resources” to fund these programs? So we have to rely on forced contributions from schoolteachers, factory workers, small business owners and other heavily taxed citizens? Ted Turner's no superhero, but at least he put his money where his mouth is by donating $1 billion to the United Nations.

Bill Gates gives money to improve the health of the poor, thus increasing world population. Warren Buffett focuses his huge wealth on the problem of overpopulation, thus doing his best to prevent increases in world population. But maybe it would really be better if they would both just stick to business.

[redhead]

Shameless self-bump

[Lorianne]

Bill Gates gives money to improve the health of the poor, thus increasing world population.

Uh I was agreeing until the end with this ludicrous declaration. Care to support it with some facts?

What has been documented in all places in the world to date: when a health improves, productivity increases, then wealth increases, then standard of living increases, then people produce fewer children, then population goes DOWN ... and voluntarily, not coercively.

[Bogey78O]

HYe should have stormed out for this hostile treatment. He doesn't need the praise and he sure as hell doesn't need the condemnation.

[Lorianne]

Also, Gates is giving $2.5 Billion, yes that's BILLIONS not millions, to various health care initiatives. This $50 million is just one of the programs he's funding, a drop in the bucket.

Everyone has to complain about something I guess. It's his money, he can spend it how he likes. I happen to believe he's doing it the right way.

[hinckley buzzard]

So...like BillyBoy, you think there is a discernible "right way" for a private citizen to spend his money?

What if he (Gates) spent his own money in a way that you in your superior wisdom, disapproved? Would you then attack him personally, like the Welfare Whore in this "interview?"

[billybudd]

I don't think sending vaccines to Third World countries will cause them to suddenly become prosperous, in fact so prosperous that they begin having demographic tendencies of First World countries. The more likely result of Bill Gates' health program is that more kids will live beyond age 5, albeit at subsistence levels, and live on to produce more children than otherwise would have been. Though, I don't consider an increasing population a problem. If people engage in capitalistic free trade, each additional person is a benefit to society, not a drag.

[billybudd]

I don't think Lorianne meant to say that there is only one right way which applies to everyone, but rather that Gates spent the money as she would have. I think Lorianne believes in right solutions and wrong solutions, but also admits the possibility that she is wrong. She implies this by saying "I happen to believe he's doing it the right way." instead of "He is doing it the right way." (Correct me if I'm wrong, Lorianne.)
Give people the benefit of the doubt.

[Lorianne]

Correct, that's what I meant. I happen to concur with his strategy. :-)

[Lorianne]

I don't think sending vaccines to Third World countries will cause them to suddenly become prosperous .....

I don't either. Not suddenly. More like eventually. The West didn't "suddenly" become well off either. I think Gates is pursuing a long range goal for world stability and peace .... which makes him even more unique in the philanthropic sense. He will not see the benefits he hopes his charity will bring in his lifetime.

[PatrioticAmerican]

The writer is an idiotand has no understanding of Gates donations. $50 mill? HA! He has given not less than 400 times that amount.

[billybudd]

Yes, exactly. In the short term, there will be a surge in the population growth rate because of better health. In the long run, wealth will dampen population growth - but only if the developing countries adopt a pro-growth economic system. Same as the rise of the US.