
Gates Makes Largest Donation Since 2000 with $4.6B Pledge - adventured
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-14/gates-makes-largest-donation-since-2000-with-4-6-billion-pledge
======
braydenm
Although there are many cynics, it's quite remarkable the impact on the world
donations can have. Here's what their foundation has actually been doing with
the money: [https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/Resources-and-
Med...](https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/Resources-and-Media/Annual-
Reports/Annual-Report-2016)

I wouldn't be surprised if private donations will eventually be responsible
for the eradication of Malaria (1000 deaths daily, much more suffering and
cost to society).

If you're in tech you're likely to be in a great position to create value
beyond your company. For example, donating equity from your startup or a
fraction of your income to the charities that can prove they are having the
most cost effective impact on the world:
[https://founderspledge.com/](https://founderspledge.com/)
[https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/pledge/](https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/pledge/)

~~~
Iknown0thing
As much as like the new way of distributing wealth in this manner, some of the
foundations Christians fundamentals worry me. For example -
[https://www.gatesfoundation.org/how-we-work/quick-
links/gran...](https://www.gatesfoundation.org/how-we-work/quick-links/grants-
database/#q/k=catholic)

I tried looking for similar grants to religious services organizations from
other religions, but my search came up empty. Very happy to stand corrected on
this.

~~~
mikeyouse
This is a silly complaint -- Some of the 'religious' grant money goes to
Catholic Relief Services who happen to be one of the largest charity groups
operating in Africa. Most of these funds go to Agriculture / emergency relief.

They've also given over $150 million to the Islamic Development Bank to
support their vaccine efforts and smaller amounts to dozens of other Muslim-
based groups for different initiatives. Likewise for Jewish organizations.

B&MG Foundation are incredibly results driven, all of their grants come with
direction for measuring impact and reporting on it. They aren't giving to
religious organizations to further religion, but because those organizations
are best suited to reach the most people or best suited to responsibly steward
enormous amounts of money and resources.

~~~
Iknown0thing
Just because it is called Islamic development bank does not make it a
religious organization. Point here is - look at the profiles of some of the
organizations. Some of them based on fundamentals I am not sure I feel
comfortable about. Also about catholic church in Africa, see Rwanda case
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Rwanda#1994_Genoci...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Rwanda#1994_Genocide)

------
SEJeff
I'm surprised that people are asking how / why he is giving money away and no
one mentioned his Giving Pledge:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge)

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet pledged to give half of their net worth away
during their life or death to charity. They're practicing what they preach.

~~~
elmar
it's capitalism at is best you start a company in your garage take it to be
worth Bilions an then give it all away, doesn't get better than this.

~~~
mfoy_
I don't think you can _really_ conflate capitalism with philanthropy like
that. They're just... different things.

"Capitalism at it's best" isn't people giving away money... it's people being
competitively compensated for their contributions to society-- the ability to
take risks and reap the rewards.

Of course then you can argue that tax is a way to enforce a minimal amount of
philanthropy onto people, forcing them to contribute to the greater good
whether they want to or not... but people who seem to be very vocally in
favour of pure capitalism also seem to be very vocally against high taxes.

~~~
rusk

      *it's people being competitively compensated for their contributions to society*
    

Sorry to nitpick .. you're describing meritocracy I think, as envisaged by
free-market economics (which is entirely reasonable - to a point).

Capitalism isn't so much the emergent market behaviour as a system that
provides a means to create and develop wealth (i.e. _capital_ ). The labour
market is one aspect of this, but it's not exclusively tied to it.

    
    
      *Capitalism is an economic system and an ideology based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.*
    

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism)

------
pmoriarty
A different view on Gates' charity work: [1]

Some highlights:

 _" The first question concerns accountability... The Foundation is the main
player in several global health partnerships and one of the single largest
donors to the WHO. This gives it considerable leverage in shaping health
policy priorities and intellectual norms..."_

 _" ‘Depending on what side of bed Gates gets out of in the morning,’ he
remarks, ‘it can shift the terrain of global health.’.."_

 _" It’s not a democracy. It’s not even a constitutional monarchy. It’s about
what Bill and Melinda want..."_

 _" In 2008 the WHO’s head of malaria research, Aarata Kochi, accused a Gates
Foundation ‘cartel’ of suppressing diversity of scientific opinion, claiming
the organization was ‘accountable to no-one other than itself’."_

 _" As Tido von Schoen Angerer, Executive Director of the Access Campaign at
Médecins Sans Frontières, explains, ‘The Foundation wants the private sector
to do more on global health, and sets up partnerships with the private sector
involved in governance. As these institutions are clearly also trying to
influence policymaking, there are huge conflicts of interests... the companies
should not play a role in setting the rules of the game.’"_

 _" The Foundation itself has employed numerous former Big Pharma figures,
leading to accusations of industry bias..."_

 _" Research by Devi Sridhar at Oxford University warns that philanthropic
interventions are ‘radically skewing public health programmes towards issues
of the greatest concern to wealthy donors’. ‘Issues,’ she writes, ‘which are
not necessarily top priority for people in the recipient country.’"_

More in the article...

[https://newint.org/features/2012/04/01/bill-gates-
charitable...](https://newint.org/features/2012/04/01/bill-gates-charitable-
giving-ethics)

~~~
alexandercrohde
Are you serious? This is almost too goofy to merit a response.

Yes, when a billionaire gives away billions of dollars he's not accountable to
anybody else. Why the heck would he be? If he were, then he wouldn't have
donated it in the first place but would have just "invested it" in a company
he created and controlled.

There's no way to spin this where donating to a charity is more evil than what
all the other .1%s do, hoard it.

~~~
wolco
Think about it for a second. He didn't really give the money away he gave it
to a charity he controls. That gift reduced the amount of taxes flowing to the
public/government vs if he cashed in the stocks himself personally.

You and I are paying more on a percentage basis to the government.

~~~
adventured
> Think about it for a second. He didn't really give the money away he gave it
> to a charity he controls.

He is in fact giving immense sums of his money away. You should indeed think
about it for a second. The Gates Foundation has expended tens of billions of
dollars so far.

Fact quote from their site:

"Total grant payments since inception (through Q4 2016): $41 billion"

"Total 2016 Direct Grantee Support: $4.3 billion"

That is an extraordinary sum already. That money is gone, it is not under
their control. They're spending $4.x billion per year at this point, that
money is non-recoverable, it gets spent. Over time, the fortune is
extinguished, as they're forced to give 5% per year. Get it?

------
dopamean
Pledging to give away so much of your wealth has interesting side benefits.
You get to keep your money out of the hands of the government and if you're
donating to your own charity then you also get to keep your family in control
of the money.

I definitely don't mean to diminish the contribution of the Gates Foundation
though. I often hear that they're one of the good ones.

~~~
elmar
probably the money is more wisely spent by the private institution than the
government.

~~~
teamhappy
The argument usually is that by donating your money to a charity that you
control instead of paying taxes you effectively undermine democracy.

~~~
toomuchtodo
The majority of federal income tax receipts go to military spending [+]
(ignore social security and healthcare, those are funded out of compulsory
payroll taxes, which is distinct from federal income tax); you're doing more
social good (in general) by diverting wealth to charities that promote social
welfare than giving that money to the federal government (I'm sad to say).

Sometimes democracy is wrong. More social programs, less F35s.

[+]
[http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/](http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/)

~~~
zaroth
Your own source shows defense as 17% of overall spending.

As a percentage of income tax receipts, the number for military spending is
closer to 25%. See, for example,
[https://www.nationalpriorities.org/interactive-
data/taxday/](https://www.nationalpriorities.org/interactive-data/taxday/)

~~~
toomuchtodo
It's 21% for FY 2016 (which is a percentage based on including social security
and medicare, which as I mentioned, are not part of federal income tax
receipts; the percentage ). 2017 isn't done yet; I'm not using an estimate
with an administration going sideways.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States)

"Military budget of the United States. ... The budget funds 4 branches of the
U.S. military: the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force. In FY 2015,
Pentagon and related spending totaled $598 billion, _about 54% of the fiscal
year 2015 U.S. discretionary budget._ "

Yes, we're spending that much on the military. Yes, its pathetic. Yes, its why
its best to avoid (not evade, which is illegal) paying income tax whenever
possible. I prefer my welfare programs not enable the slaughter of hundreds of
thousands of civilians in a foreign country, but that's just me.

~~~
zaroth
OK, that is bizarre; visit usgovernmentspending.com site on mobile and the
chart says US FY2016 spending on Defense is 17%. On desktop, the chart says
21%.... In any case, as a percentage of federal income tax it does seem that
defense is around 25%.

"U.S. discretionary spending" is simply spending which is authorized annually
instead of authorized by laws spanning multiple years. It doesn't seem to be a
highly meaningful categorization if you are arguing about where your dollars
are going -- the dollars don't care what year they were authorized to be
spent.

Separating out payroll vs income taxes -- in other words recognizing the
different tax rates for "earned" vs. "unearned" income -- is not entirely
irrelevant, because dollar for dollar your capital gains taxes will be spent
more on defense than welfare, but it's still no where near 50% of your capital
gains taxes being spent on defense.

~~~
pmoriarty
For a different view on this, see _The Trickery of the US Military Budget_.[1]

 _" A key federal budget trick is using words to confuse citizens, such as
labeling U.S. military spending as “defense” though much is for “offense” and
sliding costs for wounded soldiers under “veterans affairs” and nuclear bombs
under “energy,” as ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar explains..."_

Also, from [2]:

 _" The most recent figures related to President Trump’s proposed increases in
Pentagon spending, along with cuts at the State Department, show the general
national security budget of the United States rising once again, with the 2018
proposal in the ballpark of $1.1 trillion."_

Finally, see [3], where the budget breakdown is:

The Pentagon budget - $575 billion

The war budget - $64.6 billion

Nuclear warheads - $20 billion

‘Other Defense’ - $8 billion

Homeland security - $50 billion

Military aid - $7 billion

Intelligence - $70 billion

Supporting veterans - $186 billion

Military retirement - $80 billion

Defense share of interest on the debt - $100 billion

[1] -
[http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33833.htm](http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33833.htm)

[2] - [http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2017/06/02/1015056-the-
milita...](http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2017/06/02/1015056-the-
militarysecurity-complex-is-bankrupting-america/)

[3] - [https://warisboring.com/the-trillion-dollar-military-
budget/](https://warisboring.com/the-trillion-dollar-military-budget/)

------
brianbreslin
So what is his net worth made up of if he's donated all but 1.5% of his MSFT
stock? His remaining MSFT stock is worth about $8B. What's the rest of his
$82B made up of?

\- Edit- Nevermind, found it on here:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_Investment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_Investment)

~~~
adventured
Cascade's investments are roughly 1/2 of his wealth. Bloomberg is currently
estimating he's sitting on $43 billion in cash.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/profiles/william-h-
ga...](https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/profiles/william-h-gates/)

~~~
joering2
Honest question: can half of it for example $20B in cash, cure cancer? or
HIV/AIDS?

~~~
bearjaws
Its important to understand, when anyone says "cure cancer", they are saying
cure 100+ (mostly) unique diseases. $20Bn is not even close, try around 200Bn
and 50+ years of research.

Maybe we will get lucky and find an amazing immuno-oncology drug that takes
out half of them in the next 20 years, but I wouldn't bet on it.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I see it a bit differently, if you can figure out both all of the functional
relationships in our bodies and devise a mechanism to precisely drive any and
all of them, not only will you 'cure cancer' but you will be able to cure any
other disease or ailment that is expressed as an undesirable functioning of
that system.

I don't know if you can do that with $20B but I feel these days that its more
likely to occur rather than the opposite (which is to discover some underlying
uncertainty principle that would prevent directing cellular action in a
predefined way.)

~~~
theobon
We are barely able to simulate a simple reptile brain and you are asking for
complete understanding and simulation of any human body. I think you are
vastly underestimating the complexity of biological system.

~~~
ehsanu1
What's the project for simulating a reptile brain? I know we've not fully
nailed the ~1000 cells required for simulating a whole worm, though we're
getting there: [http://www.openworm.org/](http://www.openworm.org/)

------
alexandercrohde
Hooray for Bill. When I was young the joke was how he was a crazy man trying
to monopolize/take over the world. Seems ironically he may be the single man
who has given the most to the world.

Hopefully other billionaires can take inspiration from him and recognize that
helping the species is a more fulfilling game than "How many 0s in my net
worth."

------
dalbasal
No mention of what project s the funds are going towards.

There have been some good words from the foundation regarding the (health,
primarily I believe) programs in Tanzania. I wonder if this is towards scaling
those projects.

Anyone have the scoop?

~~~
melling
[http://www.cbsnews.com/news/giving-pledge-new-
billionaires-c...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/giving-pledge-new-billionaires-
club/)

------
escot
> Gates remains the richest person on earth after the donation with a fortune
> the Bloomberg Billionaires Index valued at $86 billion as of 10:40 a.m.
> Tuesday in New York. His donation once again puts Amazon.com Inc. founder
> Jeff Bezos close to the top spot, with a net worth of $84.5 billion.

Keeping a bit of wiggle room.

~~~
chirau
It's probably coincidental. I don't think he decided to give 4.6B overnight
and I don't think he could have estimated what AMZN would be at on the day of
the announcement.

------
zitterbewegung
I am not sure if I recall correctly but wasn’t there a reason where gates
wouldn’t donate all of his wealth at once and needed to do it in stages ?

Also, maybe they can’t utilize all that cash at once. Therefore it would be
best to be illiquid until you need the liquidity.

~~~
Pigo
I don't know why, but I always worry when I see huge donations that poor
management will see most of the money end up devious hands. But I imagine with
that much money, there's a ridiculous amount of attention as to where it's
going, and plenty of good people willing to manage it. But I assume everything
is The Big Short and House of Cards out there.

~~~
peter303
Zuckerbergs hundred million to Camden NJ was squandered. Too much money too
soon. Plus a corrupt organization. Plus no one really knows how to make
minority schools better. Its not from lack of trying.

~~~
Pigo
I think this is exactly what I fear. No matter how much money we raise for
curing cancer, it's not necessarily going to give us the cure for cancer. And
now we have "charities" like Komen that exist purely to virtue signal while
everyone's driving Bentley's. There's so much corruption out there, especially
places like Africa where I know Gates has given a lot of love.

------
2_listerine_pls
He is donating it to The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which is controlled
by himself. Isn't it just a different form of ownership?

~~~
hbk1966
It's a non profit so no one owns it. He is still in control of it though,

~~~
0xbear
That's a common misconception. Nonprofits _do_ have owners. And also, while
they can't make money directly, they can spin off for-profit companies if e.g.
they invent a cure for cancer or something.

~~~
adventured
That's incorrect. Nonprofits can't have owners.

[https://cullinanelaw.com/nonprofit-law-basics-who-owns-a-
non...](https://cullinanelaw.com/nonprofit-law-basics-who-owns-a-nonprofit/)

[https://www.501c3.org/who-really-owns-a-
nonprofit/](https://www.501c3.org/who-really-owns-a-nonprofit/)

~~~
0xbear
They do have "stakeholders" which, naturally, can't profit from either
operation or sale of the nonprofit, but, crucially, _can_ control creation of
commercial spin-offs and spending. I.e. While de jure they can't be called
owners, they still can (and often do) profit indirectly.

------
grandalf
I have a lot more respect for someone like Elon Musk who invests his money
back into new ideas than someone who simply gives most of it away to charity.

Malaria, low literacy rates, etc., are the byproducts of failed political
systems and corruption.

Musk's impact on electric vehicle technology will drain a great deal of
despotism from the middle east as dependence on oil wanes, far more
effectively than any philanthropic contribution he might have made would have.

There are a number of technologies that can drastically change the dynamic
between the elites (officials) and everyone else worldwide. Our most gifted
thinkers and entrepreneurs should be inventing the next printing press or
cotton gin, not attending charity functions.

~~~
TTPrograms
Bill Gates is also applying his money where he thinks it will have the most
impact - their foundation often invests in new technologies and startups whose
products will have the greatest impact per dollar. If Gates and Musk are both
working to maximize impact their difference is who they focus on. Gates
primarily focuses on the most impoverished on the planet, while Musk focuses
on the first world (and indirectly the most impoverished due to the effects on
climate change).

Saying that the Gates Foundation does not reinvest into new ideas that
maximize impact does a great disservice to what is one of most effective and
effectiveness-oriented philanthropic organizations on the planet.

~~~
grandalf
Impact in terms of what? Alleviating suffering or helping to fix the
institutions whose brokenness has let the problems fester?

~~~
TTPrograms
Alleviating suffering over the long term, which includes fixing institutions
when it's appropriate.

------
downandout
Can anyone explain how he only owns 1.3% of Microsoft now, and yet is worth
$86 billion? Almost all of his net worth came from Microsoft shares. Based
upon the MSFT market cap of $561 billion, he is only worth about $7.3 billion.

What accounts for this monstrous difference? He has cashed some out over the
years, but not ~$80 billion worth.

~~~
adventured
Bill Gates owned ~24% of Microsoft in 1996 for example.

At the peak of the dotcom bubble, his holdings in Microsoft were worth between
$85 and $95 billion (with a very limited diversification at that point). He
briefly hit or nearly eclipsed $100 billion when Microsoft hit its highest
point back then (in December 1999). The difference you're looking for, is
represented in his program of routinely - and persistently - liquidating
Microsoft shares over the last 20 years and diversifying into other
investments.

The reason for the dramatic diversification out of Microsoft, should of course
be obvious though: eliminate a single point of failure, particularly important
given what he is attempting to achieve with his wealth (it's all going to the
public good (his opinion of what that is of course)).

------
kareldonk
When you've hoarded so much cash and denied others a better life, it's easy to
'donate' like this.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
Just to give the counter-argument, he has also created a lot of (technical,
well paid) jobs for a lot of people all over the world over the years.

------
peteretep
I'd love to see the creation of more trusts, such as the one that funds The
Guardian, the one that funds The Economist, etc.

------
nepotism2018
I hope it won't make the news like the money raised for Grenfell Tower Fire
survivors

------
freddealmeida
Is there any data on what he has given in actual dollars from his pledge to
this one?

------
joeblow9999
Don't forget that Zuck has also pledged 99% of his wealth.

------
gigatexal
Likely didn't cost him much (no disrespect to his huge donation meant) since
MSFT shares rose something like 50% in the last few years.

------
canoebuilder
_eradication of Malaria (1000 deaths daily, much more suffering and cost to
society)._

If great efforts are made to eradicate diseases in an area that has
historically been subjected to various diseases such that the local population
has adopted the reproduction strategy of having large amounts of offspring to
counter premature deaths, but upon eradication/reduction of said diseases
there is significant delay in the abatement of the overproduction strategy if
it abates at all [http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-worlds-most-important-
graph/](http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-worlds-most-important-graph/)

if this population surge then expands beyond it's historical borders and
causes mass societal disruption on a neighboring continent whose civilization
has historically contributed great innovation and wealth to the world at
large, and subsequently, said wealth and innovation contribution declines
because of said societal disruption, do those who sought to eradicate the
various diseases harbor some responsibility for the diminished prospects of
the world at large?

Granted these are delicate questions but I believe their being asked has not
just validity, but importance.

Certainly, simply ignoring pain, disease, and suffering is almost universally
unpalatable.

But modifying one aspect of a complex system for what appears to be perfectly
benevolent reasons, it is not at all surprising to find there could be
downstream negative effects, negative enough to far outweigh whatever
beneficent contribution you thought you were initially making. How do you make
value judgments in such cases?

Gates himself has said it is far better to help people where they are
regarding the recent unauthorized population influx events in Europe.

So I don't believe he is entirely blind to these potential downstream
catastrophic effects.

~~~
ghostbrainalpha
You are talking about children dying...

And you are also making the assumption that only Europe can contribute to
innovation, and Africans can only be a burden on their neighbors and will
never become contributors.

I would agree that if the solving of a crisis like Malaria results in
population growth, we need to plan on success and also focus on supporting
infrastructure for those people.

But I think you are saying something much more horrific. Maybe work with your
therapist on empathy.

We need someone as smart as you to focus on making the world a better place
for everyone, not using your intellect to make scientific justifications for
genocide.

~~~
canoebuilder
I don't know if that was an intentional flattery tactic to get me to read your
most more closely, but it worked, thanks, regardless.

I'm surprised if the post read as "more children dying is the obvious optimal
path," that wasn't my intent.

I'm meaning to draw attention to the fact that if we are going to have outside
interventions into societies that have drastic effects on those societies,
then the outside interventions should include plans for all foreseeable(and
vigilance in watching for unforeseeable) drastic effects they incur, be they
in population structure, political structure, etc.

In this case birth control education seems a prudent corollary plan to disease
eradication. But it's more of a thorny problem than just saying here read this
book, take this class, take this pill, if these reproduction strategies are
expressions of deeply ingrained genetic tendencies.

Certainly birth rate in the western world has declined, but there are lots of
differences in the western world and Africa. Not least of which westerners
never had outside interventions into their culture and environment of this
nature.

~~~
carlisle_
You didn't address it and I think there is merit to the point being made about
your "bedside manner". I agree with your viewpoint, but it is important to
tread carefully when it comes to the lives of others. Your point can be lost
not by lack of merit but by lack of semantics.

~~~
canoebuilder
Thank you for the feedback! Being hyper aware(at least I think so) of this
issue you mention I tried mightily to tread carefully.

I think for the most part, the nature of the issue just makes it inherently
open to objections of "bedside manner" when discussed in "polite society."

What do you think I could have done better in terms of phrasing or what have
you?

~~~
carlisle_
I think the easiest way is to explicitly call out possible arguments and get
your opinion out in front. E.g "Some might say this gives me a lackadaisical
attitude towards the lives of others. Conversely I have nothing but the utmost
respect for the lives of others and am concerned with the well being of
others"

It's not a perfect example but it's an easy way to show that you are thinking
about other people and what they might be thinking. You can combine this with
an invitation for people to voice their opinions. People like knowing that
their opinion is valuable especially when your assertions put the reader at
odds with their own opinions.

Just a few things I've found help internet discussions. People read things
with different voices and diffferent inflections so it's important to be
explicit when possible, especially on a subject that is truly difficult to
discuss in polite company.

~~~
canoebuilder
Thanks for taking the time, I appreciate it.

------
anonymousiam
So he donated a small percentage of the stock he holds to a charity that he
and his wife control to avoid taxes on dividends. Big deal.

------
balozi
Even Gates doesn't trust the government with his money. If he did he would
render unto Caesar and have him build roads and fund foreign despots. Like the
the rest of us.

------
kensai
Bezos reacted! That was fast!! :D

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ_DyimkS54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ_DyimkS54)

------
givan
Instead of using the money to research renewable or more efficient energy
production, reduce pollution etc his foundation uses the money for vaccines
and health services which surprisingly has as target, as he says in a ted
video (link below), to decrease human population which he sees it as the major
problem of today.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-
fq2Zn7I&t=278&cc_load_po...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-
fq2Zn7I&t=278&cc_load_policy=1)

"The world today has about 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about 9
billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care,
reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15%"

~~~
adventured
> Instead of using the money to research renewable or more efficient energy
> production

That's incorrect. Gates has dedicated vast sums of money, over more than a
decade, to energy research and has openly and frequently stated that dramatic
energy breakthroughs are among the most important goals he or anyone can have
to further humanity.

[http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/bill-
ga...](http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/bill-gates-lays-
out-vision-for-clean-energy/)

[http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-talks-private-
nucl...](http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-talks-private-nuclear-
fission-plant-terrapower-2016-4)

[http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-interview-
energy-m...](http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-interview-energy-
miracle-coming-2016-2)

[http://fortune.com/2016/09/15/bill-gates-backs-
renmatix/](http://fortune.com/2016/09/15/bill-gates-backs-renmatix/)

[https://www.cnet.com/news/bill-gates-invests-in-algae-
fuel/](https://www.cnet.com/news/bill-gates-invests-in-algae-fuel/)

------
revelation
Read: has donated shares of Microsoft to his own foundation.

Maybe we can give Gates the benefit of the doubt but for everyone else, this
is just a tax scheme.

~~~
slackoverflower
You do realize his foundation helped eradicate polio worldwide. Some of you
HNers can't give people a break.

~~~
sametmax
We do realize their PR tell you that.

What I know, however, is that I've been missioned in Africa by the gate
foundation and that most money is wasted. Most stats are bullshitted.

What I know is that Gates have been misbehaving most of his life and that
suddenly he is giving so much money he won from this time.

What I see is that a lot of people like you are very eager to forgive
everything he has done, all the benefits he got from it, just because he is
giving back what he took.

It's because of this that we can't improve our systems. A bit of PR and voila,
all misdeeds are forgiven. Bad guys become saints. And people like you will
spend their energy defend the story.

~~~
jimbokun
I didn't like the way Microsoft acted as a monopoly, but the tech industry
managed to survive and escape Microsoft hegemony. Microsoft made some terrible
software, but Office is actually very good overall and can argue has led to
real productivity gains for many businesses. (I realize this can be debated
endlessly.)

Everything I've read indicates Gates takes his philanthropy very, very
seriously and is having a real impact on improving people's lives. I'm sure
his foundations are not perfect and have problems, but I also believe they are
a net benefit to the world.

Interesting to contrast with someone like Steve Jobs. His company arguably
produced much better products impacting (shockingly) many more people, but he
didn't give a dime to charity (as far as I know). Could have long
philosophical arguments about who had the more positive impact on humanity
overall.

~~~
sametmax
You don't remember MS lying, cheating, doing illegal things and corrupting
governments ?

See, that's the problem here.

You have completely forgotten how bad it was.

The fact the industry and society did well despite that is not relevant.

~~~
jimbokun
I do remember, and felt pretty much the same way you do now at the time.

Over the years, my views towards Microsoft have softened.

------
humanrebar
Hypothesis: From an analytical perspective, he must believe that the upside of
Microsoft is limited enough, at least over the time horizon he's concerned
about, to start cashing in Microsoft stock. He's a smart guy. He'd be trying
to convert his holdings at the top of a value curve, right?

~~~
sdrothrock
> He'd be trying to convert his holdings at the top of a value curve, right?

Not necessarily. He just has to believe that the return on his investment will
be greater (financially, in good will, in results) than the same money would
be in Microsoft.

~~~
jstanley
> he must believe that the upside of Microsoft is limited enough, at least
> over the time horizon he's concerned about, to start cashing in Microsoft
> stock.

How is that different?

If he expects to get a greater return elsewhere, that's because the upside of
Microsoft is limited enough, over the time horizon he's concerned about.

~~~
sdrothrock
"at the top of a value curve" indicates to me that OP is expressing that he is
imagining Gates seeing Microsoft's value as a line that will curve downward
after this, or at least flatten out. I could be completely wrong.

So what I was trying to express to OP is that while Microsoft's value may not
sink (that is, now is not at the top of any curve), the value of the
investment may be rising faster in various measures than the same money in
Microsoft would be.

