
Bill Gates Gives Away More Money Than The Entire US Foreign Aid Budget - pud
http://holykaw.alltop.com/bill-gates-is-better-than-batman-infographic
======
ejames
I think there are two important facts to keep in perspective here.

First, polls have shown that U.S. citizens drastically overestimate the amount
of the federal budget allocated to foreign aid. As I recall, the average
estimate is 25%; the reality is less than 0.1%.

The comparison holds mainly not because Bill Gates is so rich, or because the
U.S. is indebted, but because federal budget priorities drastically favor
items that are not foreign aid. Those priorities are formed in part because
citizens believe that the budget is already giving away huge quantities of
money, making proposals to increase foreign aid unpopular.

Second, the amount of money spent is not necessarily a good measure of the
amount of aid given. On the one hand, sometimes more money doesn't help; to
use an analogy that people here might understand, after a certain point in
increasing your budget for paying software developers, you are limited by your
ability to find good people, not by your ability to pay them. Likewise, some
foreign aid projects - such as HIV eradication in certain African nations -
have reached the point where the amount of monetary aid given already exceeds
the capacity of local infrastructure to use the resources wisely, and any more
would just sit in a bank account somewhere until someone blew it on a useless
boondoggle.

On the other hand, some forms of aid or assistance given by the U.S. to
friends or allies do not have monetary value, such as military assistance,
diplomatic cover, or political advice... and there are material goods that
are, for whatever reason, more valuable to the people who receive them than
the items would be priced in the U.S. market where they were paid for.

So although this is a true and revealing fact, it's best to not misinterpret
it. The reasons for the foreign aid budget being lower than Bill Gates's
charity contributions are political, not fiscal; but it's likely that the more
important question about foreign aid is the nature and quality of the aid, not
the U.S. dollar value for which it was purchased.

~~~
grannyg00se
"First, polls have shown that U.S. citizens drastically overestimate the
amount of the federal budget allocated to foreign aid. As I recall, the
average estimate is 25%; the reality is less than 0.1%."

That is very hard to believe. Why would anybody think that the government
gives away a quarter of its budget? I would think that a guess would be based
that on something reasonable. Like your own personal or family budget for
instance. Who would (or could) give away a quarter of their family budget? Not
many I'm guessing. I would expect guesses between 1 and 10 percent. Twenty
five percent sounds like a polling error. Or a missed decimal place.

~~~
edavis
From a November 2010 WordPublicOpinion.org poll
([http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/nov10/ForeignAid_...](http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/nov10/ForeignAid_Nov10_quaire.pdf))

"Just based on what you know, please tell me your hunch about what percentage
of the federal budget goes to foreign aid. You can answer in fractions of
percentage points as well as whole percentage points."

Results: Mean = 27%, Median = 25%

And my favorite part: "What do you think would be an appropriate percentage of
the federal budget to go to foreign aid, if any?": Mean = 13%, Median = 10%

~~~
notJim
I think when you provide people with absolutely no context like this, you're
bound to get stupid answers. I feel like if you instead gave a list of things
the government should do and asked people to allocate money to each, you would
at least get answers that are sane, if not accurate.

And honestly, knowing this kind of stuff is kind of irrelevant anyway. The
whole reason we have a representative democracy is so that ordinary citizens
can delegate the specifics of government to experts.

~~~
calibraxis
I think it's more of a matter of disinformation; if US citizens are radically
disinformed, that's another barrier to participating in allocating our
budgets. The system obviously favors decisionmaking by wealthy elites.

(Affording your own decent healthcare is enough of a feat in the US, that if
you're wealthy enough to chip in for some of other people's healthcare too,
people think you must be Batman or something.)

As for Bill Gates in particular, apparently one problem is his support for
intellectual property, though his foundation. Many consider IP (particularly
patents) a major problem for world health; and certainly the US knew better
than to respect other countries' intellectual property, while it was
developing. (To Charles Dickens' consternation.)
(<http://keionline.org/microsoft-timeline>)

------
roc
So if the top 400 wealthiest individuals in the US gave half their net worth
to charity, they'd merely double the _annual_ charitable giving of the rest of
the United States? [1]

In other words, in four years, the United States in total will have donated
more than the entire net worth of those 400 people -- net worths that
typically took lifetimes and generations to amass.

If you ask me, that single factoid casts the Giving Pledge in an entirely new
light. Yes, Gates and company have done some fantastic things with their
charity [2]. But the rest of the country is doing _far more_ than they're
getting credit for. Year after year. And as they aren't spending down their
net fortunes, it's entirely sustainable.

That's something we don't hear nearly enough.

[1] Give or take some, as I'm sure those 400 people themselves likely
contribute to that total.

~~~
MikeCapone
It also matters how effectively the money is being used. The Gates Foundation
tries to measure its effeciveness and reduce waste. I'm not so sure that other
charities - many of them religious - are spending as effectively and making as
much of a difference per dolllar.

Another thing that matters is long-term vision. Many charities try to spend on
what is visible to help fundraising, while big private foundations can often
invest in R&D and other high-risk high-reward projects.

------
drewblaisdell
It looks like this is comparing the Gates Foundation's total charitable
contribution in 2007 to the US's foreign aid budget for one year. Not to
undermine Gates' massive contribution to humanity, but the title should say
"gave away".

The infographic plague continues. Surely the author could have gotten more up-
to-date information about a 501(c)(3) than five year old data.

~~~
TheAmazingIdiot
And I would venture to say that money he donated was the result from ill
gotten gains. He is a convicted monopolist. And in all honesty, this money is
tainted from perpetuating a monopoly.

And still this company does what it was charged with. We see that with the
'secure computing' in regards to the locked down boot sequence for up and
coming Windows ARM devices.

And I bet this "donation" Gates does also encourages Windows as a computing
infrastructure.

Edit: why the karma backlash? Have I said something false or misleading? Also,
we are not discussing US aid.

~~~
mintplant
You do realize Bill Gates isn't even at Microsoft anymore, right? This isn't
about the company, but what he's done independently, after the fact. He could
have simply sat on that money, or left it to all to his family. Instead, he
chose to make a difference in the world at large, a noble cause in my book.

~~~
dredmorbius
For values of "isn't even at" which include "Chairman of the Board", receiving
$968,779 in compensation in 2011:
[http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyOfficers?symbol...](http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyOfficers?symbol=MSFT.O&WTmodLOC=C4-Officers-5)

And major shareholder, holding 6.2% of total shares outstanding to an
approximate market value of $13.2 billion (521 million shares):
[http://moneycentral.msn.com/ownership?symbol=MSFT&Holdin...](http://moneycentral.msn.com/ownership?symbol=MSFT&Holding=5%25+Ownership)

~~~
mintplant
Well, color me misinformed! Still, his philanthropic activities have nothing
to do with his corporate ones.

~~~
dredmorbius
There's a strong case of dispute for this as well.

The B&MGF have been highly active in education. And computers in education.
Guess what OS they favor?

My understanding of much of the medical work done by the B&MGF is that there's
been a focus on making patented prescription medicines available inexpensively
(a social good), _but_ preserving the strong IP protections on the patents
themselves (again, an objective which favors Microsoft Corp's own interests in
strong IP.

There is some confluence of interests.

Still, despite my very strong misgivings of Gates, Microsoft, and its business
practices, he's made a huge impact on philanthropy and social causes. B&MGF
absolutely dominates the field.

------
scottjad
Misleading title. From 1994 to 2007, Bill Gates "gave" to a foundation an
amount slightly larger than what US Foreign Aid "gave" in the single year of
2007.

The Foundation has not given that money to charities, it has given some small
percentage and invested the rest so that it can last forever.

I put gave in quotes because possibly both parties are not giving
unconditionally, but rather purchasing either respect or obedience or
something else.

~~~
vacri
Foreign aid by any government is most certainly not given unconditionally.
Even disaster relief carries political ties.

------
thematt
The US does a lot that I don't think is represented in that number. For
instance, the military aid that we render to foreign nations in time of
natural catastrophes is second to none, particularly in terms of expediency,
logistics and supplies. Haiti is the first thing that comes to mind, but
there's tons more examples like Fukushima, South-East Asia in 2004, Pakistan
in 2005, Myanmar in 2008, etc.

~~~
olifante
Don't forget the military aid to Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Somalia, Chile,
Nicaragua, most of central America, etc... </sarcasm>

------
whamill
I wonder if we'll see candlelit vigils and bunches of flowers outside MS
stores when Bill Gates finally kicks it? He's long been the opposite of "cool"
and certainly hasn't always been an honest competitor in the past but his
altruism now should surely make up for that.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Is apple any more of an honest competitor with all of its patent trolling,
closed platforms, and hardware lock-in?

~~~
Zirro
They are not patent trolls. See:
<https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Patent_troll>

~~~
InclinedPlane
Patent abusers then. Is there a reasonable argument that Apple is not abusing
the patent system to try to stifle their competition?

------
viggity
1\. The constitutional role of the federal government does not mention
anything about foreign aid, and rightly so.

2\. Surely this doesn't count the billions the Federal Government gives in
military aid.

------
snippyhollow
And what about Monsanto GE/GMO crops pushed and financed by the B&M Gates
foundation? [http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/monsantos-gmo-corn-
appro...](http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/monsantos-gmo-corn-approved-
despite.html) (I took the first link in DDG, may be unfortunate, I knew from
the very good <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_According_to_Monsanto> )

~~~
nphrk
What is bad about trying to provide "drought-tolerant" seeds to Africa? It's
not like GE seeds are gonna ruin Africa, they might very well help fight the
hunger problem. I don't understand the general negativity against GE food - if
it's tested well, I don't see any reason against it.

~~~
Duff
Genetically engineered seed is sterile and patented. So the first hit is free,
but you as a farmer is stuck buying seed for eternity. Handing out GMO seed is
like giving Gilette razors to poor people.

You know what would help African farmers? Education about irrigation and
scientific, low-moisture farming techniques. Provide non-hybrid seed and
equipment than be used by locals to clean and store it.

~~~
mbell
>You know what would help African farmers? Education about irrigation and
scientific, low-moisture farming techniques. Provide non-hybrid seed and
equipment than be used by locals to clean and store it.

The solution is never so simple. I could just as easily and correctly
(ignoring all human implications) say "You know what would help African
farmers? Move them somewhere more conducive to human life." Sounds awesome in
theory, but consider the implementation details and effects on life of both
options. You always have to make a trade off in practice between what is an
"ideal" solution scientifically and what can actually be implemented given the
real humans involved.

~~~
vacri
Africa holds over a billion people, and is the second-most populated
continent. I'd say the people there are already aware of what parts of it are
conducive to human life.

------
joshu
FYI Blog Spam, source is: <http://frugaldad.com/microsoft/>

------
ahhrrr
The title here is misleading. According to the graphic, Bill and Melinda
Gates' net worth, $59 billion, is $2 billion more than the US budget for
foreign aid. They have given away $28 billion, 48% of their net worth.

------
pushtheenvelope
A link to the original source which includes a note from the author of the
infographic: <http://frugaldad.com/microsoft/>

------
gph
Including Rockefeller and Carnegie in that graphic is poor choice if you ask
me. True they gave a lot of their money away... but mostly to their own
causes.When it came to their own workers they were more willing to give money
to thugs who killed them than giving them equitable wages and working
conditions.

And while I find it impressive what Warren Buffet has accomplished, I don't
find it very productive for humanity. I'm not anti-capitalist, but the pure
money makers who gather wealth without providing a service/product are not
heroes in my book.

~~~
corin_
Buffet isn't a hero for how he made his money (not from a charitable point of
view anyway), but for what he does with it.

Making your money in stocks and shares isn't praiseworthy work at all, but I
don't see how you can look down on someone who does that and gives so much of
the profit to charity.

~~~
gph
I'm not looking down on him, just saying he doesn't really belong in the same
company as Bill Gates. There is a lot of Microsoft hate out there, which is
partially deserved, but he still provided a needed and useful product/service
that has revolutionized the PC industry. And then after doing that he turned
around and gave most of it away. Much more praiseworthy than Buffet IMO.

------
lincolnq
If you're interested in charitable giving:

GiveWell (<http://givewell.org>) does in-depth reviews of charities and
recommends the best ones, based on things like cost-effectiveness and
transparency.

Giving What We Can (<http://givingwhatwecan.org>) is a place where you can
make a similar pledge (like 10% of your income), and community to support
people who have done so.

------
leeoniya
in contrast, Steve Jobs decided the money was his to keep, even after death.
lives NOT saved: 5,812,000 and counting.

~~~
k-mcgrady
Why should someone have to give away their money if they are rich? Sure, it is
a good thing to do, but they may have worked hard so that their family will be
ok when they have died. People should be able to choose what they want to do
with their money without self-righteous people judging them for their
decision.

How much money have you given to charity? Will you be leaving all of your
money to charity when you die or will you leave it to your family?

~~~
corin_
I don't believe there should ever be a law forcing this, but I would certainly
judge anyone who gets that rich and didn't give anything away (if I knew they
didn't, instead of just guessing).

I'm not against inheritance, I stand to do pretty well from it myself in the
(hopefully not too-near) future, but there's different levels. In general I
think anyone who can afford to ought to give to charity as often as possible
(and again, I'm not talking selflessness, I can't preach living a budget life
in order to give more to charity given that I chose to prioritise living well
over giving to charity), but for the super rich, does giving your children
$10b really help them more than giving them $5b?

Obviously the question is where's the line, do you leave your loved ones just
enough to, say, buy a small house, do you leave them enough to never have to
work again, do you leave them enough to never have to work again and be able
to live like a millionaire, or... I don't know where the line would be for me,
if I became super-rich (which I don't plan on or expect), and I don't know
where I think the line should be for people like Jobs/Buffet/etc. All I know
is that if they give it all away I feel sorry for their loved ones, and if
they give none away I will consider them selfish.

edit: I'm aware that the above views might come across as confusing, I think I
didn't word it particularly well but I can't think of a better way to put it.
Hopefully it's understandable, if anyone suggests it isn't then I'll give it
another shot.

~~~
k-mcgrady
I understand what you're saying. I would like it if everyone who died rich
donated money to charity. But I also think that if someone has worked hard to
earn that money they have the right to do with it as they wish, without
judgement.

If I got rich I think I would donate most of it to charity. I would only leave
enough with family to take care of my children. I don't think children should
be brought up wealthy/spoilt/privileged.

~~~
corin_
I agree that someone has the right to do as they wish with their money, but
that doesn't mean that be exercisingthat right they are doing the right thing.
Equally I'm very aware that people could look at me and judge me for not
giving more to charity - I judge myself, but ultimately I know that while I'm
not selfish enough to give nothing, I am selfish enough to not let charitable
donations change my standard of living.

 _I don't think children should be brought up wealthy/spoilt/privileged._

Again the issue here is where to draw the line? Arguably there are plenty of
people in countries like the US and UK who are on benefits and consider
themself near the bottom of the ladder, but they are wealthy and privileged
compared to people in other parts of the world living in famine.

Equally, leaving family with enough "to take care of" children makes them
privileged/wealthy/spoilt in comparison to people not lucky enough to have a
good inheritance.

I've grown up in the UK, pretty middle class, never having to worry about
family money problems, and if I had no money of my own then when both my
parents die, the combined money will be more than enough to buy a nice house.
There's no way to look at it that other than to say I'm very lucky, I may not
be able to retire right now, but I can become a houseowner without ever saving
any money, and I'll probably never have to worry about debt or live paycheck
to paycheck.

But at the same time, I'm talking six figures, not seven+, my father was a
postman, and if I stood to inherit, say, twice as much as I actually do, I
wouldn't think "right, 50% of it is instantly going to charity".

Essentially, any inheritence is giving whoever gets it an advantage over some,
and (except for the single richest person in the world) a disadvantage over
others. The question of how much is too much is incredibly subjective.

edit: In fact, I said I agree about it being a right. Actually, in a way I
don't. I wish the entire world was based on communism, I really do. Sadly I
can't imagine it could ever work, and as such I don't consider myself "a
communist", nor will I ever in my life try to push for communism to happen
anywhere. I say I can't imagine it, I mean it could never work, it's
completely impossible. But I wish it was, even though I would personally be in
a worse situation if I did live in a communist state.

~~~
tsotha
>I agree that someone has the right to do as they wish with their money, but
that doesn't mean that be exercisingthat right they are doing the right thing.

When you make money legally and honorably as Jobs did, the "right thing" to do
with your money is whatever you want to do with it. I think it's outrageous
other people presume to tell the wealthy, especially the self-made wealthy,
what they ought to do with their own assets.

------
schlomie
He may be on the path to karmically braking even in the not to distant future
if he ends up giving back all of his unethically gained fortune. That's good.

------
kylebrown
Gates didn't give away $28 billion. That's the foundation's endowment, from
which they "give away" the annual returns (~5% iirc).

------
oofabz
The headline is simply not true. It is comparing Gates' total expenditure to
the USA's annual expenditure.

------
grandalf
Nice advertisement for libertarianism.

In other news, Bill Gates has created more wealth and productivity for people
worldwide than any individual (or government) in the history of the world.
This equates to better medicine, more fun vacations, better food, more time
with family, longer lives, etc.

In spite of being attacked by government (antitrust lawsuits) Gates continues
to try to tackle the world's toughest problems.

~~~
timwiseman
_In other news, Bill Gates has created more wealth and productivity for people
worldwide than any individual (or government) in the history of the world._

I do not think this is accurate or supported by the article.

For instance, while I respect Bill Gates tremendously, I suspect Isaac Newton
contributed more to the current wealth of the Western Hemispher than Gates
did, and Alexander Fleming (discovered penicilin amoungst other things)
probably tops Newton in contributing to the overall well being of the world
now, as just two examples from "the history of the world."

~~~
grandalf
I think it depends on how you measure it.

Gates' realizations about business could have actually been significantly more
rare than Newtons' observations. I think it's important to at least consider
this to be true.

------
deltriggah
He may not have taste as some would say, but he's been hacking real world
problems lately. Good job.

------
Jun8
If you apply Gauss' Law and define a boundary around US for money, you can
argue that it's not Gates' money that's leaving the country, its the money
that people gave to him, i.e. it's still US originated money.

~~~
rsanchez1
Yes, that's how capitalism works after all.

------
lubos
Bill Gates is required by law to give away 5% of equity in his foundation
every year otherwise he would lose charitable tax-exempt status from IRS... so
yes, he gave away billions but at the same he avoided to pay billions in taxes
to government by funneling most of his wealth into his foundation.

So the whole comparison between him and the government is pointless since it's
the government that made it possible for Bill Gates to even do charity at this
scale by sacrificing its own tax revenue.

~~~
wtvanhest
Are you making the argument that it would be impossible for him to do any
charity if he was taxed or that he wouldn't do the same thing if he had to pay
taxes?

