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.
"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.
> 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
Put another way, if 100 people can build a bridge in 3 months, that doesn't mean 1 million people can build a bridge in 13 minutes. Those of us who do science for a living are keenly aware that there's a sweet spot for sample size in any experiment. You want a sample size large enough to give you enough statistical power to validate your hypothesis (if it's true), but beyond that you're wasting money on more mice, or human subjects, or whatever.
For any problem, a certain amount of money / resources will optimize results.
The largest share of aid money is not used for treatments or activities in field - in other words does not arrive with those in need. It disappears by wasteful use of resources, massive overheads, corruption and inefficiencies of the participants along the road the money travels from donors to e.g. AIDS patients in country.
The proliferation of such waste has by now reached levels that even former president Bill Clinton and Bill Gates independently in their speeches at the 2010 AIDS conference in Vienna called to focus on efficiency and for reducing excessive bureaucracy, meetings, trips and reports.
On top of that comes dramatic mismanagement and not too few cases of profiteering by those entrusted by the donors with distributing the funds.
You are right that since a few years military assistance e.a. are now also included within so-called Official Development Aid (ODA) budgets to make the overall amounts look better.
Currently large parts of that "business" are as opaque as the international drugs or arms trade. In general the whole thing is full of special interest groups from geo-politics to business to power to organized crime. As a result from US$1,000 tax payers' funds often only US$100-200 arrive with the (officially) intended use.
What really is needed in that "industry" is transparency, accountability, proper management and donors like Bill Gates that go to quite some efforts to assure that the monies actually arrive with those in need.
Not only that, foreign aid is usually tied to spending the money on US services, businesses and products. When it comes down to it, it is a giveaway for businesses under the guise of foreign aid.
I think Bill does try to make sure all his money is well spent though. His foundation doesn't throw money at a problem. They come up with a strategy first for a given problem and execute on that strategy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Providing capital to fund productive and risky ventures undertaken by others is a valuable service.
Everyone on HN recognizes the importance of angels and VCs in the ecosystem - what's so different about what Buffett does? What's so magical about an IPO that means, once it happens, no one who risks their own money on the venture should count as having contributed to its growth?
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.
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.
I generally dislike Jobs and much of his attitude, but this is an unfair statement. Just because he didn't make any donations public it does not mean he didn't make any, we have no idea what, if anything, he donated.
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?
Bill Gates kept $60 billion in stock and wrote a $30 billion check in public. Lives in a $150 million mansion.
Steve Jobs kept $7 billion in stock, wrote no public check anyone is aware of. Lived in an upscale but normal house and left the back door unlocked.
I guess the hero is the guy who wants his picture taken handing out turkeys on thanksgiving? I mean clearly Steve Jobs could have demanded $50 more billion from Apple and then given half of that away to be a great philanthopist but because he didn't he's a bad guy? I call shenanigans.
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.
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.
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."
As others have pointed out, neither of your contentions is supported by anything linked or in your comment.
I see nothing that recommends libertarianism here. In a libertarian world IBM does not license DOS out of antitrust fears and Bill Gates and Paul Allen do not win the associated $100 billion lottery.
The idea that Gates is the shining light that's allowed the world to have progress is even more laughable. The man was in the right place at the right time and milked his monopoly very successfully. That's been great for him and MS but in all likelihood has been to the detriment of the rest of the society.
He's giving back a lot now and that's commendable but let's not get carried away.
[+] [-] ejames|14 years ago|reply
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|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] fl3tch|14 years ago|reply
Put another way, if 100 people can build a bridge in 3 months, that doesn't mean 1 million people can build a bridge in 13 minutes. Those of us who do science for a living are keenly aware that there's a sweet spot for sample size in any experiment. You want a sample size large enough to give you enough statistical power to validate your hypothesis (if it's true), but beyond that you're wasting money on more mice, or human subjects, or whatever.
For any problem, a certain amount of money / resources will optimize results.
[+] [-] fpp|14 years ago|reply
The proliferation of such waste has by now reached levels that even former president Bill Clinton and Bill Gates independently in their speeches at the 2010 AIDS conference in Vienna called to focus on efficiency and for reducing excessive bureaucracy, meetings, trips and reports.
On top of that comes dramatic mismanagement and not too few cases of profiteering by those entrusted by the donors with distributing the funds.
You are right that since a few years military assistance e.a. are now also included within so-called Official Development Aid (ODA) budgets to make the overall amounts look better.
Currently large parts of that "business" are as opaque as the international drugs or arms trade. In general the whole thing is full of special interest groups from geo-politics to business to power to organized crime. As a result from US$1,000 tax payers' funds often only US$100-200 arrive with the (officially) intended use.
What really is needed in that "industry" is transparency, accountability, proper management and donors like Bill Gates that go to quite some efforts to assure that the monies actually arrive with those in need.
[+] [-] teyc|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rsanchez1|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roc|14 years ago|reply
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|14 years ago|reply
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|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] sehugg|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] its_so_on|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheAmazingIdiot|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] scottjad|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] vacri|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thematt|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] olifante|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whamill|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sliverstorm|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] psychotik|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] viggity|14 years ago|reply
2. Surely this doesn't count the billions the Federal Government gives in military aid.
[+] [-] snippyhollow|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nphrk|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshu|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ahhrrr|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pushtheenvelope|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gph|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jaredhansen|14 years ago|reply
Everyone on HN recognizes the importance of angels and VCs in the ecosystem - what's so different about what Buffett does? What's so magical about an IPO that means, once it happens, no one who risks their own money on the venture should count as having contributed to its growth?
[+] [-] corin_|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] lincolnq|14 years ago|reply
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|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] corin_|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] k-mcgrady|14 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] Steko|14 years ago|reply
Steve Jobs kept $7 billion in stock, wrote no public check anyone is aware of. Lived in an upscale but normal house and left the back door unlocked.
I guess the hero is the guy who wants his picture taken handing out turkeys on thanksgiving? I mean clearly Steve Jobs could have demanded $50 more billion from Apple and then given half of that away to be a great philanthopist but because he didn't he's a bad guy? I call shenanigans.
[+] [-] gcb|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] schlomie|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kylebrown|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oofabz|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grandalf|14 years ago|reply
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|14 years ago|reply
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."
[+] [-] Steko|14 years ago|reply
I see nothing that recommends libertarianism here. In a libertarian world IBM does not license DOS out of antitrust fears and Bill Gates and Paul Allen do not win the associated $100 billion lottery.
The idea that Gates is the shining light that's allowed the world to have progress is even more laughable. The man was in the right place at the right time and milked his monopoly very successfully. That's been great for him and MS but in all likelihood has been to the detriment of the rest of the society.
He's giving back a lot now and that's commendable but let's not get carried away.
[+] [-] rayiner|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] deltriggah|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] holyland1|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]