Second richest donating to the richest

June 25, 2006 6:25 PM

The world's second-richest man, Warren Buffett, became one of the world's biggest philanthropists Sunday with the announcement that he would bequeath the bulk of his roughly $44 billion fortune to the foundation established by billionaire Bill Gates and his wife.
posted by octothorpe (96 comments total)

Hmm. What would *you* do?
posted by parki at 6:45 PM on June 25, 2006

I like his rational views on estate tax.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:48 PM on June 25, 2006

Isn't he basically faced with the choice to give it to the foundation or give it to the federal government when he dies?

Still, it's good to see.
posted by xmutex at 6:50 PM on June 25, 2006

This is so wrong, giving it all the Gates. What for the common good of the world is this really in this in our interest? Buffet is the most successful investor in American history and we are in the largest personal and national debt of any nation in the world. Here was Buffet's one chance to empower the American people to do something about it and he chose to fight disease instead.
posted by parmanparman at 6:51 PM on June 25, 2006

Yeah, how dare he try to fight disease rather than help stupid people get out of debt.
posted by substrate at 6:55 PM on June 25, 2006

I can't help but see a horrible eggs-basket outcome to this.

(Is parmanparman joking?)
posted by cillit bang at 6:56 PM on June 25, 2006

Parman, you're joking, right? It works out to about $150 per man, woman and child in the US. That's chickenfeed. That's enough for a month's groceries. It's an irrelevant sum, spread out.

But when it comes to fighting disease, it's a shitload of cash that will pay dividends, so to speak.
posted by solid-one-love at 6:56 PM on June 25, 2006

This is good.
posted by furtive at 6:56 PM on June 25, 2006

I... substrate, I was going to chide you for falling for the sarcasm, but... parman, are you really trying to be sarcastic, or are you just a little dense?
posted by spiderwire at 6:57 PM on June 25, 2006

parmanparman, perhaps Mr Buffet has a slightly larger view of the world than you? Maybe (perhaps) he thinks that there are more important issues in the world than just the USA's economic standing?

Or, you're an idiot.
posted by wilful at 6:58 PM on June 25, 2006

Heh. The sad part is $44 Billion wouldn't finance the interest on our debit for a year. Not by a long shot.
posted by Richard Daly at 6:58 PM on June 25, 2006

In other news, the Gates Foundation is really awesome no matter what you think of Gates himself, and Buffett's argument that having someone who's familiar with the running of a large organization of this type is a compelling one.

Unless, of course, you think that we should buy the American people out of debt (because debt is bad, ask all homeowners with mortgages) and let the free market solve that malaria issue.

I still can't tell if that was sarcasm.
posted by spiderwire at 6:59 PM on June 25, 2006

Er, guys, he was being sarcastic. Right?
posted by Richard Daly at 6:59 PM on June 25, 2006

Jumping to conclusions, parmanparman. Who said the money will be spent fighting disease? Although the Gateses have historically had a focus on global health, I wouldn't be surprised if the newest $40B expands the foundations scope and allows them to begin new initiatives.
posted by blue mustard at 7:00 PM on June 25, 2006

No, I am being sarcastic. I am glad someone noticed. My Welsh girlfriend tried to hit me when she saw my post.

Aside, I think there is a lot to be said for the philanthropic work of many Berkshire Hathaway investors, many of whom are finding the great opportunity of social justice programs to change lives here in the US and around the world.
posted by parmanparman at 7:01 PM on June 25, 2006

the Gates Foundation is really awesome no matter what you think of Gates himself

Or what one thinks about how he made his money?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:02 PM on June 25, 2006

I've never heard of the Gates Foundation stealing an election and starting a war to sell computers so IMHO, Buffets money is doing more good than say, Haliburton stock.
posted by DragonBoy at 7:02 PM on June 25, 2006

(Don't feed the troll?)

Otherwise, this is awesome. It's heartwarming to know some rich people use their money for good causes (As opposed to say, purpertuating one of the worst governments of all time).

I wonder if them being *so* rich has anything to do with it. If you're networth is a peasly 500 million, it's not as clear how you can have a global effect. If you're networth is in the 50 billion dollar range though, you're efforts can have an effect on a pretty massive scale.
posted by Alex404 at 7:05 PM on June 25, 2006

Great. This will undoubtably add more fire to Melinda Gates being Time's person of the year. "I receive money from people, I'm the person of the year". "My husband is wealthy...I'm the person of the year!!"
posted by markulus at 7:06 PM on June 25, 2006

Sarcastic? Couldn't you pretend so that we could condescend?
posted by Alex404 at 7:07 PM on June 25, 2006

Bravo, that man.
posted by pompomtom at 7:11 PM on June 25, 2006

Now, I'm not usually to take positives from the likes of Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, but I really like this quite from Buffet:

"I still believe in the philosophy - FORTUNE quoted me saying this 20 years ago - that a very rich person should leave his kids enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing."

That's about the smartest thing I've heard a fat cat say in a long, long time. Taken from this Slashdot thread, by the way, which has descended into typical libertarian whining about the "death tax".
posted by Jimbob at 7:13 PM on June 25, 2006

1. Good sarcasm to confuse MeFi like that; bravo parman.

2. We should take all future "death tax" threads and link them here.

3. I absolutely love Warren Buffett. His whole attitude of "well, no one's better at multiplying money than me, why shouldn't I keep it 'til I die? It'll be worth more then," and giving it all to Gates because he thinks Gates is the best manager... He absolutely has to get the most mile out of his charity. Just makes me chuckle.

4. Man, I'm glad he's on our side.

5. Warren Buffett seems like he'd be a fun guy to hang out with. Jimbob, why don't you like him? I understand criticisms of Bill Gates (not the nicest businessman regardless of this philanthropic endeavors), but I've always thought of Warren Buffett as a pretty upstanding dude who just happened to be very, very good at what he did.
posted by spiderwire at 7:23 PM on June 25, 2006

Oh, I'm sorry, I was referencing the version linked off Reddit, which is better IMO (it might be a wire story, in which case I'm an idiot, I only just now skimmed the MeFi version).

It has a link to this FORTUNE interview with Buffett about the whole thing, which is pure gold. Definitely read it.
posted by spiderwire at 7:26 PM on June 25, 2006

Besides the Gates foundation isn't he just funneling money to his kids?


So now mayby, finally Billy Boy has the money to you know not make Windows suck so much. Oh wait, he no longer works for Microsloth. Just like ol' Warran a day late and a billion dollars too much.
posted by Gungho at 7:29 PM on June 25, 2006

...I wrote up a response to Gungho's comment and then decided that I was stupider just for having read it.
posted by spiderwire at 7:40 PM on June 25, 2006

I wish he'd give me some, is all.
posted by JWright at 7:45 PM on June 25, 2006

*plays with fire*

Once the resources are gathered, the fighting over the allocation starts. There are many tricks involved: trade, gun pointing, pity, "please, daddy, please", etc.

What really matters is how many people are involved and how much education / knowledge have those who make the allocation decision. In my younger days, it was the king, one person, who made the decision. Sometimes we were lucky: the king was smart (or at least in a good mood). But still, why have only one person making the decision, so we got rid of the king. Or, did we? What do we have now? One person who is going to decide for us what is better for all of us. Nice!

But is not our money, these are not our resources, he earned them so he can do anything he wishes with them, somebody may say. Yes, indeed, but it is us who decide the allocation rules this time. We figure out, and commies figure out too, that if you let the mob dictate the rules, there is no incentive to produce anything, thus the rules of the game reward incentive and risk taking behavior - leadership matters [this is good]. They also reward networking connections, one hand washes the other, access to information, and, especially in case of MS, not being seriously punished for being a monopoly. It's still the allocation problem: it allowed this level of relative wealth to be reached. Are we really happy with such a system? (hold your horses, "yes" may be an answer to this question.)

Back to reality, let's deal with the announcement:

Asked if it had occurred to him of the irony that he, the second richest person in the world, was giving billions of dollars to the first richest, Mr. Buffett said, according to the Fortune report:

"When you put it that way, it sounds pretty funny. But in truth, I am giving it through him, and importantly, Melinda as well, not to him."

The king is dead, long live the king! But who is the king, I mean the queen, who is Melinda Gates?
posted by CountOfStGermain at 7:49 PM on June 25, 2006

Jimbob, why don't you like him?

Because I'm a godless communist :) But, as I said, seeing quotes like that, and actions like this, warm my heart somewhat.
posted by Jimbob at 7:51 PM on June 25, 2006

I wonder if Richard Melon Scaife will jump on board net?

*chortle*
posted by Space Coyote at 8:07 PM on June 25, 2006

I admire Gates for redeeming himself from his former rapacious life, and Buffett even more for apparently becoming wildly successful without ever having been rapacious. But I have two questions:

1. What are Melinda's qualifications for being the primary dispenser of these billions? 'Product unit manager of... Microsoft Bob' is not very promising. Or is her role merely symbolic? In which case, who actually decides where the money goes?

2. When the Gates foundation funds research projects or US schools, can the money be spent on Apple/Linux computers? Or is there an insidious link back to Microsoft?
posted by beniamino at 8:14 PM on June 25, 2006

Though Gates is unquestionably a parasite merely trying to wash his soul with his monies ... Buffet's genuine charitable streak has been well documented for decades (as was his ex-wife's, who stood patron to several artists as well). Curiously, up 'til now (evidently) he was always going to donate the bulk to some "Zero Population Group" society.
posted by RavinDave at 8:19 PM on June 25, 2006

My College bought a couple of Macs and like 30+ Final Cut Studio licenses with their last Gates grant.
posted by blasdelf at 8:24 PM on June 25, 2006

In which case, who actually decides where the money goes?
According to Buffett, "big decisions don't get made by anybody except Bill and Melinda. That suits me fine. I want the two of them to make the big calls."
posted by blue mustard at 8:26 PM on June 25, 2006

I have to say that it gladdens my heart whenever I hear of some billionaire saying "You know, I have too much of this... I think I'll get rid of some of it." Most of the time I hear the opposite, because one just can't have enough digits in their personal income figures. You'll have 8 digits and you'll still work your ass off for 9.
posted by rolypolyman at 8:41 PM on June 25, 2006

Yet another reason to like Warren Buffett.
posted by pmurray63 at 8:42 PM on June 25, 2006

this is good as long as they stick to infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS, malaria and TB.
posted by brandz at 8:45 PM on June 25, 2006

There's one string that no one has mentioned, and it's a doozy, especially if you know anything about the functionings of the Gates Foundation:

"I expect there will be a ramp-up period of two years during which this condition will not apply. But beginning in calendar 2009, BMG's annual giving must be at least equal to the value of my previous year's gift plus 5 percent of BMG's net assets," Buffett wrote.

The Foundation already has trouble with their money throughput, thanks to its administrative structure, red tape, and just the daily business processes of dealing with many, many international NGOs and local agencies. The solution will surely be more staffing -- and probably more money heading towards a large university based in Seattle.

So, if you're someone with experience managing gobs and gobs of NPO cash, get your resume ready and start shopping for a house on Queen Anne. You're about to be rich, at least by NPO/NGO standards.
posted by dw at 8:47 PM on June 25, 2006

I like it whenever I hear a billionaire make the Andrew Carnegie argument, namely "I was able to build my fortune because there was a society to build it in -- therefore I owe a debt to that society," as well as recognizing the danger of dynasties. I don't think that he's saying "I have too much," he's acknowledging that what he has is part of a natural process of capital accumulation and dispensation, and he's merely helping it move along in a healthy way. He's ensuring that it re-enters the system in a productive way rather than being wasted by the greedy, the malicious, and the stupid.

As for "is Melinda Gates a competent manager for this money?" I think that Buffett answers the question pretty conclusively in the interview I linked. A big part of his decision was that he didn't want to give his money to someone that wouldn't manage it well (he wanted to give it to his late wife), and he thinks that Bill and Melinda Gates are the ones to do that, especially since philanthropy isn't exactly like business and they've established a track record.

He chose the Gates Foundation at least partially out of a business logic, and if Warren Gates says it's the right investment move then, well... to be honest, I don't think that there's anyone on MeFi who's qualified to question Warren Buffett on whether or not an investment strategy is sound. I'm not sure that there's anyone alive who's qualified to do that.
posted by spiderwire at 8:52 PM on June 25, 2006 [1 favorite]

So, if you're someone with experience managing gobs and gobs of NPO cash, get your resume ready and start shopping for a house on Queen Anne. You're about to be rich, at least by NPO/NGO standards.

Do NGO manager salaries count as "giving" by any established standard? I would have thought that salaried employees would get put under a different calculation, and one with ceilings.
posted by spiderwire at 8:54 PM on June 25, 2006

This is good news.

suck it haters. where is your fortune going?
posted by caddis at 8:58 PM on June 25, 2006

blasdelf: My College bought a couple of Macs and like 30+ Final Cut Studio licenses with their last Gates grant.

That's cool.

spiderwire: As for "is Melinda Gates a competent manager for this money?" I think that Buffett answers the question pretty conclusively in the interview I linked. A big part of his decision was that he didn't want to give his money to someone that wouldn't manage it well (he wanted to give it to his late wife)

Certainly I can't lecture Buffett on the right way to handle money, but doesn't it seem a bit weird that the two most competent people to dispense this cash happen to be the wives of Gates and Buffett? Perhaps (future) billionaires are irresistably attracted to people with an eagle eye for philanthropic spending on an unprecedented scale. My guess would be that others would be better able, and that there is an unfortunate desire to keep this in the family (not the money, but the power).
posted by beniamino at 9:08 PM on June 25, 2006

*Sigh*. And meanwhile in Hong Kong, one of the region's top bankers, 61YO Mimi Monica Wong, contracted a Latin dance instructor for eight years of exclusive dance lessons. The value of the contract was AUD $20 million, roughly equivalent to about USD $15 million or so.

She was supposedly "looking for the last bit of glory in life", amid Hong Kong's trendy salsa scene.

She now wants her money back, after being called a fat cow by her instructor.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:13 PM on June 25, 2006

beniamino ... Buffet's ex-wife died awhile back, so she's not really a factor. She was quite competent though and had an eagle-eye for deserving charities and other endeavors (she was a major backer of Kent Bellows, who simply had no peer in artistic draftsmanship). She was dearly loved as a compassionate individual -- not as Buffet's wife. Heck, Bono flew in to sing at her funeral.
posted by RavinDave at 9:19 PM on June 25, 2006

She now wants her money back, after being called a fat cow by her instructor.

This is one of the greatest things ever, or at least this week. Go dance instructor!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:25 PM on June 25, 2006

I admire... Buffett even more for apparently becoming wildly successful without ever having been rapacious

Buffet has been more rapacious than anyone. He made the bulk of his fortune buying undervalued companies. Plundering the poor... and then making them valuable through solid management. No one has feasted on more prey than Buffet, and that includes Gates.

It is nice to see further proof that greed and philanthropy can co-exist well.
posted by aburd at 9:48 PM on June 25, 2006

Buffet has been more rapacious than anyone. He made the bulk of his fortune buying undervalued companies. Plundering the poor... and then making them valuable through solid management. No one has feasted on more prey than Buffet, and that includes Gates.

I... uh... okay, maybe I'm just a capitalist whore, but -- why exactly is "buying undervalued companies... then making them valuable through solid management" a bad thing? I'm confused. Seriously.
posted by spiderwire at 9:58 PM on June 25, 2006

Do NGO manager salaries count as "giving" by any established standard? I would have thought that salaried employees would get put under a different calculation, and one with ceilings.

They count as "overhead" or "indirect cost returns." The point being that if you assume just 1% of the money going through is going to have to be channeled to overhead, that's $15M. There's going to be significant salary money available to the sorts of people who know how to handle lots of grants and know how to make sure the money is being spent in accordance with the rules.
posted by dw at 9:58 PM on June 25, 2006

He chose the Gates Foundation at least partially out of a business logic, and if Warren Gates says it's the right investment move then, well... to be honest, I don't think that there's anyone on MeFi who's qualified to question Warren Buffett on whether or not an investment strategy is sound. I'm not sure that there's anyone alive who's qualified to do that.
posted by spiderwire at 10:52 PM CST on June 25 [+fave] [!]

This bears repeating.

Good on him for doing something other than (further) enriching his children and their children. (They are already hundred-millionaires it appears)

44 billion dollars. 44,000,000,000 dollars. Large sums of money fascinate me.

At my current rate of pay, that would take me about 500,000 years to earn. And I currently earn at about 4x the national median.

Put another, more frightening way, is that he has accumulated (the equivalent of) my salary every year since fire was discovered.

Put yet another way, he has about $10 for every mile from here to Pluto.

I know he's a smart guy, and I do not doubt he has worked very hard. But, is he really 500,000 times smarter than me? Has he really worked 500,000 harder than me? Surely there is something else at work.

Also note, to get rid of it in the next 100 years, they will need to spend $1.2 million per day, or about $50,000 an hour. That's ignoring interest, which with values this gargantuan, you cannot do.

For instance, at a conservative 3% return (gov't instrument), the first year alone they would earn an additional 1.3 billion. So, instead of spending $1.2 million per day, they'd have to spend an extra $3.6 million per day just to keep neutral.
posted by Ynoxas at 10:01 PM on June 25, 2006 [1 favorite]

They're not getting it in one lump sum.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:07 PM on June 25, 2006

I had no idea Jimmy Buffett made that much money off of one overplayed song!
posted by gurple at 10:52 PM on June 25, 2006

Buffet has been more rapacious than anyone.

Not quite true. He kept the original Berkshire Hathaway textile business going long after textiles were no longer viable in the US, because he hates to close down businesses. He makes the point time and again in his annual reports (which are great reading, by the way) that he's looking for good companies which have the potential to do better with better management.
posted by QuietDesperation at 11:00 PM on June 25, 2006

Both Gates and Buffet are mildly autistic. Means they can see reality without interfering emotions. Although they were short changed when it comes to an inner life, they more than make up for it with an objective view of reality.
posted by zackdog at 11:52 PM on June 25, 2006 [1 favorite]

Although they were short changed when it comes to an inner life, they more than make up for it with an objective view of reality.

Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake is an interesting read that takes this view in a bit of a different direction.
posted by Mr. Six at 12:21 AM on June 26, 2006

Buffet deserved to have his name added to the foundation.

how about "Gates Buffet of Philanthropy"?

Larry Ellison now has to outdo Bill Gates somehow... hmm- with Gates and Buffet giving up thier fortunes, does that move Mr. Ellison closer to #1 on the rich list? :)
posted by Izzmeister at 1:30 AM on June 26, 2006

The beauty, Izzmeister, is that a self-involved prick like Ellison might very well get the #1 spot... and yet it'll be more asterisked than Bonds or Maris. No one will ever say "richest man in the world" about Ellison without making sure to mention that he wouldn't be #1 if Gates and Buffett hadn't given up their fortunes...
posted by hincandenza at 2:06 AM on June 26, 2006

Why is there a "global health" program, but no "global education?"
posted by vertriebskonzept at 2:19 AM on June 26, 2006

Jolly good show, Mr B! This is the difference between the ultra-rich and those puny super-rich.

It is nice to see further proof that greed and philanthropy can co-exist well.

Good and evil are not opposites. Same as love and hate. They happily co-exist within all of us.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 2:58 AM on June 26, 2006

Yeah, I'm down with spiderwire's theory that Buffet chose Gates since Gates has been giving money fairly intelegently.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:46 AM on June 26, 2006

Guards! Guards!

vertriebskonzept, you are guilty of lèse-majesté, or, as we say it nowadays, why do you hate the Gates foundation so much?

Education/knowledge is a true opportunity enabler, it allows people to succeed based on their skills and talents. Health is good too, but it's used only to keep a person alive, which is, indeed, necessary, but not sufficient for a successful life! Good health allows you to pay that 30% APR that you got stuck with due to the health bills, education also tells you how to avoid it. See now why health is more important?

I always took good care of my serfs, I fed them and I kept them healthy. The worst day of my life was when they learnt that they can emigrate to 'merica. This is what so little amount of knowledge did to me, imagine what kind of disaster years and years of education would bring. It sickens me, it turns my blue blood red!

Guards! ... Guards! ... Where are they? ...
posted by CountOfStGermain at 5:06 AM on June 26, 2006

I wish Warren Buffet had run for president, or at least Senate in Nebraska. An extremely bright, extremely thoughtful fellow, known for his philanthropy.

I happened to be in Omaha for a wedding a few weeks ago and people seem to think highly of him there. He lives in a very nice house, but nothing that would make you think he's one of the most wealthy and influential people in America.
posted by ibmcginty at 5:58 AM on June 26, 2006

"I still believe in the philosophy - FORTUNE quoted me saying this 20 years ago - that a very rich person should leave his kids enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing."

This made my day! I second whoever said the Berkshire Hathaway annual reports make for great reading - entertaining and informative and brutally honest.
posted by waxbanks at 6:05 AM on June 26, 2006

I... uh... okay, maybe I'm just a capitalist whore, but -- why exactly is "buying undervalued companies... then making them valuable through solid management" a bad thing?

I didn't say it was a bad thing. Just that it was very rapacious. In fact, I think it is amazingly cool what he has done. Plus it is good for everyone when there are more companies doing well and employing folks.
posted by aburd at 7:12 AM on June 26, 2006

What is Buffett's real contribution to mankind? How many people gave up lives of real substance for the shallow pursuit of the mass accumulation of wealth because of his example? How many of those people didn't have the talent and vision of Buffett but compensated for those shortcomings with a heartless and conscienceless drive? What has that done to the world? I'd posit that men like Warren Buffett have indirectly been responsible for much of the suffering of the world's poor, ignorant and uneducated in the 20th century. Now he's trying to buy his heaven much like John D. Rockefeller did at the end of his life. No one remembers the brutal ways Rockefeller used to put down strikes. All they remember is his philanthropy. Of course, many of the corporation's Buffett has controlled never killed anyone in the pursuit of profit right? Yeah, corporate America figured out how to fix that problem - just take it off-shore.

I'll save my praise for those who actually make a sacrifice with their philanthropy, not just trying to justify a life fueled by the shallow pursuit of wealth.
posted by any major dude at 7:49 AM on June 26, 2006

All you people saying nasty things about those really rich guys need a good spray of this.
posted by flabdablet at 7:52 AM on June 26, 2006

A stunning display of future insight. Think about the effect Carnegie had with his libraries. And it's 100+ years later and you can find out today. The possibilities with the right stroke of the pen to affect generations to come is mind numbing. Good for him. (And for the Gates foundation - govt is really tackling what they are doing.)

My only concern is with less disease and no way out of poverty, more people will be in poverty with less to eat. Will the world's wealthiest find a way to distribute the wealth/work in a more equitable fashion? I think that would be irony....
posted by fluffycreature at 8:02 AM on June 26, 2006

slightly off the topic, but might add some perspective-
I'm pretty sure no one posted a link to these yet:

BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 1995-2005 Annual Reports - (links from there are .pdf files)
posted by priested at 8:04 AM on June 26, 2006

slightly off the topic, but might add some perspective-
I'm pretty sure no one posted a link to these yet:

BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 1995-2005 Annual Reports - (links from there are .pdf files)
posted by priested at 8:04 AM on June 26, 2006

I'll save my praise for those who actually make a sacrifice with their philanthropy, not just trying to justify a life fueled by the shallow pursuit of wealth.

I'm not stingy with my praise.
posted by smackfu at 8:04 AM on June 26, 2006

sorry for the double post- don't know why that happened-
posted by priested at 8:05 AM on June 26, 2006

What is Buffett's real contribution to mankind?

$44bn.

I'd posit that men like Warren Buffett have indirectly been responsible for much of the suffering of the world's poor, ignorant and uneducated in the 20th century.

Horse rot.

Poverty is the natural state of mankind, and it's only people like Warren Buffet who have ever done a damn thing to raise us out of it.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 8:26 AM on June 26, 2006

Why is there a "global health" program, but no "global education?"

Because Gates thinks that health is more fundamental, and that focusing on disease in particular is the best use of the foundation's dollars. It's hard to educate kids dying of malaria. There's so much to do on the global health front that even these extra billions are just a small part of any solution. Given the magnitude of both problems, concentrating on one of them and not dissipating their focus is a rational act.
posted by bonehead at 9:00 AM on June 26, 2006

If your definition of poverty is the absence of money... There is such a thing as poverty of the mind that no amount of money can cure and it's a disease rampant in the United States. Men like Buffett are carriers and I don't subscribe to the measure of a man by the size of his stock portfolio. The world would be better off and more peaceful if we did not idolize those who lead a life of gluttony.
posted by any major dude at 9:06 AM on June 26, 2006

Why is there a "global health" program, but no "global education?"

Because spending lots of cash on education is throwing money away when a country's life expectancy is 30.76.

Missionaries discovered last century that you're far more likely to get converts to your religion if you take care of the basic Maslowian needs that they can't take care of themselves, e.g. basic health care, vaccinations, education. It's hard for people to listen to the Gospel when they're sick with Guinea worm. It's hard for them to understand your brand of Islam if they're malnourished.

And it's the same here. You can't spend lots of money on education in sub-Saharan Africa because you have 11 year old heads of households and HIV infection rates of between 30-50%. On top of that, the educated class is dying of AIDS, too, so there's a lack of teachers.

If the Foundation can turn back malaria and HIV, then they can start talking about education. Until then, 30.76 will remain a problem.
posted by dw at 9:09 AM on June 26, 2006

Oddly enough, it turns out that one of the most effective ways to combat HIV involves getting kids to school.

And if people understool why those crazy Westerners were handing out all that netting, they most likely wouldn't be doing this.
posted by flabdablet at 9:32 AM on June 26, 2006

For all the people who are acting like Warren Buffet is a terrible person for a) earning tons of money and b)not giving it away exactly as they would like, I just want to say that you are acting like idiots.

I can understand why people dislike Bill Gates because of his business practices. However, to dislike Warren Buffet just because he is richer and more successful than you is crazy. Have any of you looked into how he actually made his money?

He did it by taking companies and making them more efficient. Guess what, this benefits everyone (basic economics). When efficiency increases, everyone benefits. Also, he is one of the most moral businessmen around. For instance, his company never tries to duck their taxes. Read some of those links to his annual reports. He has always advocated companies whose management treat shareholders fairly, CEOs who don't get paid too much, corporate directors who actually oversee managers, etc. America would be a better place if all of our corporate leaders acted more like Warren Buffet.

I am not even going to go into the attacks on the Gates foundation. All I will say is that it is incredibly ridiculous to criticize them for not being able to fix all of the world's problems at once. All I will ask is what are you doing with your wealth? Are you living well below your means and donating all of your extra? I didn't think so.
posted by bove at 10:00 AM on June 26, 2006

Something I don't think anyone's mentioned is that Bill, Melinda, and Warren (along with former [ex-Buffett company] wellsfargo.com exec Sharon Osberg) play a lot of bridge together. If Warren were looking for someone to give a bunch of charity money to, it's not surprising he'd look across the card table.

These folks get together pretty regularly.
posted by majick at 10:05 AM on June 26, 2006

He has always advocated companies whose management treat shareholders fairly

Freudian slip?
posted by any major dude at 10:17 AM on June 26, 2006

Something I don't think anyone's mentioned is that Bill, Melinda, and Warren (along with former [ex-Buffett company] wellsfargo.com exec Sharon Osberg) play a lot of bridge together.

'Rubber's worth 30 billion dollars.
Buffett. You're vulnerable.'
posted by Alex404 at 10:51 AM on June 26, 2006

Yeah, I'm down with spiderwire's theory that Buffet chose Gates since Gates has been giving money fairly intelegently.

Much as I'd like to take credit, it's not my theory -- that's what Buffett said in the interview I linked above. He said that he thinks Bill and Melinda have demonstrated the ability to run philanthropic foundations and that he feels comfortable having them distribute his funds, because he doesn't know anything about running that sort of business.

I think that dw and bove covered pretty much everything I was going to say in response to these asinine criticisms of Warren Buffett. If there was ever a businessman that deserved our approval and encouragement, it's him. If you think that too many of the rich got that way by crushing the little guy, then you should be cheering Buffett on as a rare exception to the rule.
posted by spiderwire at 2:42 PM on June 26, 2006

See, I'd only blow it on beer.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:44 PM on June 26, 2006

spiderwire wrote:

If you think that too many of the rich got that way by crushing the little guy, then you should be cheering Buffett on as a rare exception to the rule.

Yeah, he just got rich INVESTING in the guys who crushed the little guy. See this way he can keep his hands clean and pay his fair share of taxes while the companies he invests in kill small business, write legislation that encroaches on individual rights, outsource jobs and allows the government to subsidize their workers..
posted by any major dude at 5:01 PM on June 26, 2006

You need to move to utopia, dude.
posted by bz at 6:03 PM on June 26, 2006

Is that where you can get rich without hurting another soul?
posted by smackfu at 6:18 PM on June 26, 2006

I'll settle for a world without multi-national corporations.
posted by any major dude at 6:39 PM on June 26, 2006

I'll settle for a world without multi-national corporations.

Hmmm. Interesting. And what's your position on libraries?
posted by spiderwire at 8:33 PM on June 26, 2006

I believe the one in your neighborhood should probably be sued for fraud since you obviously never learned anything about the history of corporations in this country.
posted by any major dude at 9:08 PM on June 26, 2006

See, I'd only blow it on beer.

Yah, but how cool would it be to own Bud, Coors, Molson, Interbrew, and all the rest? Heck, imagine having the ability to force American breweries to make real beer instead of horse piss! Imagine a drinkable Coors!
posted by five fresh fish at 10:08 PM on June 26, 2006

The library should be sued for fraud? Hmf.
posted by bz at 1:00 AM on June 27, 2006

If your definition of poverty is the absence of money... There is such a thing as poverty of the mind that no amount of money can cure and it's a disease rampant in the United States. Men like Buffett are carriers and I don't subscribe to the measure of a man by the size of his stock portfolio. The world would be better off and more peaceful if we did not idolize those who lead a life of gluttony.
posted by any major dude at 9:06 AM PST on June 26 [+fave] [!]

Well, it sounds like you do measure a man by the size of his portfolio, only in your world, the larger the wealth the smaller the man.

People like Buffett and Gates enjoy running business. What's wrong with that? If they spent their time, say, gardening instead of building businesses, would you respect them more? I believe one should find what s/he enjoys in life and enjoy that thing as much as possible. So what if someone enjoys business?

What has he given the world? Besides the $40bn, he's provided thousands upon thousands of jobs, and educated/motivated many with his words of wisdom. What have you done?

I believe the one in your neighborhood should probably be sued for fraud since you obviously never learned anything about the history of corporations in this country.
posted by any major dude at 9:08 PM PST on June 26 [+fave] [!]

So some corporations have done harm. The vast majority have done good. And you're in favor of exterminating corporations apparently? Where will people work? Corporations are like people - some do good, others do not. Let's look at them all individually instead of evaluating them all with the same broad stroke.
posted by b_thinky at 1:43 AM on June 27, 2006

I believe the one in your neighborhood should probably be sued for fraud since you obviously never learned anything about the history of corporations in this country.

Yeah, I was almost up to Andrew Carnegie and horizontally- versus vertically-oriented monopolies when my local library was shut down due to lack of funding. Shame, isn't it?

Anyway, how would you go about putting together this fraud suit, and precisely what argument do you think I should make? I find your idea interesting and would like to learn more.
posted by spiderwire at 7:01 AM on June 27, 2006

I believe the one in your neighborhood should probably be sued for fraud since you obviously never learned anything about the history of corporations in this country.

Let me explain to you how this works. You see, the corporations finance Berkshire Hathaway, and then Berkshire Hathaway goes out and the corporations sit there in their corporation buildings, and see er, they're all corporationey and they make money.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 3:12 PM on June 27, 2006

Buffett "will be known as the Dr. Mengele of philanthropy unless he repents."
posted by homunculus at 6:04 PM on June 29, 2006

Which one seems more godly?

- Buffett who gives away vast fortune to help the world's less fortunate?

- Members of advocacy group that spends more energy on hate than on anything else?

posted by caddis at 6:19 PM on June 29, 2006

The Population Research Institute can go fuck itself in the ear. What a bunch of lame assholes.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:37 PM on June 29, 2006

I like his rational views on estate tax.

Heh. An insurance tycoon who speaks in favor of the estate tax is indeed rational. You know how much money insurance companies make off of ILITs?
posted by Kwantsar at 12:47 PM on July 8, 2006