8 ms·

Am I the only one growing suspicious of this since the SBF/FTX effective altruism turned out to be a front to masquerade a good old Ponzi? I don't think the Ga

Am I the only one growing suspicious of this since the SBF/FTX effective altruism turned out to be a front to masquerade a good old Ponzi? I don't think the Gates foundation is a Ponzi, but I am not entirely convinced that all of this is really what is advertised. Are there any reliable (external and independent) audits for charities?

23B1 4y ago
The IRS. Which, as I'm sure you're aware, is doing a great job of it. https://archive.vn/n1AQy https://archive.vn/n1AQy
akprasad 4y ago
The closest I can think of is GiveWell [1], but it is part of the broader effective altruism movement, so perhaps it won't meet your bar. [1]: https://www.givewell.org https://www.givewell.org
- stephc_int13 4y ago
  Clearly not.
doitLP 4y ago
Any extremely well-funded private initiative that seeks to influence governments should be watched closely.
godelski 4y ago
It's also possible that things start with good intentions and get taken advantage of. I'm just saying that it is possible MacAskill got conned along with everyone else that invested and used FTX. I don't want to stop you from being skeptical (please do), but I want to suggest that there are alternative and mundane explanations for things. It helps us actually solve issues with the system instead of promoting conspiracy. People can be doing both good and bad at the same time. People are often well intended and end up doing wrong (quite common actually. I guarantee both of us do this). As for the Gates Foundation, it is also possible that Gates is trying to use the money most effectively to solve problems he thinks is important, while not having a good grasp on what is important to the median person, while also getting major tax benefits, and is influencing the government (it is possible that Gates's interests may not align with the public's and thus that influence is harmful despite them thinking it is beneficial).
atlasunshrugged 4y ago
I'm not sure I understand the concern about the Gates foundation in particular -- they are mainly funded by Gates and Buffett and don't solicit donations from the general public, don't do much domestic political stuff, and foreign political work they do doesn't seem like it'd be particularly beneficial for Microsoft or Buffett's portfolio. Since you're skeptical of effective altruism, Givewell probably isn't going garner a lot of trust for you which is unfortunate because they really do some of the best work in the field for trying to understand the effectiveness of charities (e.g. on a cost/daly basis). Charity Navigator was founded with an idea of kind of providing independent audits but to me it's more like a Yelp for charities and not super useful.
- alfor 4y ago
- btdmaster 4y ago
  Gates foundation primarily spends money on stocks[0] (many of which arguably going directly against its stated goals, like John Deere) [0] https://dataroma.com/m/holdings.php?m=GFT https://dataroma.com/m/holdings.php?m=GFT
  - eloff 4y ago
    You have to invest the money you don’t intend to spend now.
    - xmprt 4y ago
      That's true but that saying breaks down when you're investing money into and benefiting technology that makes the world less open and sustainable and then proceed to talk about everything you're doing to make the world more sustainable.
      - eloff 4y ago
        Does it? Maybe indirectly. The stock price of a company doesn’t directly translate to its power in the world. But even then the cases you’re talking about are probably not black and white. So the answer is likely a further “maybe partly, maybe indirectly”. Then if you take the profits and put it towards doing good in the world, have you done net good? Probably. It’s complicated.
eli_gottlieb 4y ago
>I don't think the Gates foundation is a Ponzi, but I am not entirely convinced that all of this is really what is advertised. Sorta depends what you think is advertised. AFAICT what's advertised is that Bill Gates gives away his money to create the kind of world and society Bill Gates wants to live in. I don't really see why I should want to live according to Bill Gates' ideas or preferences, so I'm critical on that ground -- but that doesn't make it a scam.
gabcoh 4y ago
Do you mean to say both FTX and effective altruism are Ponzi schemes? Obviously SBF and FTX turned out to be a huge fraud, but while EA benefited from the fraud mostly unknowingly (although there are open questions as to whether they should have been more skeptical of SBF) I don’t think it’s fair to say that it is fraudulent itself (at least as far as we currently know). EA is big and while you may disagree with their cause prioritiazation, it is clear real work is being done in the movement.
- stephc_int13 4y ago
  Have you heard about Wytham Abbey? The rationalization they used to justify this is probably the same pattern they use for everything. Why should I believe them? Facts are more reliable than words.
aschearer 4y ago
> I am not entirely convinced that all of this is really what is advertised. What does that even mean? Be explicit. Right now I'm left to assume you think he's implanting 5G chips in children... More to the point, barring huge changes in this country, what else can we expect of the ultra rich? What Gates is doing is nearly best case scenario...
- stephc_int13 4y ago
  I have absolutely no theory about what they are doing. I have no idea. The question is this: why should we give this foundation more credits than what SBF was trying to achieve? How do we know this is not bogus? What about secondary effects? What about the potential induced corruption around those super-rich foundations?
  - aschearer 4y ago
    The response is, look it up -- the Gates Foundation publishes stuff all the time. As for the hand wringing around secondary effects, corruption, etc. Who cares? Rich people are going to be rich. Gates is visibly giving money away, explaining his process, etc. What are the other ultra rich doing? We have even less insight and less reason to think they're pitching in for humanity. And that's all by design in this country, and I doubt there's a plurality of people who would seek to change it. I'm not trying to what-about-you. I'm trying to say, let's applaud the good, even if it falls short of perfect.
  - nindalf 4y ago
    SBF was donating his customers’ deposits. Bill Gates is donating his own wealth. SBF made his money from a Ponzi scheme. Gates made his money selling software. SBF’s wealth existed only in fantasy land. Gates’ wealth exists on the real stock market. I could go on. At no point am I claiming that Gates is an angel or that every action taken by Microsoft over the last 40 years is faultless. No, they’re both far from perfect. But SBF is a con man. And Gates is not.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    What if what if what if? Look at what the foundation has done and judge them on that. You seem to be looking for a reason to judge them based on nothing other than your own suspicion. The most (unfounded) ulterior motive that I can imagine is that they want to help poor countries prosper so that they grow the pot and keep our markets going up. That benefits everyone though so it's hard to knock it.
semi_square 4y ago
You can check the IRS website and retrieve the form 990 and 990-EZ for the charities you're curious about. The SBF/FTX cause from the get-go was a grift enterprise, the dude knew what he was doing as per his countless messages, relationships with politicians, and his parents/families involvement in his cause.
muh_gradle 4y ago
They're not even in the same conversation. FTX was set up to be a grift by SBF from the get go. Gates Foundation has decades of work.
pyuser583 4y ago
Gates alternative to charity is to establish a dynasty, like the Rockefellers, Hearst, Kennedys. Maybe that’s a better approach. Dynasties can do good, especially when people are more critical of them, and willing to hold them to account.

23B1 4y ago

The IRS. Which, as I'm sure you're aware, is doing a great job of it. https://archive.vn/n1AQy https://archive.vn/n1AQy

akprasad 4y ago

The closest I can think of is GiveWell [1], but it is part of the broader effective altruism movement, so perhaps it won't meet your bar. [1]: https://www.givewell.org https://www.givewell.org

stephc_int13 4y ago
Clearly not.

doitLP 4y ago

Any extremely well-funded private initiative that seeks to influence governments should be watched closely.

godelski 4y ago

It's also possible that things start with good intentions and get taken advantage of. I'm just saying that it is possible MacAskill got conned along with everyone else that invested and used FTX. I don't want to stop you from being skeptical (please do), but I want to suggest that there are alternative and mundane explanations for things. It helps us actually solve issues with the system instead of promoting conspiracy. People can be doing both good and bad at the same time. People are often well intended and end up doing wrong (quite common actually. I guarantee both of us do this). As for the Gates Foundation, it is also possible that Gates is trying to use the money most effectively to solve problems he thinks is important, while not having a good grasp on what is important to the median person, while also getting major tax benefits, and is influencing the government (it is possible that Gates's interests may not align with the public's and thus that influence is harmful despite them thinking it is beneficial).

atlasunshrugged 4y ago

I'm not sure I understand the concern about the Gates foundation in particular -- they are mainly funded by Gates and Buffett and don't solicit donations from the general public, don't do much domestic political stuff, and foreign political work they do doesn't seem like it'd be particularly beneficial for Microsoft or Buffett's portfolio. Since you're skeptical of effective altruism, Givewell probably isn't going garner a lot of trust for you which is unfortunate because they really do some of the best work in the field for trying to understand the effectiveness of charities (e.g. on a cost/daly basis). Charity Navigator was founded with an idea of kind of providing independent audits but to me it's more like a Yelp for charities and not super useful.

alfor 4y ago
btdmaster 4y ago
Gates foundation primarily spends money on stocks[0] (many of which arguably going directly against its stated goals, like John Deere) [0] https://dataroma.com/m/holdings.php?m=GFT https://dataroma.com/m/holdings.php?m=GFT
- eloff 4y ago
  You have to invest the money you don’t intend to spend now.
  - xmprt 4y ago
    That's true but that saying breaks down when you're investing money into and benefiting technology that makes the world less open and sustainable and then proceed to talk about everything you're doing to make the world more sustainable.
    - eloff 4y ago
      Does it? Maybe indirectly. The stock price of a company doesn’t directly translate to its power in the world. But even then the cases you’re talking about are probably not black and white. So the answer is likely a further “maybe partly, maybe indirectly”. Then if you take the profits and put it towards doing good in the world, have you done net good? Probably. It’s complicated.

eli_gottlieb 4y ago

>I don't think the Gates foundation is a Ponzi, but I am not entirely convinced that all of this is really what is advertised. Sorta depends what you think is advertised. AFAICT what's advertised is that Bill Gates gives away his money to create the kind of world and society Bill Gates wants to live in. I don't really see why I should want to live according to Bill Gates' ideas or preferences, so I'm critical on that ground -- but that doesn't make it a scam.

gabcoh 4y ago

Do you mean to say both FTX and effective altruism are Ponzi schemes? Obviously SBF and FTX turned out to be a huge fraud, but while EA benefited from the fraud mostly unknowingly (although there are open questions as to whether they should have been more skeptical of SBF) I don’t think it’s fair to say that it is fraudulent itself (at least as far as we currently know). EA is big and while you may disagree with their cause prioritiazation, it is clear real work is being done in the movement.

stephc_int13 4y ago
Have you heard about Wytham Abbey? The rationalization they used to justify this is probably the same pattern they use for everything. Why should I believe them? Facts are more reliable than words.

aschearer 4y ago

> I am not entirely convinced that all of this is really what is advertised. What does that even mean? Be explicit. Right now I'm left to assume you think he's implanting 5G chips in children... More to the point, barring huge changes in this country, what else can we expect of the ultra rich? What Gates is doing is nearly best case scenario...

stephc_int13 4y ago
I have absolutely no theory about what they are doing. I have no idea. The question is this: why should we give this foundation more credits than what SBF was trying to achieve? How do we know this is not bogus? What about secondary effects? What about the potential induced corruption around those super-rich foundations?
- aschearer 4y ago
  The response is, look it up -- the Gates Foundation publishes stuff all the time. As for the hand wringing around secondary effects, corruption, etc. Who cares? Rich people are going to be rich. Gates is visibly giving money away, explaining his process, etc. What are the other ultra rich doing? We have even less insight and less reason to think they're pitching in for humanity. And that's all by design in this country, and I doubt there's a plurality of people who would seek to change it. I'm not trying to what-about-you. I'm trying to say, let's applaud the good, even if it falls short of perfect.
- nindalf 4y ago
  SBF was donating his customers’ deposits. Bill Gates is donating his own wealth. SBF made his money from a Ponzi scheme. Gates made his money selling software. SBF’s wealth existed only in fantasy land. Gates’ wealth exists on the real stock market. I could go on. At no point am I claiming that Gates is an angel or that every action taken by Microsoft over the last 40 years is faultless. No, they’re both far from perfect. But SBF is a con man. And Gates is not.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  What if what if what if? Look at what the foundation has done and judge them on that. You seem to be looking for a reason to judge them based on nothing other than your own suspicion. The most (unfounded) ulterior motive that I can imagine is that they want to help poor countries prosper so that they grow the pot and keep our markets going up. That benefits everyone though so it's hard to knock it.

semi_square 4y ago

You can check the IRS website and retrieve the form 990 and 990-EZ for the charities you're curious about. The SBF/FTX cause from the get-go was a grift enterprise, the dude knew what he was doing as per his countless messages, relationships with politicians, and his parents/families involvement in his cause.

muh_gradle 4y ago

They're not even in the same conversation. FTX was set up to be a grift by SBF from the get go. Gates Foundation has decades of work.

pyuser583 4y ago

Gates alternative to charity is to establish a dynasty, like the Rockefellers, Hearst, Kennedys. Maybe that’s a better approach. Dynasties can do good, especially when people are more critical of them, and willing to hold them to account.