13 ms·

Bill Gates Gives Away More Money Than The Entire US Foreign Aid Budget

288 points by pud 15y ago

holyland1 15y ago
Hello. My name is Karen Willis Hamilton. I am concerned about the US Foreign Aid. I have requested a list of countries and the amount our country spends on foreign aid. Why do our tax dollars and weapons end up in terrorist countries. I have assembled and installed the fire bottle wiring harness on board the CH-46 helicopter. It has been my honor and priviledge to serve our Marine's in a civilian capacity. I am a dyed in the wool patriot. I want to make a difference. Instead of our tax dollars going to places that hate or guts, keep it and spend it on our defence. The people in Washington think we are all a bunch of idiots. I not Einstein, but I know when I am watching the characters in the story "The Emporer's New Clothes". Planned Parenthood is another concern. I guess the politicians think it saves money in the long run to have these lives nipped in the bud. But how wrong they are. They are only Shooting themselves in the foot. Guilt is very expensive. Men and women can say they don't feel bad after an abortion, but they are in denial. To numb the pain the numb out with drugs, alcohol, sex, gambling, and anything else that gives an artificial pleasure. I have killed to of my sons, paid for out of my pocket. But I have costed tax dollars for mental health treatment and medications. I have self mutilated, overdosed, lifted things too heavy for a small person to lift as punishment for killing my own flesh and blood. This caused insurance rates to go so high they were unaffordable. Now I am no longer able to pay my bills because of my mental and physical pain. It would have been so much easier to have had my children and let them grow into productive adults like their sisters. Please help me be heard. The government doesn't care about people. If I could be heard just one time I know I would make a difference. Best regards, Karen Willis Hamilton karenwillis.hamilton@yahoo.com
holyland1 15y ago
Corrections to comment. I am not Einstein.
holyland1 15y ago
Corrections to comment. I am not Einstein.
holyland1 15y ago
Corrections to comment. I am not Einstein.
roc 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      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=MSFT.O&WTmodLOC=C4-Officers-5 http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyOfficers?symbol... 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&Holding=5%25+Ownership http://moneycentral.msn.com/ownership?symbol=MSFT&Holdin...
pushtheenvelope 15y ago
A link to the original source which includes a note from the author of the infographic: http://frugaldad.com/microsoft/ http://frugaldad.com/microsoft/
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- Permit 15y ago
  I think it comes down to where the United States chooses to spend its money. I'm not saying the country should feel obligated to be caretakers of the world, but your defense budget is objectively out of control. There are a number of more worthy on which some of that money could be spent.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
whamill 15y ago
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 15y ago
  Is apple any more of an honest competitor with all of its patent trolling, closed platforms, and hardware lock-in?
  - Zirro 15y ago
    They are not patent trolls. See: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Patent_troll https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Patent_troll
    - awda 15y ago
      lololololol
    - InclinedPlane 15y ago
      Patent abusers then. Is there a reasonable argument that Apple is not abusing the patent system to try to stifle their competition?
- psychotik 15y ago
  I think he has/will have far overshadowed his MSFT impact by the time he passes so whether this would happen or not is irrelevant, IMO.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  He is not a pop icon, so... no.
  - polymatter 15y ago
    Depending on how effective his foundation is, and if/how those who benefited remember him, he could have many many people love him.
Jun8 15y ago
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 15y ago
  Yes, that's how capitalism works after all.
viggity 15y ago
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.
ejames 15y ago
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.
- rsanchez1 15y ago
  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.
  - fpp 15y ago
    Besides the money he had given to the apparatchiks and money wasters of the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB & Malaria (GFATM) where - as it became public latest last year - up to 2/3 disappeared with mismanagement, corruption and other abuse of funds (administrative fees not included) - I guess nobody is perfect
deltriggah 15y ago
He may not have taste as some would say, but he's been hacking real world problems lately. Good job.
leeoniya 15y ago
in contrast, Steve Jobs decided the money was his to keep, even after death. lives NOT saved: 5,812,000 and counting.
- gcb 15y ago
  The guy was cheap enough even to pay dmv plates
- corin_ 15y ago
  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.
- k-mcgrady 15y ago
  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_ 15y ago
    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.
lubos 15y ago
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.
- skippy81 15y ago
  If Bill wants to give away billions to good causes and as a side effect he gets charitable tax-exempt status then I'm more than happy with that. His money is being far better spent than his tax dollars.
- wtvanhest 15y ago
  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?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- UrLicht 15y ago
  Yes, you've managed to figure out why tax exempt status exists.
- cullenking 15y ago
  shrug pay taxes and have your money spent in ways you disagree with, or, run a foundation and spend your money instead on goals that you do agree with. Sounds like a tough decision...
snippyhollow 15y ago
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-approved-despite.html http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/monsantos-gmo-corn-appro... (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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_According_to_Monsanto )
- nphrk 15y ago
  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.
  - dangrossman 15y ago
    The problem with Monsanto is patents. If they didn't try to sue farmers that don't buy their GE seeds out of existence on unavoidable patent infringement claims (due to seed blowing into fields contaminating their non-GE crops), then fine, let them create whatever they want.
  - Duff 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      >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.
gph 15y ago
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_ 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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.
- jaredhansen 15y ago
  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?
grandalf 15y ago
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.
- rayiner 15y ago
  Uh, none of this makes any sense.
  - grandalf 15y ago
    It follows from how innovation increases productivity, and productivity increases real (adjusted for inflation) wages.
    - forensic 15y ago
      The productivity increases caused by the computer revolution did not increase real (adjusted for inflation) wages though. All the profit was eaten by entrepreneurs and finance. Wage-workers got very little, their wage growth rate actually decreased significantly since the computer revolution.
      - grandalf 15y ago
        Do you have support for that assertion? What is a "wage worker"?
- timwiseman 15y ago
  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."
thematt 15y ago
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 15y ago
  Don't forget the military aid to Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Somalia, Chile, Nicaragua, most of central America, etc... </sarcasm>
ahhrrr 15y ago
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.
lincolnq 15y ago
If you're interested in charitable giving: GiveWell (http://givewell.org 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 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.
scottjad 15y ago
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.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- vacri 15y ago
  Foreign aid by any government is most certainly not given unconditionally. Even disaster relief carries political ties.
joshu 15y ago
FYI Blog Spam, source is: http://frugaldad.com/microsoft/ http://frugaldad.com/microsoft/
oofabz 15y ago
The headline is simply not true. It is comparing Gates' total expenditure to the USA's annual expenditure.
kylebrown 15y ago
Gates didn't give away $28 billion. That's the foundation's endowment, from which they "give away" the annual returns (~5% iirc).
schlomie 15y ago
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.

288 points by pud 15y ago

Hello. My name is Karen Willis Hamilton. I am concerned about the US Foreign Aid. I have requested a list of countries and the amount our country spends on foreign aid. Why do our tax dollars and weapons end up in terrorist countries. I have assembled and installed the fire bottle wiring harness on board the CH-46 helicopter. It has been my honor and priviledge to serve our Marine's in a civilian capacity. I am a dyed in the wool patriot. I want to make a difference. Instead of our tax dollars going to places that hate or guts, keep it and spend it on our defence. The people in Washington think we are all a bunch of idiots. I not Einstein, but I know when I am watching the characters in the story "The Emporer's New Clothes". Planned Parenthood is another concern. I guess the politicians think it saves money in the long run to have these lives nipped in the bud. But how wrong they are. They are only Shooting themselves in the foot. Guilt is very expensive. Men and women can say they don't feel bad after an abortion, but they are in denial. To numb the pain the numb out with drugs, alcohol, sex, gambling, and anything else that gives an artificial pleasure. I have killed to of my sons, paid for out of my pocket. But I have costed tax dollars for mental health treatment and medications. I have self mutilated, overdosed, lifted things too heavy for a small person to lift as punishment for killing my own flesh and blood. This caused insurance rates to go so high they were unaffordable. Now I am no longer able to pay my bills because of my mental and physical pain. It would have been so much easier to have had my children and let them grow into productive adults like their sisters. Please help me be heard. The government doesn't care about people. If I could be heard just one time I know I would make a difference. Best regards, Karen Willis Hamilton karenwillis.hamilton@yahoo.com

holyland1 15y ago

Corrections to comment. I am not Einstein.

holyland1 15y ago

Corrections to comment. I am not Einstein.

holyland1 15y ago

Corrections to comment. I am not Einstein.

roc 15y ago

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 15y ago
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 15y ago

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 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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=MSFT.O&WTmodLOC=C4-Officers-5 http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyOfficers?symbol... 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&Holding=5%25+Ownership http://moneycentral.msn.com/ownership?symbol=MSFT&Holdin...

pushtheenvelope 15y ago

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

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

Permit 15y ago
I think it comes down to where the United States chooses to spend its money. I'm not saying the country should feel obligated to be caretakers of the world, but your defense budget is objectively out of control. There are a number of more worthy on which some of that money could be spent.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

whamill 15y ago

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 15y ago
Is apple any more of an honest competitor with all of its patent trolling, closed platforms, and hardware lock-in?
- Zirro 15y ago
  They are not patent trolls. See: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Patent_troll https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Patent_troll
  - awda 15y ago
    lololololol
  - InclinedPlane 15y ago
    Patent abusers then. Is there a reasonable argument that Apple is not abusing the patent system to try to stifle their competition?
psychotik 15y ago
I think he has/will have far overshadowed his MSFT impact by the time he passes so whether this would happen or not is irrelevant, IMO.
sliverstorm 15y ago
He is not a pop icon, so... no.
- polymatter 15y ago
  Depending on how effective his foundation is, and if/how those who benefited remember him, he could have many many people love him.

Jun8 15y ago

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 15y ago
Yes, that's how capitalism works after all.

viggity 15y ago

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.

ejames 15y ago

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.

rsanchez1 15y ago
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.
- fpp 15y ago
  Besides the money he had given to the apparatchiks and money wasters of the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB & Malaria (GFATM) where - as it became public latest last year - up to 2/3 disappeared with mismanagement, corruption and other abuse of funds (administrative fees not included) - I guess nobody is perfect

deltriggah 15y ago

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

leeoniya 15y ago

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

gcb 15y ago
The guy was cheap enough even to pay dmv plates
corin_ 15y ago
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.
k-mcgrady 15y ago
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_ 15y ago
  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.

lubos 15y ago

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.

skippy81 15y ago
If Bill wants to give away billions to good causes and as a side effect he gets charitable tax-exempt status then I'm more than happy with that. His money is being far better spent than his tax dollars.
wtvanhest 15y ago
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?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
UrLicht 15y ago
Yes, you've managed to figure out why tax exempt status exists.
cullenking 15y ago
shrug pay taxes and have your money spent in ways you disagree with, or, run a foundation and spend your money instead on goals that you do agree with. Sounds like a tough decision...

snippyhollow 15y ago

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-approved-despite.html http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/monsantos-gmo-corn-appro... (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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_According_to_Monsanto )

nphrk 15y ago
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.
- dangrossman 15y ago
  The problem with Monsanto is patents. If they didn't try to sue farmers that don't buy their GE seeds out of existence on unavoidable patent infringement claims (due to seed blowing into fields contaminating their non-GE crops), then fine, let them create whatever they want.
- Duff 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    >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.

gph 15y ago

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_ 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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.
jaredhansen 15y ago
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?

grandalf 15y ago

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.

rayiner 15y ago
Uh, none of this makes any sense.
- grandalf 15y ago
  It follows from how innovation increases productivity, and productivity increases real (adjusted for inflation) wages.
  - forensic 15y ago
    The productivity increases caused by the computer revolution did not increase real (adjusted for inflation) wages though. All the profit was eaten by entrepreneurs and finance. Wage-workers got very little, their wage growth rate actually decreased significantly since the computer revolution.
    - grandalf 15y ago
      Do you have support for that assertion? What is a "wage worker"?
timwiseman 15y ago
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."

thematt 15y ago

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 15y ago
Don't forget the military aid to Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Somalia, Chile, Nicaragua, most of central America, etc... </sarcasm>

ahhrrr 15y ago

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.

lincolnq 15y ago

If you're interested in charitable giving: GiveWell (http://givewell.org 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 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.

scottjad 15y ago

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.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
vacri 15y ago
Foreign aid by any government is most certainly not given unconditionally. Even disaster relief carries political ties.

joshu 15y ago

FYI Blog Spam, source is: http://frugaldad.com/microsoft/ http://frugaldad.com/microsoft/

oofabz 15y ago

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

kylebrown 15y ago

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

schlomie 15y ago

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.