- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Open source is good for the economy: report
|
|
|
Comments (24)
4 earlier comments in the full thread.
> AIDS-drugs for prices people in Africa can't pay, and they invested in chemical companies, who polute the air in Africa in a high degree
In other words a few more stay alive longer so they can die later of TB and lung related diseases. Yeah, I saw that one.
Or the one where Bill gave India 3 mil in aids relief with the return of 6 mil in MS contracts. These cruds make money however they can, and, the 'charity' is only for themselves.
In other words a few more stay alive longer so they can die later of TB and lung related diseases. Yeah, I saw that one.
Or the one where Bill gave India 3 mil in aids relief with the return of 6 mil in MS contracts. These cruds make money however they can, and, the 'charity' is only for themselves.
Correction: A few more stay alive to pay for Windows licenses... and then die.
>It's not. It's a for profit organization.
Where did you get that information? I haven't seen anything to that effect.
Where did you get that information? I haven't seen anything to that effect.
> Correction: A few more stay alive to pay for Windows licenses... and then die.
Those people don't and never will have the money for a Windows license, so, it's best that they just die. Their only value to MS is favorable press.
Those people don't and never will have the money for a Windows license, so, it's best that they just die. Their only value to MS is favorable press.
Quoting:Where did you get that information? I haven't seen anything to that effect.
It's more an opinion (exaggeration, yes), but fact is they earn as much as they give away. I merely thought about it since they invest in Berkshire Hathaway, which doesn't seem like charity to me.
Check my new 'feature', which is no feature but a summary, but anyway.
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/78423/index.html
>It's more an opinion (exaggeration, yes), but fact is they earn as much as they give away. I merely thought about it since they invest in Berkshire Hathaway, which doesn't seem like charity to me
Any foundation of size will invest it's endowment as a way of preserving assets and maintaining its ability to do whatever it was set up to do. That may seem silly for a foundation with $60 billion in assets, but think of what can be done with a 15% rate of return. They could dole out $8-9 billion a year (yeah, I know I'm not accounting for overhead, inflation, etc) without touching the principle.
Any foundation of size will invest it's endowment as a way of preserving assets and maintaining its ability to do whatever it was set up to do. That may seem silly for a foundation with $60 billion in assets, but think of what can be done with a 15% rate of return. They could dole out $8-9 billion a year (yeah, I know I'm not accounting for overhead, inflation, etc) without touching the principle.
Ah, so the richer they are the more they can give ... just to be the antogonist here, but which factor is in primacy? Most 'charitable' organazations have some really well paid executives.
I tend to question altruism because I dont believe humans are capable of it, even the Pope prolly gets a warm fuzzy when he does a good dead, and that too can be a powerfull addiction. Just because good came of it doesnt make it altuistic.
I tend to question altruism because I dont believe humans are capable of it, even the Pope prolly gets a warm fuzzy when he does a good dead, and that too can be a powerfull addiction. Just because good came of it doesnt make it altuistic.
Indeed, it's a logical thing a foundation invests its money. There's nothing wrong with that.
But, every foundation has a goal. If you have a charitable foundation, than making the world better in whatever form, is the goal. But if you invest in companies which make the world 'worse', or could easily make the world better but don't, and you don't use your influence as a shareholder to try to change that behavior, I'm sorry, but I can't see it as a charitable foundation anymore.
An investment company having a net profit of 1,5 billion and not having to pay most taxes because they do charity, would still be OK. But, if you look at how they invest it, you also wonder if they want to influence other business as well. Looking at it this way, it may seem like the foundation is just a body to increase the power of Bill Gates way beyond Microsoft. Also, the investments in other companies might be used to 'help' Microsoft.
Of course, the foundation says it is only a passive owner of a share in companies. Can be true, but I suspect Bill Gates might have his opinion passed on to the companies bosses without people like us knowing it.
But, every foundation has a goal. If you have a charitable foundation, than making the world better in whatever form, is the goal. But if you invest in companies which make the world 'worse', or could easily make the world better but don't, and you don't use your influence as a shareholder to try to change that behavior, I'm sorry, but I can't see it as a charitable foundation anymore.
An investment company having a net profit of 1,5 billion and not having to pay most taxes because they do charity, would still be OK. But, if you look at how they invest it, you also wonder if they want to influence other business as well. Looking at it this way, it may seem like the foundation is just a body to increase the power of Bill Gates way beyond Microsoft. Also, the investments in other companies might be used to 'help' Microsoft.
Of course, the foundation says it is only a passive owner of a share in companies. Can be true, but I suspect Bill Gates might have his opinion passed on to the companies bosses without people like us knowing it.
>I tend to question altruism because I dont believe humans are capable of it
Not keeping up with the science, eh?
Hate to sound harsh, but I usually interpret such statements, in the face of so much contrary evidence, to be a rationalization of one's own selfishness.
Not keeping up with the science, eh?
Hate to sound harsh, but I usually interpret such statements, in the face of so much contrary evidence, to be a rationalization of one's own selfishness.
> I tend to question altruism because I dont believe humans are capable of it
You must have a strange definition of altruism. Most people have no wish to harm others and will actually make some (but usually not a lot) of effort to help them, if they can see a way to do so.
> Just because good came of it doesnt make it altuistic.
And just because harm comes from an action it doesn't mean the person acting is evil. However, knowingly causing good or harm is a different matter.
You must have a strange definition of altruism. Most people have no wish to harm others and will actually make some (but usually not a lot) of effort to help them, if they can see a way to do so.
> Just because good came of it doesnt make it altuistic.
And just because harm comes from an action it doesn't mean the person acting is evil. However, knowingly causing good or harm is a different matter.
I think one would be hard pressed to find a purely altruistic person. But it has been said that the people who are most truly selfish are those who are the most giving. That is, they give freely, knowing that they will receive back something at some point. The old "give and it shall be given to you" rule applies.
The problem I have with the Gates Foundation is that (1) much of that money is, imo, ill-gained (morally speaking, not necessarily illegally), and (2) giving to conflicting charities and investments gives the appearance of internal conflict. While it is one thing to give to 2 different religious groups (whose views may conflict), it is another matter entirely to donate money to helping people fight Ameriquest while simultaneously supporting Ameriquest.
One might understand if the Foundation was unaware of a problem, and then worked to correct it. However, when the Foundation's founder says that the important thing is "helping", not worrying about the conflicts of the "help", flags start popping up in my mind. Had Gates said, "Oh, there's a problem here; let me fix that", and then delegated someone to work with Ameriquest to change its ways, that would be much more acceptable.
The problem I have with the Gates Foundation is that (1) much of that money is, imo, ill-gained (morally speaking, not necessarily illegally), and (2) giving to conflicting charities and investments gives the appearance of internal conflict. While it is one thing to give to 2 different religious groups (whose views may conflict), it is another matter entirely to donate money to helping people fight Ameriquest while simultaneously supporting Ameriquest.
One might understand if the Foundation was unaware of a problem, and then worked to correct it. However, when the Foundation's founder says that the important thing is "helping", not worrying about the conflicts of the "help", flags start popping up in my mind. Had Gates said, "Oh, there's a problem here; let me fix that", and then delegated someone to work with Ameriquest to change its ways, that would be much more acceptable.
Rev -
It really is bothersome that the Gates Foundation doesn't seem to care about any correlation between its financial activities and its philanthropy.
Especially bothersome as Bill, Melinda, and Warren are all foundation trustees, though I'm not completely sure why that bothers me.
One can argue that a philanthropic organization is obligated to maximize its funds so that it can maximize its help -- not irrational. However, help is a net effect...You must also subtract the harm you encourage, support, or directly do by your actions.
It really is bothersome that the Gates Foundation doesn't seem to care about any correlation between its financial activities and its philanthropy.
Especially bothersome as Bill, Melinda, and Warren are all foundation trustees, though I'm not completely sure why that bothers me.
One can argue that a philanthropic organization is obligated to maximize its funds so that it can maximize its help -- not irrational. However, help is a net effect...You must also subtract the harm you encourage, support, or directly do by your actions.
dino, you mean like don't pee in the water supply, then fund shipments of bottled water? But then your friends who sell bottled water will be harmed.
tc -
Hmmm. Reminds me of something I heard...what was it? Oh yeah:
A smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section in a pool.
Hmmm. Reminds me of something I heard...what was it? Oh yeah:
A smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section in a pool.
hee, that's a good one. I think I have a new sig. :)
> when the Foundation's founder says that the important thing is "helping", not worrying about the conflicts of the "help", flags start popping up in my mind.
Kinda like a Chinese political rally in my mind... lots and lots of red flags ;-).
Kinda like a Chinese political rally in my mind... lots and lots of red flags ;-).
> It really is bothersome that the Gates Foundation doesn't seem
> to care about any correlation between its financial activities and
> its philanthropy.
Dean, the good news is that you find it bothersome. But don't you think it's a perfect example of "compartmentalization"? Just like treating the construction of an operating system and the provision of OS security as two seperate, unrelated packages/products, and considering morality something that belongs in church (or in the bedroom!), not in working life; so it is here... holism is hard.
Dean, the good news is that you find it bothersome. But don't you think it's a perfect example of "compartmentalization"? Just like treating the construction of an operating system and the provision of OS security as two seperate, unrelated packages/products, and considering morality something that belongs in church (or in the bedroom!), not in working life; so it is here... holism is hard.
>But don't you think it's a perfect example of "compartmentalization"?
Absolutely.
I don't know why it is, but we seem to have arrived at an age where people have lost their ability to think organically, eschewing the whole for pieces.
Yuck. No wonder so much software stinks.
Absolutely.
I don't know why it is, but we seem to have arrived at an age where people have lost their ability to think organically, eschewing the whole for pieces.
Yuck. No wonder so much software stinks.
> I don't know why it is, but we seem to have arrived at an age where people have lost their ability to think organically...
Well, while I've never bought into the "life is harder now" idea, it is true that life is more complex now than it used to be, and that the rate of change has been increasing. It's entirely possible that we've reached a limit in people's ability to deal with the complexities and rate of change in their lives, and that compartmentalization is the natural result. It would be rather difficult to even test this, much less prove it, but it's something to consider.
Well, while I've never bought into the "life is harder now" idea, it is true that life is more complex now than it used to be, and that the rate of change has been increasing. It's entirely possible that we've reached a limit in people's ability to deal with the complexities and rate of change in their lives, and that compartmentalization is the natural result. It would be rather difficult to even test this, much less prove it, but it's something to consider.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Because they give 5% of their money to charities each year, they don't have to pay tax for the profit of their organization. Their organization has invested in AIDS-drugs firms, who sell AIDS-drugs for prices people in Africa can't pay, and they invested in chemical companies, who polute the air in Africa in a high degree. They make a lot of profits from this. Also, Warren Buffet gave some of his money to the 'charitable' foundation. Hehe, don't let me laugh. The Bill Gates foundation in turn invested $ 1,5 million in Buffets investment-company, Berkshire Hathaway. Therefore, the Bill Gates foundation even has a share in 'our' Dutch oil company, Royal Shell, but also in Coca Cola etc.
Of course, you want to see sources.
Well, here you go:
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bill_&_Melinda_Gates_...
The generic articles hold it all. It's a very recent topic. Especially, read (carefully!) the LA Times article (of 8 pages!) they link to. It's here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx0...