please tell me that you aren't asking me to explain how his moving wealth from one region's businesses to some other region isn't depleting the source region of some amount of wealth :helpme

well I must be younger and less educated than you because I am disagreeing with your position, right? :1orglaugh

I don't think it's just the third world that will get the benefits, I think that's just where it's been the easiest/cheapest place for Bill's wife and dad to make a difference so far. I mean, Gates' charity hasn't even spent much $$ yet. They started it with $4-9 billion...now it's at $29billion before Warren's contributions. Bill and Buffet think big...I guarantee they've got bigger ambitions. Bill has still been working at MS. Once he's done there, he'll eventually spend some money some place people can see it.

Buffet has always worried about the global population, etc...I'd say that will play into it somwhere along the way as well.

What do I know..but Warren's made some pretty good decisions in the past, we'll have to see how this one plays out.

I would not ask you to explain that.

If anything, - can't wait, - I asked you why you think this is the case:

Originally Posted by 12clicks
"Pissing it away in the third world is like putting it in a pile and setting it on fire."

well they also spend plenty of money in the US too, especially on reforming high schools and improving graduation rates.

$5 submissions.
"I appreciate and recognize the goodness in Buffett and Gate's hearts.... it's all just a matter of METHOD and EXECUTION and ACCOUNTABILITY now."

The reason Buffett is donating to the Gates Foundation is because they ALREADY have a track record of execution and accountability.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Educa...?showYear=2006

List of grants to US public schools just this year.

I Agree.......

True - Overall, ya got to commend folks for showing an interest in practical terms re global populations and environments. It's a huge issue - more than could fill GFY and all sites hosted at Jupiter - and has a bearing on every nation on this planet.

Only my :2 cents: worth, but it's an issue that will be forced on everyone in decades ahead - and we ain't talking about just some donations from Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett - their contribution, tho an excellent start, - will be wiped in under a day.

you don't see the correlation between the two items you quoted above in that post?

maybe an analogy will help.

let's say that you are America and your pet dog is a 3rd world nation.

take a dollar out of your right pocket and put it into your left pocket. Do you (America) still have the same amount of money as before? of course you do.

now take a dollar out of either of those pockets and give it to your dog (3rd world). watch him chew it up, eat it, and leave only trace amounts of that dollar's fibers in a big steaming pile of shit that he left on your neighbor's lawn.

now do you still have the same amount of money as before?

Corrupt governments, the lack of codified laws, and the absence of property rights, and free markets doom 3rd world countries to failure - no matter how many billions Gates/Buffet/UN/US or anyone else throws at the problem.

It would have been nice to see Buffet set up a foundation for US Veterans, and their families. Without these guys, Buffet and Gates would not be where they are.

Stop rambling and answer the question directly.

The country he made his fortunes in and where he developed his business empire, employed 1000's of people, paid billions in taxation over decades and will probably leave this world having contributed many billions into his country's economy.

The US already has had the "benefits" of Mr Buffett - they are irreversible.

How does that translate to "the country he made his fortunes in will be many billions poorer for his efforts" when they are already much wealthier from "his efforts"??

I agree with you to an extent. Many 3rd world countries have the APPEARANCE of codified laws and property rights but they are SELECTIVELY ENFORCED. Also, "capitalism" is often practiced through MONOPOLIES. Hardly free enterprise. A handful of families owning most of the corporations. Serious legal and statutory roadblocks to foreigners coming in and competing with them. And this gets passed off as "NATIONALISM". What a crock of shit. We (third world) definitely could use FREEER Markets. Just my :2 cents:

Whoa....

Where have you been??

Will we ever see ya again at the shows??

Hmmm.. Actually it doesnt matter, I dont go to shows anymore either.

I have answered it both directly and through an analogy that even a simpleton should be able to grasp.

When looking at that steaming pile of dogshit, is the money the dog ate still in your hand?

there may exist a net gain from the time he began building his fortune if that's what you are referring to, however this does not negate the fact that if exists X dollars in today's economy, after this action there will be X minus whatever he takes out of it.

Curious $5... Do you see any slight reluctance, or some suspicion, to having more free markets where you are, particularly depending on who wants these free markets?

Definately get that "aura" in Latin America at this time. But that probably stems from NAFTA which did nothing for Mexico, but benefitted the US. With the prospect of, now CAFTA, - in general, it appears to be appreciated, but with great reservations on the detail of this agreement.

Flip side is also that other countries are opening up to possible trade deals with other than the US to avoid being burned by having only one girlfriend.

OK.. Nuff said.

"...even a simpleton should be able to grasp"

now it's enough said :1orglaugh

I actually agree with Ronny.... :Oh crap

I heard of a billionaire who gave a speech to the graduating class of a high school and on the spur of the moment decided to endow a scholarship paying the college tuition of every student that graduated from that high school in perpetuity. The grad rate for the high school skyrocketed and has stayed in the stratosphere. If I had a few billion lying around I think that's how I would spend it, funding college educations for poor US students.

Money tends to get lost in the third world, and we're already throwing our mental patients out in the street. We need to clean up our own back yard.

that is why bill gates take some load off from microsoft so he can manage warren's money. very clever

agreed, i would have spent it on building more schools, jails, hiring more police officers here in the US. US-made money should stay here.

Hi Webby,

Free market reforms are the boogyman here. Take the Power Industry reform Act. It sought to privatize the state monopoly on power and sure enough a shadowy entity with mystery owners sought to take the transmission corporation off the government's hands as the SOLE BIDDER in a murky transaction. Some senators are saying that this is just another ploy to keep power transmission monopolized and centralized in the same hands that keep power rates in Manila the second highest rates in Asia (next to Tokyo!).

Many of the people that complain against economic liberalization are the cement producers, flour millers, car assemblers, and other corporate entities that survive only because of high tarrifs. Almost all are extremely inefficient and are MORE EXPENSIVE than their import competitors (even after slapping on the tarriff!). Of course, to abolish these tarriffs would "destroy" local "industries". Are these really industries? I define industry as some enterprise that survives because of market dynamics not because of market distortions imposed by government fiat and protectionism.

Indeed, in the CONSTITUTION of the Philippines, foreign ownership and participation in certain parts of the economy are severely restricted. End result: monopolistic practices, high prices, crappy selection, and stunted economic growth.

BUT THERE'S A SOLUTION...... read below

That's one of the dillemmas facing Filipinos--constantly eroding purchasing power. This only gets worse because of the protectionist economy. The Philippines could do well learning from when it deregulated FIRE INSURANCE in 1997. Before 1997 there were only a handful of big family-owned fire insurance companies. Prices were ridiculously high. Not too many people could afford such policies. Claims were problematically and crappilly settled and adjusted. After 1997, due to government pressure, the insurance companies were free to set their own rates. Moreover, foreign companies can come in to set up shop. Now in 2006, there's MANY fire insurance providers, prices have shot downwards, there's TONS of differing packages to choose from, people who used to NOT buy fire insurance now customarily buy it since it's so cheap, and the companies make more money cuz of volume. PLUS, claims adjustment is quicker and more satisfactory because if one company bungles your claim they are under pressure that you might switch to their competitor. Indeed, Fire insurance is one of the FEW things that is cheaper now in the Philippines than 20 years ago. Everything else...food, fuel, land, you name it, is more expensive.

I am not saying that Capitalism fixes everything BUT..... it sure is better than a closed MONOPOLIST system that benefits only a few and erodes and punishes the purchasing power of the majority for the benefit of a minority.

What do you think?

Hola $5

Your solution (fire insurance) probably says it all. Generally monopolies are better dismantled - they rarely serve anyone other than their owners, and often these "owners" are involved, of have been involved, in governments and managed to swing some deals their way. There are classic examples of that in Latin America - and even when the individuals have arrest warrants out, - they still collect the proceeds from their corrupt deals while on the "chat circuit" with other world leaders.

On a conventional shareholding corp - it's probably equally as bad when they become monopolies, tho can vary. Example.. although we may all moan at Mr Gates and Microsoft, - that was the first corp to establish a "common standard" in operating systems. Up to that time, it was a mish-mash of OS's. (Wether any of the other OS's may have been better as a standard, is another story.)

The flip side is several drug companies ("legalized drugs") who act as tho they are street pushers and dispense solutions for almost every ailment at a grossly inflated price and never actually address any "cure". It's more profitable to avoid going into the "cure business". They earn more out of dealing than drug cartels.

Then there's the ugly side to monopolies - usually with a degree of corruption involved. Example is in South America where the govt sold out water rights to a California-based corp and where the population generally could not afford to pay the ripoff cost of water and started collecting rainwater till there were claims that that also, was chargeable :) (They were booted out in the end)

One stage upwards from that is, (and where there are dangers of "free trade") is that governments (of other countries) become the monopoly in a nation. Example being... purchasing the utility services and infrastructure of other countries - soley with a view to a mass ripoff and price increases. That is fairly common in Africa with the US govt and US corps as the "faces".

Overall.. yes, would agree it's vastly superior to open up trading. On average, the benefits exceed all else. At the same time there prob needs to be caution in that having eg six "baby Bells" in total control of a nations telecom system can be abused.

"Free trade" prob also does not mean one-sided trading :-) The idea is all parties benefit. There is a long track record of this being otherwise with some nations and this is where distrust may set in.

In Costa Rica there are moves to dismantle the main utility services from the hands of the government monopoly. They may have served their purpose well initially, but are now totally inefficient, tho prob not excessive in billing.

As a side comment - more amusing than anything else, - the govt here also has a "monopoly" on some local brew. The current President wondered why the government was in the brewing business - so that's another monopoly sipping the last drop out of the glass :)

From what you said, it does sound like the Philippines is not unlike Latin America and change is inevitable. It is prob also important to have a range of trading partners and not rely on one or two nations.

How is "Imelda The Shoe Lady"? She still in the Philippines or living a life of luxury in a safe haven? :) She always reminds me of some past leaders in Latin America - tho the only difference between them and other past leaders is they are more transparent in their corruption :winkwink:

She's still alive and kicking and still in the political scene as congresswoman from Leyte (although her daughter Imee is more active politically). This is an object lesson in provincial politics. Each provincial region has their dynastic family clans that they routinely send to the national government irrespective of history. Definitely another piece to the puzzle that is Phlippine politics--entreneched dynasties, entrenched political thinking, closed political and economic systems, steadily eroding purchasing power and consumer confidence. Anyway, I'd write more but I'd rather focus on change I can control--my ability to create jobs and contribute to the economy/social progress that way. I create change through the only person I can truly control....myself. With that thought.... I'm out of this thread.:thumbsup

hehe.. and the dynasty continues :winkwink: :thumbsup

Yet again I agree.

love thy neighbor doesn't just mean the neighbor in your own country..that is my take on it

Bill Gates started a trend it seems.

12 clicks, he can probably HELP millions of kids lifes become better in the 3rd world... it won't commercialize it, but at least it can stop empdemies, put food on the table for a lot more people then he could help in the US.

Who's that? Any relation to Jimmy Buffett?

I think there's a lot of integrity in his decision to donate that much money. It's a staggering amount. The third world needs a societal change before throwing money at it works though, currently it just ends up in the pockets of dictators. But that much money into disease research would be quite amazing, progress, equipment, new labs... wow. I say props to the guy for it.

Never agree with 12clicks he is ALWAYS wrong. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation ALREADY have donated 2.6 BILLION to schools in the United States. They by no means are limiting their philanthropy to the third world.

And yes you're normally right about throwing money to the third world, but the whole point of the Foundation is to bring accountability and western style accounting and self-sufficiency to the aid effort.

Listen Gates is way too smart to fall for the run of the mill third world effort. They're demanding accountability and a measurable return on investment. This is why Buffett is donating this amount of money, he KNOWS it will be used responsibly to do the most potential good.

Quoted for truth. :thumbsup

Whats your contribution? He is giving away 95% of his money.

Eh?:winkwink: 12Shit's contribution to global enhancement is 500,000 copies of free scumware deposited onto PC's across the planet.

Learned an interesting tidbit this morning: He's also giving about $3 billion to his late wife's, Susan Thompson Buffet Foundation - an abortion rights group in the US.

And after reading a bit more about the BMGF, it does seem they approach charity in a different manner than just dumping money off in different places; they take the time and effort to put their backing behind measurable and attainable goals. So instead of just giving money to other charities, for example, they actively invest large sums of money for R&D to invent vaccines that can then be cheaply reproduced, requires little to no refrigeration and can save millions of lives. Pretty respectable, if you ask me.

A worthy cause?

I say free breast augmentation surgery for all women everywhere. This is the kind of social welfare I could "support".

this is incredible!

imagine the conversations that could take place on the board without the likes of webby, joe citizen, and directfiesta.

A few weeks ago, Bill Gates announced that he was retiring from the day to day operations at Microsoft to run his charities. Now we know why! Just imangine the two most successful and richest men in the world pooling their efforts? Can you imangine a charity run like a BUSINESS? Wow - what a concept. And these people don't need to skim money off to live like kings...they already do, if they want.

This is truly a legacy and an unselfish act by Buffet. Instead of leaving all his money to various charties in his own name to be a legend, he leaves it to someone accountable, who he trusts will run it like it should be run after he is gone.

Looks like very ambitious goals & not all 3rd world, and with enough money to at least make a dent.

"fighting such diseases as malaria, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis -- and on improving U.S. libraries and high schools."

Sure can ....

Would look like Mississipi in the 60's with the KKK ....

and then you wonder why third world says the same about America :winkwink: