Bill Gates can’t give it away... Still crazy rich after all these years Tech billionaires dominate the upper reaches of the Forbes Rich list this year, which proves that while he’s good at many things, Bill Gates just ain’t cutting it at throwing away cash. Gates came in top again, with a whopping $75bn fortune. The second spot is taken by Zara boss Amancio Ortega, with $67bn, while Warren Buffett …
"Assuming they vote trump as their next president I do wonder how many seconds it will be before he starts launching nukes at everyone."
Here's one take on that. The problem is that it almost sounds possible.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/super-tuesday-special-donald-trumps-first-100-minutes-in-office-a6905766.html
> you people seem to forget that we don't have a KIng on the side of the pond
We don't here either. We have a Queen..
(And she has a lot less power than El Pres. And if she were to use the one significant power she has (refusing to sign a law that Parliament has passed) then there would be YACC [Yet Another Constitutional Crisis]).
I don't think someone who made their fortune through illegal business practices can really be called a 'Humanitarian'. He's only giving away some money in the hope History remembers him in a positive way, rather than a true representation as someone who ruined lives while amassing a fortune.
There's not a person on the planet who wouldn't accept ten billion pounds with the understanding they give nine billion away to good causes. Would they be classed as Humanitarian?
Compu-Global-Hyper-Mega-Net is Homer's Internet company from the episode "Das Bus". The company's headquarters is the dining room of 742 Evergreen Terrace. It is never made clear what the company sells or offers; however, Microsoft's Bill Gates still "buys out" the company.
Let's make a new standard, then:
American spelling becomes standardized, HOWEVER:
The Received Pronunciation which is mandated, EXCEPT;
In all business of government and all forms of newscast, excluding comedy newscasts, in which case all business must be conducted in the thickest possible yet most jovial Australian Strine, such that all business of government and all newscasters sound like they're doing their best Steve Irwin impression.
I'm no great fan of Bill Gates, but I attribute most of the Microsoft Evil to Ballmer, who succeeded Gates as CEO in 2000 and may have been responsible for a lot before then.
There are lots of "philanthropists" who spend their money on monuments to their own ego stuffed with expensive artworks. Bill is spending his on medical and other research. In such endeavours, throwing more money at the problem today is rarely an improvement over guaranteeing that the supported projects will remain funded until success or failure are properly established. Its also likely that if he arrives at (e.g.) a cure for malaria, the people who most need it are people who could not afford it, unless Bill pays for them to get it for free.
In short he deserves a lot of praise for what he's been doing outside and after Microsoft.
"Bill is spending his on medical and other research."
Basically he spends a lot on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Which in their turn also does plenty but... Has anyone checked the annual reports?
In a post further down I pointed out how Gates donated 1.5 billion to the foundation in 2014. But the foundation itself spend "only" approx. 4 million in 2014. Don't take my word for it: annual report for 2014. A foundation also run by Gates and his wife I might add.
It still accounts for something, for sure, but spending billions on a foundation which in itself only spends a fraction of that on charity (which includes research!)... I dunno.
well, I wouldn't say Gates earned his money through ILLEGAL means, but doubting the motivation for "humanitarian" give-away of his wealth is another thing entirely.
It's been my opinion for a while that political lefties and liberals "give away" their money to "charities" which aren't, so they're actually BUYING SOMETHING and getting a tax break for it.
A good example of this is George Soros, the man who broke the Bank of England [anyone LOSE money because of this?]. He regularly "gives" to organizations like "Media Matters", perhaps not directly, but through shell "charities", which according to U.S. Law are ILLEGAL charities because they engage in POLITICAL activities [those are different kinds of charities].
(it makes me wonder if there are a sufficient number of politicians on his 'payroll' to keep the justice department from investigating him more thoroughly...)
So Bill Gates in his "philanthropy" might decide to give money to some leftist cause, which engages in some level of political activism, or "philanthro-capitalism", which helps to shape things in favor of him making more money down the road [example, influencing patent enforcement in 3rd world countries, related to 'world health organization' donations and the influence it has on honoring the alleged influence for patents by 'big pharma' interests].
None of this, of course, is proved. It's just POSSIBLE. But if _I_ had "that much money" I would certainly NOT spend or give it away without getting SOMETHING I WANT in the process. A truly BLIND approach to charity is actually a BAD idea [it's more like what GUMMINTS would do with "your money", so they can finance scammers and 'the lazy' at public expense and thus buy votes].
So you can't BLAME him for being 'selective', or even asking for a little "palm-grease" in return. Giving to higher education means [possibly] that they purchase WINDOWS COMPUTERS, and then TRAIN PEOPLE to become future Microsoft employees, competitive in the world, making Bill Gates even richer than before. Can you blame him? I don't. But it's a good example, isn't it?
If more people were to approach the subject of super-rich people giving their money away with THIS perspective, then maybe there would be a little *LESS* corruption in the world, particularly that which is funded by "charities". After all, a tax break for charitable contributions puts MORE money into the hands of those you give charity to, whether it's REAL CHARITY or "charity".
How is this any different than the Koch brothers giving away money to support conservative causes and politicians that help support their businesses and therefore personal wealth by doing things like weakening anti-pollution laws? I agree that political donations should not be considered 'charitable' for tax write off purposes, but so long as politicians are responsible for writing tax laws, good luck changing that!
If you look at it hard enough, you can find an ulterior motive (real or imagined) for almost any donation. Bill Gates is supporting anti-malarial activities in the third world? Pshaw, he's just doing that because fewer people dying from malaria means more potential Windows customers :)
I would go further. Most of the children here who live online through their browser would not understand the expression "browser wars". What happened is that progress was put back 10 years globally because MS behaved like the obnoxious kid who did not want anyone else to play on the swings.
"I don't think someone who made their fortune through illegal business practices can really be called a 'Humanitarian'. He's only giving away some money in the hope History remembers him in a positive way, rather than a true representation as someone who ruined lives while amassing a fortune."
Maybe you got the downvotes for mentioning illegal business practices but the overall thrust of your post is absolutely spot on. Just look at all the Carnegie Libraries, Carnegie Halls, and all the other buildings and institutions endowed by the utra rich robber barons suddenly find they had more money than they knew what to do with after trampling everyone else into the ground.
And whatever you think of his actions at Microsoft, Gates can be applauded for his humanitarian efforts since giving up the helm of the company.
I believe that, with $75bn of net worth, the World is going to think you are one hell of an utter c*nt if you didn't start using it for such work. Anyway, Larry Ellison has already taken that title so I guess that's one area old Bill didn't think he could compete with the Oracle.
Still, I guess at least he should get some kudos for not behaving like we imagine all 1%ers to be.
..that anyone smart and self-possessed enough to accumulate a >$10bn personal cash pile would be smart enough to not want anything to do with the current political system.
Much more interesting are the opportunities to genuinely alter the future course of mankind - eliminate disease, get us to Mars, better energy sources. It's reassuring that tech wealth seems to bring along a certain amount of visionary spirit.
I got that email too, never heard anything back. Presume the cheque got lost in the post. He did give me a free upgrade to Windows 10 though. Right, back to my Nigerian friend who needs help with some kind of deal, I seem quite blessed with opportunities.
Carlos Slim Helu is a very rich man, but he's no tech geek. He bribed Mexican politicians to maintain a monopoly on telephone services, then raised calling rates to squeeze every last peso out of his customers (i.e. the entire country). Mexicans should be calling for his head on a plate; but they can't afford the calls.
First off I think that you mean sterile.
Secondly,do you have anything to back this up? do we have results of sperm tests before and after their inoculation that would prove the cause as being the vaccine? If you don't have anything to back this up (and I wont accept a link to "the mind unleashed" or "spirit science") then you're talking out of your arse.
Edit, just googled it, the top results are from VACTRUTH and similar sites... I'd love to see your credible sources.
This post has been deleted by its author
How much actual money has Bill Gates given away vs how much has he just transferred some of his assets into a non-profit foundation that he controls?
Rather than giving away his wealth I think the system is just designed to give away the profits during his lifetime and then when he's dead it will slowly spend his wealth.
If the metric is 'Trumps', Bill Gates is worth a lot more than 16.6 of them, in every possible interpretaion.
Oh, and BTW, maybe Jeff Bezos can look under his couch and find the money to finally pay his open bills. I'm pretty sure his suppliers don't care whether they get a cheque or a check.
That would arguably make him one of the biggest philanthropists of all time, as it would mean he'd just given away just under $64.5b in one go.
Of course, the LOGISTICS of putting $200 into the hands of every man, woman and child in America would, in and of themselves, create a hell of a lot of temporary jobs, causing a spike in USPS activity.
There are a lot of people on the list that, agree with them or not, have spent more time thinking about policy in various forms than Trump. No matter what you think of Gates, he's done a great deal for world health but has been conned by the charter school movement into doing some real harm to education.
The main problem when these guys donate to charity is that people only look at the cold numbers while ignoring the relationship with their income. Or put differently: the percentage of their fortune which is been given to charity. And when you look at those numbers then things suddenly look a whole lot different.
For example: According to CNBCGates has donated 1.5 billion ($1.500.000.000,00) worth of Microsoft stocks to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation in 2014, making him someone who donated most to charity. But if you look at Gates' income, my source being Paywizard dot org then you see that his annual income is estimated at: $11.500.000.000,00. 11 billion, 500 million dollars per year. So now we can determine that Gates has actually spend approx. 13% of his annual income to charity.
I know people who make around E2400,- per month. When they spend E200 on charity they spend 8% of their monthly income. And something tells me that it would have much more consequences for them as well. Some people actually cut on their expenses in order to donate to charity, something which I seriously doubt would apply to Mr. Gates.
Yet the latter are the people which no one takes into account.
Do note that I'm not claiming that what Gates does isn't impressive at all. But I do think you shouldn't look at the numbers alone, also look at what people actually do (or don't do).
Gates did not make $11.5 billion in a year, unless they count capital gains for his stock. If they do, then many of the others like Warren Buffett have wildly inaccurate numbers as they have had capital gains as well. Not to mention that there are years when Gates has lost many billions when MSFT stock went down.
This post has been deleted by its author
I gotta say I'd vote for any of the tech nerds on the list, even those I consider to be evil, soulless abominations of human beings, before I'd vote for Trump. Even Bill, who has admitted in the past that he doesn't think he'd be very good at the job. Then again I'd vote for Bubba J over Trump, so that's really not saying much.
"...gives one an advantage when running for political office"
Didn't work very well for Ross Perot
If he refunded $10,000 to every person who bought any version of Windows, that would only partly pay for the damages suffered by Windows users. It however would be a good start. I hope Bill is reading this because the champ change he gives to charities after violating all sorts of laws in numerous countries to reap billions annually in revenue, is unsavory.
I'm sure people like Gates have vast sums on hand in cash compared to likes of you and I, but the vast majority of their wealth is in shares in their own companies as well as other investments. In other words, most of it is what is keeping a significant numbers of people in work. I'm not saying that it's a good thing for so much wealth and power to be in the hands of individuals, but it's not cash stuffed in a mattress. Even if Gates cashed in and put the whole lot in a savings or current account, the bank wouldn't just put in a vault. They'd lend it out themselves, again making the money "work".
Is the feeling I walked away from this story with.
Thinking about it, actually doesn't seem entirely crazy (has Bill ever expressed any party affiliation?)
He's got the Trump-trump-card of actually having enough cash to run without being beholden to backers - but with the bonus of not coming across as an egotistical-cock and actually having a track record of using his money to do some good.
Of course "the not being an egotistical-cock" is also his Achilles heel.. Voters are idiots.
He was asked about it in an interview leading up to 2000 or 2004. He said he wouldn't run because #1) he wouldn't be very good at running a nation and wouldn't like the job and #2) people wouldn't vote for him. I don't think either of those things has changed since then.
2 has probably changed.
1... Well, let's put it this way: he'd be a hell of a lot better at running a country than Donald Drumpf would. Unlike the Ass Trumpet, his company is actually wildly SUCCESSFUL, and not just a "rich"-sounding brand name that has left shitloads of people out their retirements.
So, sure. He might not LIKE the job, but to be frank, I don't imagine any presidents like their jobs after February. They do it because it has to be done, not because they want power - at least, I HOPE they do it because they don't want power. Donald Drumpf, on the other hand? Oh, he wants power.
January 20th, 2017. If Donald Drumpf is elected, we'll find out if Time Travel is possible or not, because that'll be when the disruptor rifles come out and disintegrate him.
In thinking about Bill Gates as an extraordinary techie, entrepreneur, and philanthropist,
we overlook that he is extraordinarily intellectual and extraordinarily connected with the world.
As well as extraordinarily nice personally.
Check out his blog.
Check out http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/bill-gates-the-rolling-stone-interview-20140313?page=4.
I think he would lead political parties out of the morass
and continue to extraordinarily change the world,
like no one else is in a position to do.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
