Bill and Melinda Gates, this is your true legacy. Impressed, how
Amazing wouldnt America be if you had equal opportunities regardless of income.

Your video, Bill and Melinda Gates Scholarship Experiment Proves a Point, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The LA Times ran a story on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It seemed to describe the Foundation as more of an investment body than a charity in the traditional sense. Just sayin'

I'm going to address some of this in no particular order

"You are essentially saying people are too irresponsible and stupid to live with freedom and self-reliance

That's exactly what I'm saying. I feel like our current system isn't ideal but it's much better than nothing. I would rather people participate in the regulatory process than plan their own retirement. And to ^GeeSussFreeK, No I'm not trying to spin it in any particular direction (like a magician, 'Watch THIS hand while THAT hand gives you retirement'). I feel like there is a genuine need for social security because I honestly believe people on the whole are irresponsible. And should those individuals be made to suffer? Probably, but I feel strongly that the other responsible people in their lives who have to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives should have less of a burden (this is one of many sundries).

--------------------------
"Private charity happens all the time."

A heavy handed tactless comment on my part. Yes of course I realize private charities like the Red Cross and others like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, etc. exist. Yes, as my two critics above mentioned, an array of fantastic private charities exist already despite government welfare. But notwithstanding both private and government programs, there are herds of families that find themselves starving, homeless or otherwise destitute. Why you want to do away with government welfare is beyond my current understanding of poverty in America.

--------------------------
"Cutting taxes by 50% is not nearly enough."

This is the one point I think there is some wiggle room on. I absolutely agree that military spending is often superfluous and I mean that in an egregious way. If anything though, I think the funds the government has need to be redirected instead of cut. Start investing in things like education, public transportation systems and green energy instead of spending millions on bombs and jets that don't work.

dag, I don't think they're a telethon, but the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation donates US$1.5bn a year.. I'm pretty sure they might have built a road or two..


you are joking. They did deregulate major laws which had been in place for years - google Glass Steagall act, for one.
In this country you had a financial services authority who turned a blind eye to the cdo's that were being traded, and/or didn't even know what these new banking derivatives were, not even the bank of England had a clue.

Removing Glass Steagall would have done nothing if the government had not set interest rates so low. Oh, and don't forget the government's implied guarantee of mortgages in Freddy and Fanny Mac.

It always intrigues me to see people claim that humans need government to provide services for them. I personally don't think either socialism or capitalism are perfect, but in the latter, at least you are free to choose what you want.

Fascinating the things that are set up... and 9 million dollars... that's a drop in the ocean to try and preserve our crop diversity.

Also, nice to hear Bill Gates using his money for good (I mean, I know about the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, but this is a nice, concrete example).

>> ^omnistegan:
I'm willing to bet he's the only richest man ever to have a "Philanthropy" section on his Wikipedia page.

Not necessarily. Doing some research for my website, I found out the philanthropy is the norm among the world's gazilionaires.

Large donations have been made recently by:
* Bill Gates of Microsoft to The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
* Warren Buffet of Berkshire Hathaway to The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
* Carlos Slim Helu of Latin American telecoms to health programs in Mexico
* Sergey Brin and Larry Page of Google to Google.org

I'm sorry but anyone who thinks global warming is a more pressing issue than malnutrition, HIV/AIDS, maternal fatalities and malaria has been brainwashed by exorbitant media coverage for the in-thing to be 'mildly concerned and then forget about it a few years later'.

I don't see anything mildly deplorable about what you've quoted MINK. Bill Gates' entrepreneurial skills and success gave him the capacity to launch his charity, how can publicizing your philanthropy and associating it with your former company then be viewed as a negative? Regardless, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is still the largest charity in the world. What oil companies need are more stringent regulations put upon them, that establish global pollution restrictions, not an outflux of investment.

I would have to agree and disagree here Theo, I believed in the same thing, that any amount of aid is warranted. But the fact is that such methodology should only applied in critical situations, the fact is the willingness and dedication is never there when it comes from the foreign nations, there is a knee jerk reaction at the onset of something terrible which is slowly replaced by something else. I mean look at how the world is just standing by watch Darfur self implode. This does not mean I don't support aid programs to it, I just support aid programs that actually factor in what they are trying to do and not try cause more harm by being there. Such as Oxfam, EWB and others http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Road-Taken-Mdecins-Sans-Frontires

Yes America and such has resources and the same can be said of Canada, but one must also remember these nations were developing nations at one point as well. There was no Great British empire giving aid donations to the New World colonies when they emerged (Boston Tea party?).

Africa is not devoid of natural resources to develop itself, it was colonized specifically for it's natural resources (North and South Rhodesia).

However there is problem when you have the interference of aid agencies. Let me give you an example, the provision of electrical power is very important for the development of any economy. Thats a given fact. Development of such power grids and the lines to support them in Africa was funded by NGOs at first, only what this gave rise to is an infinite loop of waiting for more donations to spread the power grid further. People didn't think about raising themselves out of the problems themselves, it became "let's wait for the NGO to do it", and unfortunately there are hundreds of idealistic organizations out there waiting to come in.

This is totally against the way the same issues were settled in Canada and the US during it's development phase after Nicola Tesla's provision of AC power to the Western world over DC by Edison. The Canadian goverment knew that provision of electrical power to all communities in Canada was an important developmental issue, so they would develop the system via goverment subsidy and provide the service to the population at a loss to itself. This is how cheap, affordable electrical power was provided for.

In Africa what happened in various projects was that local electrical power is provided for in localities by NGOs, the goverment then basically sits on it's hands waiting for NGOs to modernize the countryside. However such development is not sustainable in the long term. The reason the goverment subsidized power grid layout worked in Canada was because you had development from centralized localities outward and not a splotch of various power generators all over various communities the NGOs went to.

My basic point is this, yes aid is good, but only aid that is properly vetoed against it's actual effects on the local populace and development as a long term goal. Aid that is looking to end it's own presence in the developing world so it can become developed.

The sad fact at the crux of it is this. NGOs are beholden to themselves. It is profitable for them not to do their job properly because how else are they supposed to raise money for issues. AIDs is always mentioned as the biggest killer in Africa, its not, it's malaria. But how media sensational is malaria compared to HIV/AIDS? NGO's always use their altruistic aims to cover up serious flaws in their application and usage. Look at United Way, just recently found out to spend more then 50% of it's allocated fund raised cash to basically pay itself and inflate its own growth. The whole Live8Aid fiasco a year ago, where did the money go? How was it applied? Does the average person know? No. It's always going into Africa, like it's some blackhole for cash donations.

This is why I like the approach of Melinda and Bill Gates foundation that is strictly self regulating. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF) is the largest transparently operated charitable foundation in the world, founded by Bill and Melinda Gates in 2000. The primary aims of the foundation are, globally, to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty, and, in the United States, to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology.

Asian economies in the Eastern rim were also poor and underdeveloped just 50 years ago. Look at how sound goverment policy, education and proper investment in infrastructure has allowed places like Taiwan, South Korea, other Asian Tigers to thrive. There were no NGOs or AID agencies there to do that right?