Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

How Generous Is the Bill Gates Foundation?

By Allison H. Fine, AlterNet. Posted February 7, 2007.


If the Gates Foundation is so generous, why does it invest millions in companies that pollute the land in the very places the foundation was designed to help?
Advertisement

If you gave a friend five dollars, and at the same time picked his pocket of five dollars, neither one of you would be much worse off -- but you wouldn't be much better off either. The largest foundation in the world, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is doing just that, only on a multi-billion-dollar scale, and at the expense of millions of people living in the poorest parts of the world.

The Los Angeles Times recently published a carefully researched article about the conflicts that exist within the Gates Foundation between the companies that the foundation invests in and the grants that it makes, particularly in Africa. For instance, the article explains that Gates is investing in an Italian oil company, Eni, that spews pollution, and "250 toxic chemicals in [its] fumes and soot have long been linked to respiratory disease and cancer." This is the same part of the world where the Gates Foundation grants millions of dollars on vaccinations to immunize children against deadly diseases like polio and measles.

Given its size and visibility it is easy to criticize how the Gates Foundation works. This is, however, more than incidental criticism of a very big target. It is a morality tale, for philanthropy can operate more responsibly and morally, but only if the most powerful among us choose to think differently about how they work.

We've all heard the Hippocratic oath: Doctors should first do no harm. Foundations have the same obligation; they should aim to do no harm to their individual grantees. With the anticipated contributions from Warren Buffet, the Gates Foundation's endowment will near $70 billion in the next few years. The second largest foundation in the world is the Ford Foundation with an endowment of $12.5 billion.

To put this in further perspective, if The Gates Foundation were a country, it would rank number 56 out of 177, according to World Bank statistics from 2005, comfortably sandwiched between Kuwait and Bangladesh. Its endowment is certainly larger than the economies of almost all of the countries in which it works. Given its size, visibility and ambitions, just doing no harm to individual grantees would be nice, but it isn't enough. The Gates Foundation has to do no harm to whole communities and countries. Investing millions of dollars in companies like British Petroleum that pollutes the air and land, and Abbott Laboratories that makes AIDS vaccinations that are unaffordable for Africans is diametrically opposed to the foundation's programmatic goals of improving health outcomes of residents of these same countries.

Bill Gates built a business empire by focusing on products and profits. He has built a foundation empire by focusing on programs and profits -- but what's good for his personal finances or for Microsoft isn't necessarily good for the people of Africa. The key point is that the endowment that fuels the Foundation is no longer the Gates family's personal money. These are tax-exempt funds and through the creation of the entity of the Gates Foundation itself, their investment and use has a very public purpose that deserves better stewardship.

When the Times news story revealed that the investments of the Gates Foundation are neutralizing the positive benefits of the grants, the foundation's initial response was to agree to review their investment policies. The Foundation then quickly changed course. According to Patty Stonisfer the Foundation's CEO, in a letter to the editor of the LA Times, " It would be naive to think that changing the foundation's investment policy could stop the human suffering blamed on the practices of companies in which it invests billions of dollars."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: bill gates foundation

Allison Fine is the author of Momentum: Igniting Social Change in the Connected Age.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
er...
Posted by: jessicalh on Feb 7, 2007 12:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While there may be some truth here, my understanding is that the Gates Foundation focuses on third world diseases which have gone largely unaddressed for a very long time. Resentment and nitpicking are much easier than real change. The same space devoted to educating us about those diseases and their possible cures might have been a better use of this space.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Help can hurt
Posted by: demo9orgon on Feb 7, 2007 1:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's like Aesop's fable of the clay and brass pots. They cannot travel down the same stream together.

The Gates Foundation is more like the Fortune 500 "Friends and Family" plan than a genuine hand-up for the third-world. After all, it's the plan of the Western world to monetize everything about the third-world they can, it's the new "plateau".

The Gates Foundation fosters the kind of help that made the Brazillians formulate their own AIDS drugs from reverse-engineered AIDS drugs and told Big Pharma to go away. It's also why we never hear anything about the issues involving AIDS and South America, while the news occasionally talks about how Africa is doing in it's struggle to combat AIDS.

Recently John Negroponte, of the OLPC project was stomping for M$ to evaluate and cook up a version of Windows for the laptop which currently runs a customized Linux. The immediate goal would be to gain funding, while M$ could foster even more uptake for their hopelessly flawed newer version of the "consultants, Antiware, and new broken hardware" industry employment/enrichment plan in Africa.

As usual, it's the well-off in Africa and those abroad who ultimately seek to exploit every resource they can from people who are essentially powerless to stop it.

The more things change, eh? :-)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Help can hurt Posted by: billfaster
Bill Gates TRIPS out with Warren Buffet...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 7, 2007 1:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As soon as the Gates Foundation announced it was going to 'bring drugs to the developing world' it was clear to those who know something about pharmaceuticals what the real agenda was - protecting intellectual property rights.

Ever since the days of JD Rockefeller's support for the Women's Christian Temperance Union and the Anti-Saloon League (which was the driving force behind Prohibition, which not incidentally drove ethanol off the market as a transportation fuel), philanthropic foundations have often had ulterior motives ( John D. Rockefeller, alone, donated over $350,000 into the Anti-Saloon League.) More details on this heavily obscured bit of history can be found at Permaculture: Alcohol can be a Gas!

Quote: "The Anti-Saloon League (founded 1863) and other organizations like it were small time operations who should have had no more effect on a community's drinking habits than an irate grandmother raising hell in the local pub.

But those uptight citizens found a powerful patron and benefactor in, of all people, the Rockefellers! That family donated $1.5-$4 million (the figure varies according to whose report you read) to the anti-alcohol movement. Members of the large influential Rockefeller family sat on the boards of several temperance organizations, including the Anti-Saloon League... and $1.5-$4 million went a long way in 1918...

...For the American farmer, prohibition couldn't have been in effect at a worse time. Converting his grain into alcohol would have saved a huge number of farms from ruin. Instead, prohibition gave oil companies 13 years of competition-free marketing of their product."


What, might you ask, does this have to do with the Gates Foundation? Well, the Gates empire is based on ensuring that Microsoft source code remains protected in all countries... and pharmaceutical companies depend absolutely on patent protection for their profits - and their shared interest lies in ensuring that all countries adhere strictly to US and European intellectual property laws - the global TRIPS agreement.

Greg Palast wrote a brief article on this a while ago: Bill Gates: Killing Africans for Profit and PR, 14 July 2003 - but this article is a nice update, and makes one wonder about Buffet - since now the Gates Foundation is investing in oil - is that the Buffet effect? I had no idea... but it turns out that Warren Buffet was positioned in oil prior to the Iraq invasion...well, well, well.

A little more research at the BBC shows that Buffet is indeed an oil financier:

"Investors need only look at Berkshire's acquisitions in 2000 to get a clear idea of what Mr Buffett & Co view as value stocks. For example, Berkshire's purchase of MidAmerican Energy, in a year that rewarded energy stocks as gas and oil prices surged in the US, shows why investors envy Mr Buffett's investing prowess."

With a little help from Bush&Co., that is...what a rotten, rotten game they've been playing! How much blood do they have on their hands? Far too much to ever wash off, that's for sure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Charity is football Posted by: eddie torres
Gates' foundations are tax breaks
Posted by: edsmith on Feb 7, 2007 5:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Think about the amount of money the Gates' have. They either give it to the government, which is unlikely since we all know that wealthy people do not pay their fare share of taxes on par with the percent of taxes us peons pay, so instead they have foundations where they can create a legacy of philanthropy. Most rich people do not give away money. Philanthropy is a scam to avoid paying taxes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

otto
Posted by: otto on Feb 7, 2007 5:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
About 20 years ago a number of religius communities that wanted to do more about social justice issues in the world organized to make sure of how their investments were used. They refused to invest in stocks that promoted injustice or war, or in some cases invested and then actively attended stock holders' meetings, making a big fuss over decisions they didn't approve of. Sounds as if Gates needs help like this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Gates Foundation is foolish --- or worse.
Posted by: Graydon Wilson on Feb 7, 2007 6:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The stated goal of the Gates Foundation is to eliminate the top twenty fatal diseases in the world. That's stupid. All that really does is line the pockets of a lot of research labs and their physicians ---- a rather wealthy lot already ---- and stroke the ego of Bill Gates by making the world think he's actually doing something, when he's not.

Everybody dies. Plain and simple. Everybody will be killed by something, whether a disease or a trauma of some kind. Eliminating the now-existing top twenty diseases simply means that there will be a different top twenty that kills us.

Rather than wasting time and money on a fool's errand, why not try instead to improve the existence of humankind? There are endless opportunities.

Promoting better education. Implementing better sanitation practices in third-world countries. Peace initiatives. Global warming. Housing. Civil rights. Pollution. Basic health care.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Foundation's Money
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 7, 2007 7:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A maxim repeated through many different cultures, philosophies and faiths is that ill-gotten gains breed more evil downstream. If you take a deep & hard look at where Gates' Microsoft and now, Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, money came from, you will see that business practices that are anti-consumer, anti-worker, etc. are at the heart of these tens of billions of dollars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Begs the question of how well Ms Fine has managed the billions...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Feb 7, 2007 7:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that she's donated to philanthropic causes.

I don't doubt for a second how much better she feels she could do with other peoples' money--that's human nature. This article works much better as a psychology piece than a thoughtful critique of a foundation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gates the parasite
Posted by: ScottP on Feb 7, 2007 8:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bill Gates has always been a selfish parasite. Those who were in the computing industry in the 70's watched in dismay as the secure and reliable computing fields were decimated by his sleazy and sometimes illegal but unprosecuted tactics. And in the end he proved to be the world's stupidest man by becoming the world's richest man. A man who couldn't even figure out how to spend money, or give it to someone needier or smarter than himself.

His support for Bush in the election, the war against Iraq, the coup in Venezuela, and the cluster bombing of Lebanon show his real colors. Even his so-called charity is backhanded. For after curing a disease in a country, he then supports withholding birth control support. So his plan is to reduce the death rate while keeping the birth rate high and food production constant, in other words his goal is to replace disease with famine. Charming. If he was truly charitable, he wouldn't be a billionaire in the first place, his runaway wealth would have never gotten to that point.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Most Charitable Nation?
Posted by: swilly on Feb 7, 2007 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I heard somewhere that charity is virtually non-existent in China. And US legacy leads me to believe that the US is known as the most charitable of nations (no facts assumed here!).

I speculate that whereas the US spreads more charity around, we don't really understand charity at all.

One responder thinks charity is mostly used as a tax write-off. I admit that seldom does a chunk of my personal budget leave my pocket without such a consideration. Does that contribute to my "Americanism"?

Once, at a party, I blurted, "charity is b*llsh**", and meant it. Then I felt better :)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's all about image – and further sales.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Feb 7, 2007 9:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The answer to the question posed by the article may be that Bill Gates, having founded a company which became both filthy rich and world dominant by the aggressive, predatory marketing of overpriced, sometimes defective products, needs something positive to offset his image. Or, maybe he has finally developed a conscience about the obscene profits with which he has been blessed.

Those who have had Microsoft programs repeatedly freeze or crash their computers, or have had MS programs eat up all their computers' memory for useless "features," know what I mean.

(Microsoft's new OS, "Vista," at $100 to $400 [!] and requiring either major hardware upgrades or completely new computer systems so it, with its needlessly-flashy graphics, can be used at all? I rest my case. . .)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Gates of Hell
Posted by: redbrownandblueparty on Feb 7, 2007 9:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Charity covers a multitude of sins. The granddaddy corporation rapes the earth and is honored as a hero of the Amerikan Dream. M$ believes it is an angel at the gates. Pride goeth before a fall. The empire of $ is a 666 headed beast. Old truths come home to roost. Charity begins at home. Home is where the heart is. My heart is with the earth. The Gates are soft headed and micro hearted. A little ranting does the heart good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A quick poll for all the people bagging on Microsoft...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Feb 7, 2007 10:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
----> I, a poster who has maligned M$ as the harbinger of teh Apocalypse

a) am typing this on a recycled computer that I paid a pittance for, running an open source OS that did not cost me a dime, and I have been learning how to contribute to the open source community to make good on my belief that contributing to M$ and continuing the faster-hardware-to-run-slower-software-cycle is destroying life on Earth

b) am typing this on a M$ machine, using a browser called IE because I don't have authority to alter the system I'm typing on

c) am typing this on a M$ machine that I paid for, using a browser called IE that I installed, because I'm just too farckin' lazy to learn how to withhold my dollars from M$ and would rather just bitch about what such a "bad" company is doing with the money that I keep forking over

d) am typing this on a M$ machine that I paid for using an open source browser (or office productivity software, or other open source) while I bridge the gap between just bitching and actually doing something

Here, I'll start--
(a) (with the caveat that I've got a windoze box at home from the time before I gave up on buying more M$, that mostly gets turned on to browse teh internets and play Civ III.)

Don't get me wrong, M$ does indeed produce marginal, insecure, and bloated software, and they've engaged in decidedly anti-competitive practices. I had the option of dropping XP Pro ($32 volume license) or Ubuntu on my 5-year old work/school "ebay special" laptop, and I went completely with open source. The only problem I've encountered so far was the wireless, and now there is a "how-to" specific for my laptop's pcmcia card and wireless card posted under my screen name in the Ubuntu forums so that other people don't have to suffer the headache I had.

My question to you all--why do you buy it, if you're among the vast majority who do and you are convinced that they are taking your money and doing despicable things? Do you hold the same opinion of yourselves?
Really though--how many of you are going to whine and moan about how M$ is eating babies and sacrificing virgins, and then still plop down $100-$400 on Vista, or absorb that built-in cost with the purchase of your next gee-whiz PC from Worst Buy or Circuit Shity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Nice try ta' both of ya's... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Oops... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Know what you mean. Posted by: ABetterFuture
Is philanthropy a financial system subsidy?
Posted by: eddie torres on Feb 7, 2007 11:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
US citizens (who pay attention) have grown used to the fact that foundation billions are, in essence, uncollected tax revenue on for-profit activities. The IRS and Congress forego collecting this revenue in exchange for the promise that it will be dedicated to charitable use.

However, foundations are only required to actually "pay out" 5% of these massive fortunes every year, while their investments on the principle probably earn closer to 8%. The other 95% of the principle sits in investments and bank accounts (the focus of this article) that - yes - flow right back into other types of for-profit activites. Subsidy?

In contrast, if 100% of the money were instead collected by the IRS, it would immediately be used in the federal budget - and spent on federal contractors. Subsidy?

Whether it would be spent on the same kinds of 'charitable' activities that foundations spend their 5% on, or used instead to launch additional wars of choice, is another question.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is not that odd.
Posted by: craigandrew on Feb 7, 2007 1:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why would one organization invest in corporations that rape a country and in vaccines for the local population at the same time? It all depends on what is in the vaccine.

Read This.

You can't say that it is not possible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Less discussion than expected
Posted by: anothername on Feb 7, 2007 3:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would like to have seen a discussion on the issues rather than focus on the example of Gates. I have worked in large foundations and have found the investment side to work under the principal of make money that the donation side can give away. I also have seen those foundations to be heavily gender biased and stingy in pay and benefits to lower-level workers. There are some good non-profits, but there are wide-spread problems. (The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette recently ran an article that men heading non-profits in the city make about $40,000 more a year than women heading non-profits.)

A PBS show on Andrew Carnegie that I saw recently noted he was of the opinion that either he could make millions with the intention of giving it to charity later in his life or let another steel company make the millions and keep it to itself. I still am wary of the idea that we need a tax structure that lets a few people make mega bucks so that they can do massive investments. To me, it means that the few people who crave that money and power are the only ones who then decide how the money is spent.

Just as Carnegie dealt ruthlessly with workers to make his millions, Gates has dealt ruthlessly with competitors and contract workers to make his billions. I think that medical care does need to be provided to Africa, and to India, and to the rest of the world, including the United States, but letting the Gate Foundation decide when and how it is provided makes me extremely uncomfortable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A few more points on the pharma connection to the Gates Foundation
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 7, 2007 8:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "Patent Crisis" is due to the fact that the most lucrative drugs on Big Pharma's roster are set to have their patents expire soon:

By 2007, $40 billion in U.S. sales will be lost at the top 10 pharma companies as a result of the slowdown in R&D innovation and the expiry of patents on major products. Analysts believe that market erosion to generics could cost at least two of these companies more than 20 percent of 2003 sales within the next five years. Taking a broader look across the industry, no fewer than 19 blockbuster drugs are expected to hit patent crisis by 2008. Capgemini analysis suggests that 150 mid-sized new compounds will be needed by 2007-2008 in the U.S. alone to plug this gap. Unsurprisingly, analysts are predicting less than 8 percent growth by 2007, with some predicting rates as low as 4 percent.

Historically pharma has earned 15%, and they aren't used to tightening the belt...and is there anything worse than hysterical billionaires worried about declining profit margins?
So, what is pharma doing?

1) Making sure their patent lifetimes are longer in the developing world. (Gate's role)

2) Buying up every generic company they can get their hands on to prevent the spread of cheaper generics once the patents expire.

(see this article: Schwarzenegger signs drug bill in California: if patented drugs are given 40% discount, and generics are given 60% discount, generics will be driven out of the Medicare market, since they don't have an artificially inflated price - which is the purpose of this ballyhooed bill!)

3) lobbying the federal government for subsidies - the multi-billion dollar "Project Bioshield" being the primary example.

Recall that Rumsfeld was a Pharma CEO before he went to run the Pentagon, and you can see why I draw the analogy to the IG Farben combine of the National Socialism era.

Of course, the medical side effects of whatever new drugs they come up with are irrelevant - the important thing to pharma is that they are patentable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bellyachers
Posted by: secti on Feb 9, 2007 7:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about nothing? Does nothing work for you?
Gates's charity beats the devil out of nothing at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]