[Spliffdaddy]

http://money.cnn.com/2002/11/12/news...reut/index.htm

NEW DELHI, India (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates, the world's wealthiest man, said Tuesday he will pass a sizeable portion of his wealth to charity and not his three children.

"I don't think it's constructive to grow up having billions of dollars," Gates said of his children at a news conference while on a four-day trip to India. "The idea that I will take a sizeable portion of my fortune and have them inherit that, I don't think that would be to society's benefit or to their benefit. I've spoken out about this before...my philosophy of giving back my wealth to society."....... - see full article by clicking link above

[macvillage.net]

Notice how "pass" means after he is gone....


One should also note that donation is like me donating a used tissue that I recycled for 3 years by hanging it out to dry at night.

[driven]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Notice how "pass" means after he is gone....


One should also note that donation is like me donating a used tissue that I recycled for 3 years by hanging it out to dry at night.

His used tissue will benefit quite a few people. It seems to some folks there is nothing that the rich can do to please others. (And perhaps that's why some don't even try any longer.)

Would you rather he didn't give up his tissue?

Love him or hate him he has benefited many aspects of society: Created many many jobs (mine included), improved the life styles of many people (myself and my family included through opportunities that Microsoft has created.) And .. his charity is benefiting countless numbers of children and impoverished nations.

Judge not other people unless you are a perfect human yourself.

In case anyone is curious:
The Gates FoundationThe Gates Foundation
(Their current cause is helping slow the spread of AIDS in India .. always a good thing.)

[Sealobo]

I think Bill Gates was kinda lucky to become the wealthiest man on earth.

I also think that he now has a great vision.

and Windows sucks, still.

[driven]

Originally posted by sealobo:
I think Bill Gates was kinda lucky to become the wealthiest man on earth.

I also think that he now has a great vision.

and Windows sucks, still.

No argument. There is something to be said about being in the right place at the right time.

There is also something to be said about recognizing a great opportunity and jumping on it!
(Bill Gates recognized and did it along with Michael Dell, Steve Jobs, and many others ...)

Then there are folks like myself who see many great opportunities but blow them in the interest of "playing it safe". I'm glad the folks listed above didn't "play it safe".

[Plaides]

so hes giving most of his money to charity. leaving little for his 3 children, like what only a couple billion?

[::maroma::]

Contrary to popular belief, Gates is a very generous man. Yes, he can easily afford the money he gives away, but he gives it away nonetheless. And he gives away A LOT of money. He's stated that he's leaving his children very little (which probably means a few million or so) and giving most of his wealth to charity before (and after) he dies. He knows he's lucky, and he's not hording it all. I say good for him. He will help many many people with his donations. That is not a bad thing.

But yes, Windows still sucks.

[macvillage.net]

I would say Ted Turner gave a better gift to the UN.

Quite large compaired to what he owns, and it' simply for them to use as they see fit.

Just IMHO

[wdlove]

I applaud Bill Gates for using his money to help fight AIDS in India. Being the world's richest man should come with responsibilites.

[pliny]

Of course he's greedy, he's built a $40+ billion fortune. If he can use philanthropically what he built through greed, well, good.

[thunderous_funker]

Bill & his wife have been pretty generous over the years in contributing to worthwhile causes. They deserve credit for doing so cheerfully, willingly and consistently. They certainly aren't obligated to do anything about it.

OTOH, being the world's richest man and NOT giving something to charity would reveal him to be an unfeeling peice of sh*t. How could you possibly sleep at night knowing you have more money than could be spent in one hundred lifetimes while so many suffer for want of basic needs?

Being charitible doesn't make Bill a saint, it makes him human. I'm glad he does it. He deserves to be thanked for it. But in a moral world, that kind of thing really should be expected of those who have such fabulous and unprecedented wealth.

[Phanguye]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

OTOH, being the world's richest man and NOT giving something to charity would reveal him to be an unfeeling peice of sh*t. How could you possibly sleep at night knowing you have more money than could be spent in one hundred lifetimes while so many suffer for want of basic needs?

i would fill a really big swimming pool with $100s then go swimming all day long

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Bill & his wife have been pretty generous over the years in contributing to worthwhile causes. They deserve credit for doing so cheerfully, willingly and consistently. They certainly aren't obligated to do anything about it.

OTOH, being the world's richest man and NOT giving something to charity would reveal him to be an unfeeling peice of sh*t. How could you possibly sleep at night knowing you have more money than could be spent in one hundred lifetimes while so many suffer for want of basic needs?

Being charitible doesn't make Bill a saint, it makes him human. I'm glad he does it. He deserves to be thanked for it. But in a moral world, that kind of thing really should be expected of those who have such fabulous and unprecedented wealth.

yes, he donated to these charities anonymously, because he believes so strongly in charity he would never try to get the PR mileage out of donating to offset his poor public image......er.....wait.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


yes, he donated to these charities anonymously, because he believes so strongly in charity he would never try to get the PR mileage out of donating to offset his poor public image......er.....wait.

I suppose you have the same feeling for the late Princess Di? I mean, what did she ever do that wasn't a photo op? Lending your celebrity to a cause is also beneficial to the cause.

Like I said, Bill's no saint. He's just human and I'm glad he's willingly and cheerfully giving something back.

[CaseCom]

The Rockefellers were also great philanthropists. And between 1875 and 1910, John D. Sr. used unethical and sometimes illegal tactics to drive most other U.S. oil companies into the ground.

Read "Titan" by Ron Chernow ... great book.

Two sides to every coin.

[pliny]

And Carnegie, and Rhodes--like them and the Rockefellers BG will probably go down as a great philanthropist who did whatever it took to get the money he then gave away.

Who doesn't like huge donations of money? Can't argue with it. Some enduring good is bound to come from it.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:


I suppose you have the same feeling for the late Princess Di? I mean, what did she ever do that wasn't a photo op? Lending your celebrity to a cause is also beneficial to the cause.

yes, I felt Princess Di's charitable contributions fell into a similar (though not precisely parallel) category. My point was that anyone who donates to a cause and then rings his own bell (or allows it to be rung) has already received his reward. Donating your celebrity status is different, because it almost requires a bell to be rung to bring in other contributions. Surely you don't think that's what Bill is doing here?

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Like I said, Bill's no saint. He's just human and I'm glad he's willingly and cheerfully giving something back.

Good for you. Good for him, because someone benefits. BUT if you think he's NOT doing this publicly to offset what might be considered a general PR deficit, then you might be considered naive.

[thunderous_funker]

How you earn the money is a separate issue, IMO. There certainly is a qualitative difference between becoming a millionaire selling penecillin and selling napalm.

I think such wealth concentration is pretty immoral and can only cause gross problems, but that doesn't mean I don't think it's moral and praiseworthy for Bill to give some of it to worthy causes.

In terms of the thread's title, this doesn't prove Bill is Greedy or not. It just shows he's human after all and seems to have a conscience and some perspective about his unprecedented wealth. I take that to be a good thing.

Now if you want to talk about how to prevent such horrific wealth concentration in the first place......

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
yes, I felt Princess Di's charitable contributions fell into a similar (though not precisely parallel) category. My point was that anyone who donates to a cause and then rings his own bell (or allows it to be rung) has already received his reward. Donating your celebrity status is different, because it almost requires a bell to be rung to bring in other contributions. Surely you don't think that's what Bill is doing here?


Good for you. Good for him, because someone benefits. BUT if you think he's NOT doing this publicly to offset what might be considered a general PR deficit, then you might be considered naive.

Along with doing it publically, Bill gets to say something about it. He obviously has an opinion on the subject and wants to express it.

And yes, he's obviously trying to make a public point about his own conscience and his own perspective towards unparalleled wealth. Why else would he offer public comments about something as intimate and personal as his own Estate Planning?

He's making a point publically about something he feels strongly about. I don't think that makes him a Pharisee (that was your reference about "they have their reward" wasn't it?).

He's only human after all. And damn him for his rugged good looks!!

[PorscheBunny]

It's just a ploy to get more face time on the camera. If it were sincere, he wouldn't be out grandstanding about it.

[::maroma::]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


yes, he donated to these charities anonymously, because he believes so strongly in charity he would never try to get the PR mileage out of donating to offset his poor public image......er.....wait.

This is the rub with being a philanthropist, or giving away the amount of money that he does. On one hand, it's a very generous thing to do, but on the other he gets some good PR out of it. But one thing to note is that giving away $400 million doesn't go unnoticed and will get in the news one way or another. This is not to say that he didn't put out a press release himself, but there is some give there. I don't doubt that he is greedy, most of us are. The fact that he's giving away as much as he is makes him more "normal" to the rest of us. Because, isn't that what most of us say we'd do if we had that much cash? Give a lot, or most, of it away to charity? What we would REALLY do with all that money might be another matter though.

I say "good for you Bill, keep it up." I don't look down on him because he's getting PR about it. I wish more billionaires would give more money away to charity. I don't care if they get press, a gold medal, or a free lap dance, as long as the money goes for something worthwhile.

[pliny]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

And damn him for his rugged good looks!!

He is esp. handsome in full dress uniform.





Is this juvenile? I don't care.

[::maroma::]

Originally posted by PorscheBunny:
It's just a ploy to get more face time on the camera. If it were sincere, he wouldn't be out grandstanding about it.

Somehow, I don't think the people suffering from AIDS in India give a rat's ass how much "face time" he gets from his donation. Despite the potential for good PR, this was a GOOD THING. Sheesh.

[Spliffdaddy]

He doesn't need a ploy to get 'camera time'.

He could buy NBC if that was an issue.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
He doesn't need a ploy to get 'camera time'.

He could buy NBC if that was an issue.

precisely. then why does he NEED the camera time?

[Nonsuch]

Most people who know Gates say money was/is never the point. He doesn't operate Microsoft the way he does to get rich; he does it because he's a deeply, aggressively competitive person who wants as much control as possible over how computer technology advances. The money is simply a means to that end. It doesn't surprise me that he would give most of it away or that he gives a lot of it away now.

[Sven G]

I don't know... Personally, I don't dislike Bill Gates as a person: he might even have more sympathy than Steve Jobs, at least sometimes.

Of course, it's Microsoft as a company that is the real problem - and the concept of (passive) "charity", which is a rather easy - for the rich! - substitute for (active) solidarity in today's business-driven world.

Mr. Gates should try to show more solidarity, besides "charity"...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ::maroma:::


Somehow, I don't think the people suffering from AIDS in India give a rat's ass how much "face time" he gets from his donation. Despite the potential for good PR, this was a GOOD THING. Sheesh.

True, and THEREFORE the AIDS sufferers would benefit the same whether Gates gets PR from it or not. THEREFORE the only one who benefits from the publicity is Gates. THEREFORE Donating the funds completely anonymously would accomplish the same good for everyone EXCEPT Gates. Why is this a difficult concept?

You've made my argument for me. They don't give a rat's ass. They just need the donation.

[::maroma::]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


precisely. then why does he NEED the camera time?

That's just it, I don't think he did it solely for the camer time. The camera time comes with the territory. Yes, he could've sent them a suitcase full of cash with no return adress and never told anyone he did it, but I don't think that's very practical, nor the smart way to handle it. Any other way of doing it would get him some press time. Regardless of whether or not he wanted it or not.

[::maroma::]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


True, and THEREFORE the AIDS sufferers would benefit the same whether Gates gets PR from it or not. THEREFORE the only one who benefits from the publicity is Gates. THEREFORE Donating the funds completely anonymously would accomplish the same good for everyone EXCEPT Gates. Why is this a difficult concept?

You've made my argument for me. They don't give a rat's ass. They just need the donation.

Come on Lerk, do you really think one could just give $400 million to a foreign country anonomously? The logistics alone make it impossible. Not to mention I'm sure Gates wants to be sure the money goes for what was intended. I just think it's impossible NOT to get press from a donation of that size, no matter what it's for or who it's from.

Gates has made smaller donations to other charities and has gotten press time from it. I'm not speaking on those matters, just this one.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


True, and THEREFORE the AIDS sufferers would benefit the same whether Gates gets PR from it or not. THEREFORE the only one who benefits from the publicity is Gates. THEREFORE Donating the funds completely anonymously would accomplish the same good for everyone EXCEPT Gates. Why is this a difficult concept?

It's not--you're just wrong.

Any publicity that a charity effort like this can get is good publicity, not just for Gates but for the afflicted people themselves. Increased awareness means further increased funding.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
It's not--you're just wrong.

Possibly. I'll accept its possible that Gates donates money out of the goodness of his heart, and despite his efforts to the contrary, it delivers him a positive PR push that influences people to defend him against any criticism. Works like a charm, right guys? It's certainly influenced those in this thread, so whatever else it is, it is most assuredly effective.


At least I'm outnumbered in this thread, so my view is unpopular, whether or not it is wrong.

[::maroma::]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


Possibly. I'll accept its possible that Gates donates money out of the goodness of his heart, and despite his efforts to the contrary, it delivers him a positive PR push that influences people to defend him against any criticism. Works like a charm, right guys? It's certainly influenced those in this thread, so whatever else it is, it is most assuredly effective.


At least I'm outnumbered in this thread, so my view is unpopular, whether or not it is wrong.

I don't think anyone here is saying the Gates gets a bad rap for who he is. And I don't think anyone is saying that he doesn't give money away for his own image. I think we are saying that it is definitely possible that he didn't give $400 million to help fight AIDS for his own PR. It sounds like you have a grudge against Billy (and probably for good reason). But you are eliminating even the possibility of this donation being out of the goodness of his heart. And you don't know him well enough to make that assertion, do you? We're not ganging up on you here Lerk, we just think you're wrong.

[sleepyrenderer]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


Possibly. I'll accept its possible that Gates donates money out of the goodness of his heart, and despite his efforts to the contrary, it delivers him a positive PR push that influences people to defend him against any criticism. Works like a charm, right guys? It's certainly influenced those in this thread, so whatever else it is, it is most assuredly effective.


At least I'm outnumbered in this thread, so my view is unpopular, whether or not it is wrong.

Defend him against any criticism?... I don't see anyone here saying BG isn't on the board of a company that has been ruled a Monopoly by the courts. People are just saying he's a human being who isn't necessarily a bad person and who does good with his wealth. This is opposed to the ridiculous but popular perception of BG where he is basically the spawn of satan and is despicable in every respect.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Possibly. I'll accept its possible that Gates donates money out of the goodness of his heart, and despite his efforts to the contrary, it delivers him a positive PR push that influences people to defend him against any criticism. Works like a charm, right guys? It's certainly influenced those in this thread, so whatever else it is, it is most assuredly effective.

I could really give a rat's ass about Gates' motivations. It's difficult enough to figure out our own reasons for doing things, let alone those of a person none of us have met. He's spending his money to bring about positive change, and as far as anyone can tell he's not simply using it as a tax shelter or some other underhanded way of hiding money. So why not give him props for that much?

I agree with Sven G's point, though; I'll be more impressed with Gates as a person when/if this love for humanity permeates into the way he runs Microsoft, not just in the way he spends his unnecessary billions.

[kmkkid]

The real question is, how many people actually think gates is "evil" in the first place? He's just a man who's made alot of money. Just because he own's a potentially "evil" company doesnt mean thats how he lives his personal life. And if I suddenly gave even 1 million to charity, I would get press all over too, even though I'm a nobody. But I certainly wouldnt do it for the press, I'd do it for the charity I am donating too, as I believe Bill is doing. Just because your rich beyond comprehension doesnt mean your a coldhearted and evil person.

Chris

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ::maroma:::


I don't think anyone here is saying the Gates gets a bad rap for who he is. And I don't think anyone is saying that he doesn't give money away for his own image. I think we are saying that it is definitely possible that he didn't give $400 million to help fight AIDS for his own PR. It sounds like you have a grudge against Billy (and probably for good reason). But you are eliminating even the possibility of this donation being out of the goodness of his heart. And you don't know him well enough to make that assertion, do you? We're not ganging up on you here Lerk, we just think you're wrong.

If I don't know him well enough to bring up the possibility that he is donating public funds for the positive PR push, then neither do any of you know him well enough to negate that as a real possibility. And similarly, neither do any of you have any more certainty in your defense of his motivations than I do in questioning them. Yet, I am "wrong". interesting.

My point is, do you feel better about him, all warm and fuzzier, having read what he intends to do with his money than you did before? and if so, isn't that accomplishing exactly what I'm suggesting?

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


If I don't know him well enough to bring up the possibility that he is donating public funds for the positive PR push, then neither do any of you know him well enough to negate that as a real possibility. And similarly, neither do any of you have any more certainty in your defense of his motivations than I do in questioning them. Yet, I am "wrong". interesting.

Some might say it's a mark of decency to give someone the benefit of the doubt when there is no evidence to suggest anything untoward. Interesting indeed.

[::maroma::]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


If I don't know him well enough to bring up the possibility that he is donating public funds for the positive PR push, then neither do any of you know him well enough to negate that as a real possibility. And similarly, neither do any of you have any more certainty in your defense of his motivations than I do in questioning them. Yet, I am "wrong". interesting.

My point is, do you feel better about him, all warm and fuzzier, having read what he intends to do with his money than you did before? and if so, isn't that accomplishing exactly what I'm suggesting?

OK, there is obviously some underlying problem you have with Gates that has nothing to do with this donation. You won't give him an inch, which is fine. I don't claim to know Gates any more or less than anyone else in the world. I just thought you were being very forthright in your assumption of him doing this only for the PR. You could be absolutely right. I just don't think that is the case here. I don't think any man could do what Gates did for the PR alone (well, maybe GWB, but that's another debate).

I don't feel any warmer or fuzzier about Gates now than I did before I read this. My brother works for MS (not a conflict of interest in this debate), and we've had many discussions about Bill. He doesn't know Bill personally, but he works with many who do and have heard lots of things about him that the majority of the world doesn't know. I used to think Gates was in fact the antichrist. But after actually hearing of what he's really like, (and doing a little growing up myself) that's not the case at all (I still don't agree with his business practices though). Despite what others say, Gates is actually a human being like the rest of us. He does a lot of good with his billions of dollars. A lot of it doesn't get this much PR.

I usually tend to give people the benfit of the doubt. I don't pretend to know what Gates' motivations were here, if any. I just think that regardless of the PR and warm and fuzziness factor he gets from this donation, it's still a good damn thing. Any way you look at it. And I will give Gates the benefit of the doubt on this one. Now, just because I give him the benefit of the doubt, doesn't mean I want to marry the bastard or anything. And it doesn't mean that I suddenly now agree with everything he does or says. I look at this as a singular thing. I'm not lumping it in with all the grudges I have with the man.

So Lerk, I ask you, what would you have had him do if you were his advisor on this matter? How would you work it out so that no one knew where the $400 million came from? I'm pretty sure that is impossible, under these circumstances. Wouldn't you agree? I think the PR is unavoidable. But if you want to scold the man for doing this, go right ahead, no one is stopping you. I just think that you sound a little bitter towards him.

[bewebste]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Most people who know Gates say money was/is never the point. He doesn't operate Microsoft the way he does to get rich; he does it because he's a deeply, aggressively competitive person who wants as much control as possible over how computer technology advances. The money is simply a means to that end. It doesn't surprise me that he would give most of it away or that he gives a lot of it away now.

I agree with this assessment, Gates didn't get where he is because he wanted to make money (although it certainly had that effect), he just HAS to win at everything. Note that he doesn't have to be the best at the object of the contest, he just has to win. MS has taken losses in all sorts of projects in attempts to extend their reach into the computing industry. Some of those projects ended up benefitting MS in the long run, and many didn't, but you can take those kinds of chances when you're sitting on the throne like MS is.

Also, I believe that Melinda Gates may be the bigger part of the equation when it comes to their charity. It is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, after all, and I certainly don't recall Bill giving away mounds of money before she came along. *insert whipping sound here*

He just gets more publicity because he's the more public figure. One might even conjecture that he gives away so much so that he can win the charity contest as well, giving away more than anybody else, but of course it still benefits the recipients of that charity, regardless of his motives. And of course he gets something out of it as well, good PR and such, but really, no one can really know his true motivations except for Bill and perhaps the people closest to him.

[Lerkfish]

Honestly, I don't have anything personal against Gates, I just find, in light of his business practices in the past, that simply because he donated a small percentage of his gains to charity, that he is considered by some to be suddenly a great humanitarian. And I am not alone in that assessment.

Just doing a google search (and not testifying for the legitimacy of the sources necessarily) I find these examples (there are more)


one story on corporate "spin"
another one that questions motives and contains this:

While it's difficult to argue with such objectives, some question motives. Gates has been accused of engaging in high-profile philanthropy to improve the public relations of his company, Microsoft. Among those making the claim are former black employees alleging in a $5 billion lawsuit that Microsoft discriminated against them.

Others have suggested that Gates' charitable largess is intended to counter negative publicity from the government's threatened antitrust breakup of Microsoft.

Dick Spring, the former minister of foreign affairs of Ireland, has no problems with Gates or Turner but said it's fair to wonder about what's behind a person's giving.

"The question, of course, is if they want a financial return," said Spring, now with the Boston business consulting firm ML Strategies. "If they do, they should stay in business and make it very clear that they're doing it for business reasons. There should be some type of litmus test to determine if this is philanthropy or this is business."

But Spring had no suggestion of what such a test would look like, or who should administer it.

Stephen Roulac, a corporate strategist on the faculty of the Stanford Graduate School of Business, said the private influence of Gates and Turner rivals that of the British East India Company, which wielded power over parts of the world from the 17th to the 19th centuries.

While Roulac praised the two as philanthropic role models, he cautioned that "it's seldom for any donation to come without strings attached, without some agenda or some point of view, whether it's explicitly articulated or not."

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:


Some might say it's a mark of decency to give someone the benefit of the doubt when there is no evidence to suggest anything untoward. Interesting indeed.

you might be correct to call me experientially jaded, or cynical, but to question my decency is irrelevant.
I illustrated a story for Quill magazine that brings into question the "strings attached" mentality of corporate and individual philanthropy.
I was a member of the mission board of my church, and have had direct experience of high profile and publicized donations, and the various attached strings.

In short, in my experience, there is seldom a public celebration of charity that doesn't have some intended spin. I have witnessed many more quiet examples that were more indicative of charitable spirit.

[Phanguye]

all this argueing is kinda dumb considering all 100 million is going to buy "WINDOWS XP, NOW PROVEN TO CURE AIDS"

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ::maroma:::


OK, there is obviously some underlying problem you have with Gates that has nothing to do with this donation. You won't give him an inch, which is fine. I don't claim to know Gates any more or less than anyone else in the world. I just thought you were being very forthright in your assumption of him doing this only for the PR. You could be absolutely right. I just don't think that is the case here. I don't think any man could do what Gates did for the PR alone (well, maybe GWB, but that's another debate).

obvious in your mind only. I don't have any underlying problem with Gates specifically, just highly publicized philanthropy, as I've already explained. Since you've scored zero at determining MY motivations, I don't hold out much hope for your accuracy in determining Gate's motivations.

Originally posted by ::maroma:::
I don't feel any warmer or fuzzier about Gates now than I did before I read this. My brother works for MS (not a conflict of interest in this debate), and we've had many discussions about Bill. He doesn't know Bill personally, but he works with many who do and have heard lots of things about him that the majority of the world doesn't know. I used to think Gates was in fact the antichrist. But after actually hearing of what he's really like, (and doing a little growing up myself) that's not the case at all (I still don't agree with his business practices though). Despite what others say, Gates is actually a human being like the rest of us. He does a lot of good with his billions of dollars. A lot of it doesn't get this much PR.

No conflict of interest? well, perhaps. I'll grant you have more direct experience or contact than I. I never said he wasn't a human being, nor have I demonized him in any way....in that you are projecting the past comments of others onto my posts. I only suggest that highly public charitable donations are, in my opinion, about more of a publicity nature than a charitable nature.

Originally posted by ::maroma:::
I usually tend to give people the benfit of the doubt. I don't pretend to know what Gates' motivations were here, if any.

Then stop trying to tell me I cannot do the exact same thing that you are doing: speculating on his motives. Simply because your speculations are more positive in and of itself doesn't make them more likely to be accurate.

Originally posted by ::maroma:::
I just think that regardless of the PR and warm and fuzziness factor he gets from this donation, it's still a good damn thing.

So, you are here admitting the possible PR benefits...how is this different from what I'm saying? I also said the charity benefits, everyone benefits in fact, BUT if the donation were anonymous, everyone would still benefit, except Gates.

Originally posted by ::maroma:::
Any way you look at it. And I will give Gates the benefit of the doubt on this one. Now, just because I give him the benefit of the doubt, doesn't mean I want to marry the bastard or anything. And it doesn't mean that I suddenly now agree with everything he does or says. I look at this as a singular thing. I'm not lumping it in with all the grudges I have with the man.

This is actually part of my point. Otherwise in various areas, you have qualms with the man, but because he donated this amount, you're giving him the benefit of the doubt, which is OK, but which is also an example of how the publicity surrounding the donation itself has influenced you in a more preferential way....so that even if that were NOT the motivation, the end resulting benefit is identical.

Originally posted by ::maroma:::
So Lerk, I ask you, what would you have had him do if you were his advisor on this matter? How would you work it out so that no one knew where the $400 million came from? I'm pretty sure that is impossible, under these circumstances. Wouldn't you agree? I think the PR is unavoidable. But if you want to scold the man for doing this, go right ahead, no one is stopping you. I just think that you sound a little bitter towards him.

I am not bitter towards him, as I've explained. It is you are attaching and projecting that bitterness on my posts. MY ONLY POINT is that public charitable donations have a resultant positive PR spin that the donor is very aware of on some level. If anything, I have a problem with public ballyhooed charitable donations, no matter who is making them, whether its 7-11 donating a check to Jerry's Kids marathon but making sure their name is writ large on a sofa-sized check, on and on.
My point is if you are motivated to donate to a charity because you feel it is the right thing to do, you don't need publicity to encourage you or justify it afterwards.

Whether I was his advisor is an interesting question, because it highlights what I'm saying: If this were a personal decision, why would he need an advisor? He'd need an advisor to discover how to maximize the PR push he'd get in return, possibly, but certainly not an advisor to determine how to allocate his own financial legacy.

[pliny]

Maybe he's investing in India for his business--Dell has already opened call centers there, so that your tech call gets routed not to the US, but to phone banks in India. Maybe he's greasing the wheels to make it easier for other PC makers to do this, they save money, they lower their prices, they might sell more machines running his expensive software. They save money by operating over there. Course, might be hard to understand the tech, even if they are well-trained.

Isn't India also considering using Linux in gvt offices, with IBM pushing strong there?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Phanguye:
all this argueing is kinda dumb considering all 100 million is going to buy "WINDOWS XP, NOW PROVEN TO CURE AIDS"

Bravo! that's my point.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by pliny:
Maybe he's investing in India for his business--Dell has already opened call centers there, so that your tech call gets routed not to the US, but to phone banks in India. Maybe he's greasing the wheels to make it easier for other PC makers to do this, they save money, they lower their prices, they might sell more machines running his expensive software. They save money by operating over there. Course, might be hard to understand the tech, even if they are well-trained.

Isn't India also considering using Linux in gvt offices, with IBM pushing strong there?

[Mark Tungston]

YOU GUYS haven't read about how MS is campaigning in India because of it's huge developer/programming population?

lots of india software devlopers work for major US companies and they..HE is there in India to campaign against linux and unix for a MS alternative

THIS whole donating thing is a pure investment as a sign of endearing himself to eastern sensibilities. helping those children is a very noble thing to do for indians in terms of religion and etc

i'm glad the money is going to help kids but i think it sucks his money is going to bribe more into the MS side

[funkboy]

Originally posted by driven:


No argument. There is something to be said about being in the right place at the right time.

There is also something to be said about recognizing a great opportunity and jumping on it!
(Bill Gates recognized and did it along with Michael Dell, Steve Jobs, and many others ...)

Then there are folks like myself who see many great opportunities but blow them in the interest of "playing it safe". I'm glad the folks listed above didn't "play it safe".

I don't believe Bill Gates took an opportunity. If there was any opportunity for himself, he only made it for himself. He was pushy, a pushy businessman. He forced his software onto other people - heck, he lied to IBM, saying he had an operating system (DOS), when he had nothing. Get me a guy like that the heck out of the negotiations booth, I don't want someone promising me something he doesn't even have!

However, I do admire that he is donating money to causes such as this. It's great, I hope he continues to do so. He does get a notch up in my book for doing this, though I think he could've done more sooner. But heck, I think everyone could always do more

[tinrib]

I think it is great that Bill Gates is giving so much money away - and if it gets Bill Gates more publicity and hence Windows more sales - well that's more money going from the Western business world into Bill Gates' charities via Microsoft. I think that is great! I don't think Bill does it for the PR at all - he doesn't need it. I think he does it because he realises what a difference he is able to make.