8 ms·

Although there are many cynics, it's quite remarkable the impact on the world donations can have. Here's what their foundation has actually been doing with the

Although there are many cynics, it's quite remarkable the impact on the world donations can have. Here's what their foundation has actually been doing with the money: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/Resources-and-Media/Annual-Reports/Annual-Report-2016 https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/Resources-and-Med... I wouldn't be surprised if private donations will eventually be responsible for the eradication of Malaria (1000 deaths daily, much more suffering and cost to society). If you're in tech you're likely to be in a great position to create value beyond your company. For example, donating equity from your startup or a fraction of your income to the charities that can prove they are having the most cost effective impact on the world: https://founderspledge.com/ https://founderspledge.com/ https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/pledge/ https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/pledge/

randyrand 9y ago
Yet many want to 'solve' the problem of the 0.1% being so wealthy and as a result let the government do most of the charity work instead. I think this would be a huge mistake. The mega wealthy donate a larger percent of their income than any other income group (which makes complete sense). We would be losing a ton of donation money. Yes this is a tangent. But I think its an important point to make. On top of that, even if it were true that most of the 0.1% are very wasteful spenders, there are some who's donations are irreplaceable with government charity. Irradiating the worlds malaria is an example of this. Getting rid of the wealth in the 0.1% would be a huge loss for important donations.
- Retric 9y ago
  I don't want to 'take it back.' But, I feel donations should not be tax deductible. Why should I subsidize anything someone feels is worth donating for?
  - pc86 9y ago
    Well, only certain kinds of donations are tax deductible. You can donate $10,000 to me right now but you're not getting a penny back from the IRS if you do. The bar to become a charity could be a lot higher but it's not exactly a rubber stamp.
    - Retric 9y ago
      If I pay you 10,000$ you and I pay a tax. But, there is a separate gift tax deduction and small gifts. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/frequently-asked-questions-on-gift-taxes https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe... Donations are really a 3 way tax break, I don't pay taxes on the gift, you don't pay taxes on the gift, and I don't pay income taxes on the money I use as a gift. (The arguable forth deduction is I don't need to realize capital gains before giving a gift.) PS: The only way to actually lower taxes is to lower spending. Anything else is just shifting the burden to someone else.
      - adventured 9y ago
        > Donations are really a 3 way tax break That doesn't make sense given the sums we're talking about. If I give someone $100 million (non-charitable), I don't have to pay an extra tax on the giving, I only pay taxes on the income. You're referring to a very specific gift tax scenario. The majority of the Gates Foundation giving is not within the US. The people on the end receiving should not pay taxes on that as it pertains to the US. Further, the Gates Foundation giving within the US will frequently end up taxed after the gift via income taxes on salaries (whether we're talking about scientists, secretaries or in the field workers receiving foundation dollars to operate as part of a charitable organization). The scope to the triple tax premise is, in reality, dramatically more narrow.
        Retric 9y ago
        According to the US tax code you really do have to pay millions in taxes on a 100 million dollar gift to someone else. If they are in another country then that country's tax code applies and they might need to pay even more money. Here is the actual form: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f709.pdf https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f709.pdf 19 If line 18 is less than line 17, enter balance due
  - randyrand 9y ago
    I edited my comment. By take back I did not mean the current wealth from of the current generation of wealthy. But take-back over generations using very large marginal tax rates. E.g. 'solve' the problem of the 0.1% being so rich.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Confiscating wealth is counter productive. But, so is a large group with unearned wealth where nobody they know actually earned anything. IMO, the balance point is setting things up so the default is wealth is not maintained across several generations (3+), even though it can be passed down 1 or 2 generations and can be maintained with care past that point. PS: I say this with many wealthy friends and family. It's surprisingly destructive and I don't want to setup multi generational wealth for my great grand children.
      - tankerdude 9y ago
        The sad part is that that's what is happening in the world today. The rich, when they fund their money correctly, stay rich due to tax policy, gray areas, and loopholes. (Insurance polices as one example for the ultra rich.) If we don't tax people when they pass away, the money goes straight to their kids, and then a permanent upper class forms and we know what happened to France... The US has been about meritocracy, and not an aristocracy. But people want to change that, to the detriment of the country, IMO.
      - randyrand 9y ago
        When I said "But take-back over generations" I was not referring to an inheritance tax. I was referring to preventing new people from becoming as wealthy as today's wealthy by changing to a very large marginal income tax rate. It would be clearer if I said "widdle down the size of wealthy class over time". By far most of the wealthy today are new money, so an inheritance tax would do little in that regard anyway. But back to inheritance: > not maintained across several generations (3+) You're inventing problems. Inheritance decreases exponentially. Multi 3+ generational wealth is already divided by 64 times (assuming 2 children + spouses). It is not possible without the children putting in significant work themselves. You're inventing problems. At least we have common ground. Being able to pass on our successes to our children is a large and important motivator in life - one that would be incredibly unwise to remove.
  - RhysU 9y ago
    How is not taking his money subsidizing him? Tax credits would be subsidizing him.
    - rusk 9y ago
      Sorry for my ignorance but is this merely a technical distinction? I would have thought tax-credits, and non-deduction are effectively equivalent?
    - Retric 9y ago
      Tax breaks for specific activities are by dentition a subsidy by lowering costs. If people with blue eyes suddenly did not have to pay taxes then that would be a massive subsidy. If you get a pay check and the taxes are already taken it it's just as much 'your money' as if you got the full paycheck then had to pay taxes after the fact. The point is more money goes out of your paycheck because the US government subsidizes other and often very rich people.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  There's a difference between someone who went from upper middle class to billionaire, like Gates, and someone who inherited most of their wealth, like other people. I don't think lumping them together into a monolithic N% is productive for purposes of discussing policy.
  - olewhalehunter 9y ago
    Bill Gates was not upper "middle class", his household was solidly in the 1%, he had computer programming access at his private school (this is 1968), and his mother's friendship with the president of IBM at the time was the reason he got contracted to write DOS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Maxwell_Gates#Career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Maxwell_Gates#Career
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Bill Gates was not upper "middle class", his household was in the 1% Seems to have been a successful petit bourgeoisie, or upper middle class, family. In traditional understanding of class relationships in capitalist society, the middle class isn't mostly middle income but well above; the majority of society is the working class dependent on wage-labor. The upper (capitalist or haut borgeoisie) class is a very thin layer. The modern American media generally uses a different model which where “class” would more accurately be called “income group”, rather than focussing on relation to the economic system; this gets confusing in conversation when people could be using either model. In that model, Gates family was clearly upper class.
      - olewhalehunter 9y ago
        That archaic nobility distinction is useless to the conversation, especially when the most powerful men in the world we're discussing about have the background I'm talking about. https://www.dailysabah.com/columns/taha-meli-arvas/2017/05/04/the-billionaires-burden https://www.dailysabah.com/columns/taha-meli-arvas/2017/05/0...
        9y ago
- nebabyte 9y ago
  > Yet many want to 'solve' the problem of the 0.1% being so wealthy and as a result let the government do most of the charity work instead. I think this would be a huge mistake. ...You don't see the problem in relying on the charatibility of a tiny few to work towards the well-being of billions?
JustAnotherPat 9y ago
Malaria will be eradicated by CRISPR if anything. It's almost a waste to try and fully eliminate it any other way.
- hopscotch 9y ago
  There is a relatively easy and proven way to eliminate Malaria already: Malaria was effectively eradicated in all but the poorest areas in the 1950s and 60s through vector management: indoor residual spraying, building better houses, eradicating still water near population centers. The same can be done in sub-Saharan Africa (the main place it remains). In fact, in the richer areas of these countries, Malaria has a very low prevalence. It's a disease of poverty. Drugs help, but it's mostly about the vector.
- itissid 9y ago
  Not so simple.. https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21725282-resistance-inevitable-promising-means-pest-control-meets-some-evolutionary https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/217252...
nodesocket 9y ago
I think Buffett and Gates proved that despite what the media or anti-capitalists say, the top 1% are able to have the biggest impact. Somebody who donates a million (while a great contribution), will never have the impact that a billionaire can. Buffett took tremendous flack and there was very public outcry before he started donating. His rationale was that I'll just stack it up, and his late ex-wife Susie would distribute it after he died. However, when Susie passed away unexpectedly, Warren decided to make the move.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > despite what the media or anti-capitalists say, the top 1% are able to have the biggest impact I think this argument misses, or even reinforces a core criticism about the concentration of wealth. The criticism is that so much and such disproportionate power should not be concentrated in the hands of one individual. It's fundamentally undemocratic and a danger to society. In a democracy a broad-based group of citizens should be deciding where charitable resources are allocated. It's in aristocracies were a few wealthy control all the assets and make the decisions. Democracies were formed as a rejection of aristocracy, the U.S. in particular. It's self-reinforcing: If the local 'aristocrat' funds a park, people are grateful because there were no other funds and now we have a park. But there are no other funds because we have a system that creates aristocrats and by concentrating wealth also creates the need for their charity, and instead of the citizens deciding democratically about their parks, the aristocrat decides. Gates might be an enlightened despot but he's still a despot (in an exaggerated, metaphorical sense). We know what happens to nations and political systems that fall in love with enlightened despots. > Somebody who donates a million (while a great contribution), will never have the impact that a billionaire can. 1,000 people who donate a million will have exactly the same impact as one who donates a billion and will be far more democratic. Far better: Each person makes an equal sacrifice (via a progressive taxation system) and we vote on how to spend the money.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    > 1,000 people who donate a million will have exactly the same impact as one who donates a billion and will be far more democratic. Except if they don't. Or they do to a variety of causes, each with duplicate administrative overhead. I'm not a fan of wealth concentration, but it does afford patronage opportunities that simply aren't taken on average in the alternative "more people with less money" world.
k_lander 9y ago
For many it helps to know that your dollars are going to have a modest impact on society. Effective Altruism attempts to identify areas that are more likely to do so: https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-effective-altruism/ https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-e...
jk2323 9y ago
"I wouldn't be surprised if private donations will eventually be responsible for the eradication of Malaria (1000 deaths daily, much more suffering and cost to society)." He should improve contraception instead. Would be better for the Africans AND Europeans.
- adim86 9y ago
  What do you mean?
  - prawn 9y ago
    They might be suggesting that fewer people competing for resources in Africa could mean fewer people fleeing to Europe and agitating some there who resent the arrivals.
    - rtx 9y ago
      And they would be wrong. Focusing on governance will be more beneficial. Africa has enough resources.
- charlesdm 9y ago
  He really shouldn't do anything. Given it's his wealth, if he wants to focus on Malaria, then he should focus on Malaria. Be happy he's trying to do something at all. That's more than what most wealthy families do.
- gjm11 9y ago
  > He should improve contraception instead. Yeah. Perhaps he should imitate this charitable foundation run by a billionaire tech guy that's doing exactly that: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Development/Family-Planning https://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Developmen...
Iknown0thing 9y ago
As much as like the new way of distributing wealth in this manner, some of the foundations Christians fundamentals worry me. For example - https://www.gatesfoundation.org/how-we-work/quick-links/grants-database/#q/k=catholic https://www.gatesfoundation.org/how-we-work/quick-links/gran... I tried looking for similar grants to religious services organizations from other religions, but my search came up empty. Very happy to stand corrected on this.
- rusk 9y ago
  Just cross-referencing jk2323 here who makes an interesting point in this regard [0] *He should improve contraception instead* You're pointing out that a lot of these organisations are based on a Catholic ethos. Given the church's outspoken position on contraception, could the pointed nature of these donations actually be doing some harm? Given 1000 donors donating a million vs 1 donor with a billion (as somebody else points out below) you could imagine such biases being averaged out ... [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15024948 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15024948
  - saint_fiasco 9y ago
    When donors with different biases donate to causes with different political implications, they don't always average out. Sometimes they cancel out. For example political campaign donations are obviously zero-sum, as is lobbying for mutually exclusive well-intentioned causes.
    - rusk 9y ago
      You're presuming a zero-sum balance between all causes political and/or charitable. I'd need to see this thesis more thoroughly fleshed out before I could comment further, but I think on the face of it it's grossly a flawed assumption. Maybe that's not what you mean though.
      - saint_fiasco 9y ago
        Only political causes. And only most of them. For example suppose that we want to do a cost-benefit analysis to see if convincing people to use contraception is a more effective charitable intervention than whatever Gates is doing. If the Catholic Church really hates contraception, they would oppose that. They might tell Catholic charities to refuse to work with Gates. They might spend a little money and a lot of cheap labor on convincing people to not use contraception. Generally they will spend resources on doing the opposite thing and Gates would have to spend more resources just to cancel out the Catholic influence. Since we know beforehand that this is very likely to happen, we should include that in the cost part of our cost-benefit analysis. It's possible Gates did just that and concluded that working with Catholics instead of against them is better.

randyrand 9y ago

Yet many want to 'solve' the problem of the 0.1% being so wealthy and as a result let the government do most of the charity work instead. I think this would be a huge mistake. The mega wealthy donate a larger percent of their income than any other income group (which makes complete sense). We would be losing a ton of donation money. Yes this is a tangent. But I think its an important point to make. On top of that, even if it were true that most of the 0.1% are very wasteful spenders, there are some who's donations are irreplaceable with government charity. Irradiating the worlds malaria is an example of this. Getting rid of the wealth in the 0.1% would be a huge loss for important donations.

Retric 9y ago
I don't want to 'take it back.' But, I feel donations should not be tax deductible. Why should I subsidize anything someone feels is worth donating for?
- pc86 9y ago
  Well, only certain kinds of donations are tax deductible. You can donate $10,000 to me right now but you're not getting a penny back from the IRS if you do. The bar to become a charity could be a lot higher but it's not exactly a rubber stamp.
  - Retric 9y ago
    If I pay you 10,000$ you and I pay a tax. But, there is a separate gift tax deduction and small gifts. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/frequently-asked-questions-on-gift-taxes https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe... Donations are really a 3 way tax break, I don't pay taxes on the gift, you don't pay taxes on the gift, and I don't pay income taxes on the money I use as a gift. (The arguable forth deduction is I don't need to realize capital gains before giving a gift.) PS: The only way to actually lower taxes is to lower spending. Anything else is just shifting the burden to someone else.
    - adventured 9y ago
      > Donations are really a 3 way tax break That doesn't make sense given the sums we're talking about. If I give someone $100 million (non-charitable), I don't have to pay an extra tax on the giving, I only pay taxes on the income. You're referring to a very specific gift tax scenario. The majority of the Gates Foundation giving is not within the US. The people on the end receiving should not pay taxes on that as it pertains to the US. Further, the Gates Foundation giving within the US will frequently end up taxed after the gift via income taxes on salaries (whether we're talking about scientists, secretaries or in the field workers receiving foundation dollars to operate as part of a charitable organization). The scope to the triple tax premise is, in reality, dramatically more narrow.
      - Retric 9y ago
        According to the US tax code you really do have to pay millions in taxes on a 100 million dollar gift to someone else. If they are in another country then that country's tax code applies and they might need to pay even more money. Here is the actual form: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f709.pdf https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f709.pdf 19 If line 18 is less than line 17, enter balance due
- randyrand 9y ago
  I edited my comment. By take back I did not mean the current wealth from of the current generation of wealthy. But take-back over generations using very large marginal tax rates. E.g. 'solve' the problem of the 0.1% being so rich.
  - Retric 9y ago
    Confiscating wealth is counter productive. But, so is a large group with unearned wealth where nobody they know actually earned anything. IMO, the balance point is setting things up so the default is wealth is not maintained across several generations (3+), even though it can be passed down 1 or 2 generations and can be maintained with care past that point. PS: I say this with many wealthy friends and family. It's surprisingly destructive and I don't want to setup multi generational wealth for my great grand children.
    - tankerdude 9y ago
      The sad part is that that's what is happening in the world today. The rich, when they fund their money correctly, stay rich due to tax policy, gray areas, and loopholes. (Insurance polices as one example for the ultra rich.) If we don't tax people when they pass away, the money goes straight to their kids, and then a permanent upper class forms and we know what happened to France... The US has been about meritocracy, and not an aristocracy. But people want to change that, to the detriment of the country, IMO.
    - randyrand 9y ago
      When I said "But take-back over generations" I was not referring to an inheritance tax. I was referring to preventing new people from becoming as wealthy as today's wealthy by changing to a very large marginal income tax rate. It would be clearer if I said "widdle down the size of wealthy class over time". By far most of the wealthy today are new money, so an inheritance tax would do little in that regard anyway. But back to inheritance: > not maintained across several generations (3+) You're inventing problems. Inheritance decreases exponentially. Multi 3+ generational wealth is already divided by 64 times (assuming 2 children + spouses). It is not possible without the children putting in significant work themselves. You're inventing problems. At least we have common ground. Being able to pass on our successes to our children is a large and important motivator in life - one that would be incredibly unwise to remove.
- RhysU 9y ago
  How is not taking his money subsidizing him? Tax credits would be subsidizing him.
  - rusk 9y ago
    Sorry for my ignorance but is this merely a technical distinction? I would have thought tax-credits, and non-deduction are effectively equivalent?
  - Retric 9y ago
    Tax breaks for specific activities are by dentition a subsidy by lowering costs. If people with blue eyes suddenly did not have to pay taxes then that would be a massive subsidy. If you get a pay check and the taxes are already taken it it's just as much 'your money' as if you got the full paycheck then had to pay taxes after the fact. The point is more money goes out of your paycheck because the US government subsidizes other and often very rich people.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
There's a difference between someone who went from upper middle class to billionaire, like Gates, and someone who inherited most of their wealth, like other people. I don't think lumping them together into a monolithic N% is productive for purposes of discussing policy.
- olewhalehunter 9y ago
  Bill Gates was not upper "middle class", his household was solidly in the 1%, he had computer programming access at his private school (this is 1968), and his mother's friendship with the president of IBM at the time was the reason he got contracted to write DOS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Maxwell_Gates#Career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Maxwell_Gates#Career
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Bill Gates was not upper "middle class", his household was in the 1% Seems to have been a successful petit bourgeoisie, or upper middle class, family. In traditional understanding of class relationships in capitalist society, the middle class isn't mostly middle income but well above; the majority of society is the working class dependent on wage-labor. The upper (capitalist or haut borgeoisie) class is a very thin layer. The modern American media generally uses a different model which where “class” would more accurately be called “income group”, rather than focussing on relation to the economic system; this gets confusing in conversation when people could be using either model. In that model, Gates family was clearly upper class.
    - olewhalehunter 9y ago
      That archaic nobility distinction is useless to the conversation, especially when the most powerful men in the world we're discussing about have the background I'm talking about. https://www.dailysabah.com/columns/taha-meli-arvas/2017/05/04/the-billionaires-burden https://www.dailysabah.com/columns/taha-meli-arvas/2017/05/0...
      - 9y ago
nebabyte 9y ago
> Yet many want to 'solve' the problem of the 0.1% being so wealthy and as a result let the government do most of the charity work instead. I think this would be a huge mistake. ...You don't see the problem in relying on the charatibility of a tiny few to work towards the well-being of billions?

JustAnotherPat 9y ago

Malaria will be eradicated by CRISPR if anything. It's almost a waste to try and fully eliminate it any other way.

hopscotch 9y ago
There is a relatively easy and proven way to eliminate Malaria already: Malaria was effectively eradicated in all but the poorest areas in the 1950s and 60s through vector management: indoor residual spraying, building better houses, eradicating still water near population centers. The same can be done in sub-Saharan Africa (the main place it remains). In fact, in the richer areas of these countries, Malaria has a very low prevalence. It's a disease of poverty. Drugs help, but it's mostly about the vector.
itissid 9y ago
Not so simple.. https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21725282-resistance-inevitable-promising-means-pest-control-meets-some-evolutionary https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/217252...

nodesocket 9y ago

I think Buffett and Gates proved that despite what the media or anti-capitalists say, the top 1% are able to have the biggest impact. Somebody who donates a million (while a great contribution), will never have the impact that a billionaire can. Buffett took tremendous flack and there was very public outcry before he started donating. His rationale was that I'll just stack it up, and his late ex-wife Susie would distribute it after he died. However, when Susie passed away unexpectedly, Warren decided to make the move.

forapurpose 9y ago
> despite what the media or anti-capitalists say, the top 1% are able to have the biggest impact I think this argument misses, or even reinforces a core criticism about the concentration of wealth. The criticism is that so much and such disproportionate power should not be concentrated in the hands of one individual. It's fundamentally undemocratic and a danger to society. In a democracy a broad-based group of citizens should be deciding where charitable resources are allocated. It's in aristocracies were a few wealthy control all the assets and make the decisions. Democracies were formed as a rejection of aristocracy, the U.S. in particular. It's self-reinforcing: If the local 'aristocrat' funds a park, people are grateful because there were no other funds and now we have a park. But there are no other funds because we have a system that creates aristocrats and by concentrating wealth also creates the need for their charity, and instead of the citizens deciding democratically about their parks, the aristocrat decides. Gates might be an enlightened despot but he's still a despot (in an exaggerated, metaphorical sense). We know what happens to nations and political systems that fall in love with enlightened despots. > Somebody who donates a million (while a great contribution), will never have the impact that a billionaire can. 1,000 people who donate a million will have exactly the same impact as one who donates a billion and will be far more democratic. Far better: Each person makes an equal sacrifice (via a progressive taxation system) and we vote on how to spend the money.
- ethbro 9y ago
  > 1,000 people who donate a million will have exactly the same impact as one who donates a billion and will be far more democratic. Except if they don't. Or they do to a variety of causes, each with duplicate administrative overhead. I'm not a fan of wealth concentration, but it does afford patronage opportunities that simply aren't taken on average in the alternative "more people with less money" world.

k_lander 9y ago

For many it helps to know that your dollars are going to have a modest impact on society. Effective Altruism attempts to identify areas that are more likely to do so: https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-effective-altruism/ https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-e...

jk2323 9y ago

"I wouldn't be surprised if private donations will eventually be responsible for the eradication of Malaria (1000 deaths daily, much more suffering and cost to society)." He should improve contraception instead. Would be better for the Africans AND Europeans.

adim86 9y ago
What do you mean?
- prawn 9y ago
  They might be suggesting that fewer people competing for resources in Africa could mean fewer people fleeing to Europe and agitating some there who resent the arrivals.
  - rtx 9y ago
    And they would be wrong. Focusing on governance will be more beneficial. Africa has enough resources.
charlesdm 9y ago
He really shouldn't do anything. Given it's his wealth, if he wants to focus on Malaria, then he should focus on Malaria. Be happy he's trying to do something at all. That's more than what most wealthy families do.
gjm11 9y ago
> He should improve contraception instead. Yeah. Perhaps he should imitate this charitable foundation run by a billionaire tech guy that's doing exactly that: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Development/Family-Planning https://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Developmen...

Iknown0thing 9y ago

As much as like the new way of distributing wealth in this manner, some of the foundations Christians fundamentals worry me. For example - https://www.gatesfoundation.org/how-we-work/quick-links/grants-database/#q/k=catholic https://www.gatesfoundation.org/how-we-work/quick-links/gran... I tried looking for similar grants to religious services organizations from other religions, but my search came up empty. Very happy to stand corrected on this.

rusk 9y ago
Just cross-referencing jk2323 here who makes an interesting point in this regard [0] *He should improve contraception instead* You're pointing out that a lot of these organisations are based on a Catholic ethos. Given the church's outspoken position on contraception, could the pointed nature of these donations actually be doing some harm? Given 1000 donors donating a million vs 1 donor with a billion (as somebody else points out below) you could imagine such biases being averaged out ... [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15024948 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15024948
- saint_fiasco 9y ago
  When donors with different biases donate to causes with different political implications, they don't always average out. Sometimes they cancel out. For example political campaign donations are obviously zero-sum, as is lobbying for mutually exclusive well-intentioned causes.
  - rusk 9y ago
    You're presuming a zero-sum balance between all causes political and/or charitable. I'd need to see this thesis more thoroughly fleshed out before I could comment further, but I think on the face of it it's grossly a flawed assumption. Maybe that's not what you mean though.
    - saint_fiasco 9y ago
      Only political causes. And only most of them. For example suppose that we want to do a cost-benefit analysis to see if convincing people to use contraception is a more effective charitable intervention than whatever Gates is doing. If the Catholic Church really hates contraception, they would oppose that. They might tell Catholic charities to refuse to work with Gates. They might spend a little money and a lot of cheap labor on convincing people to not use contraception. Generally they will spend resources on doing the opposite thing and Gates would have to spend more resources just to cancel out the Catholic influence. Since we know beforehand that this is very likely to happen, we should include that in the cost part of our cost-benefit analysis. It's possible Gates did just that and concluded that working with Catholics instead of against them is better.