Gates said at 1 point his plan was to give away 99% of his money. I guess the 1% he keeps will still set up his kids really well.
From what I have read the focus of the Gates foundation on health issues in third world countries was very much inspired by Bill Gates personally. He is a apparently a huge biology buff and he is fascinated by biotechnology and its role in solving the big global health issues. IIRC he was also inspired by a World Bank report which argued that there is massive underinvestment in health technologies for the very poor and he thought his philanthropy could make a difference. IMO what makes his foundation special is not just the huge sums of money involved by the focus in getting the maximum bang for the buck in terms of impacting the largest possible number of lives. Whatever you think of his business career I think he has a strong claim to being the greatest philanthropist in history.
How big is your sample size? My experience is quite different, but I’ve only known perhaps a dozen or so trust fund recipients well enough to judge their character.
Not really. They won’t starve but it won’t be any kind of Gates dynasty. Can’t find quotes at the moment but I don’t think they were going to get anywhere near 1% of his wealth.
Nobody wants to use a stylus based computer interface.
My answer to that is “who gives a shit”? What good are a bunch of nerds tinkering with some obscure technology in their basement if they can’t work it into a marketable product?
Forgive me, but I find this position difficult to understand. I probably don’t know as much about Microsoft’s history as you, so let’s assume that everything you’ve said about that company (and Mr. Gates) is absolutely correct. That is, let’s assume that Microsoft and Bill Gates have routinely stifled the development of consumer electronics, strong-armed competitors into oblivion (certainly, DOJ has concluded they have), and generally engaged in practices that held back their field. Fine. Granted.
But the Gates Foundation saves lives - and aims to save many more, through the provision of anti-malarial drugs, HIV treatment, clean drinking water and sustainable sanitation, and on and on and on. Even if Gates had been an unambiguously malign influence upon the PC industry - and I think that’s more than a stretch - his foundation’s work would far more than make up for that “bad” conduct.
To answer the OP, there are several reasons.
-
There is no unspendable level of wealth. Bill Gates has personally bought several businesses for himself that he believed in, and I’m sure that he has invested in several businesses that were proposed to him where he thought that the guy doing the proposing had some keen ideas that deserved a market and that this was a guy who could make it happen if given the money. You can start a charity fund or finance the creation of new universities and libraries all over. If you have a few billion dollars extra to spend, someone will be quite happy to find use for it.
-
There are people depending on you. You know that you can run the company and continue to support the workers and keep them employed while as your second in command, if he was to take over, he might run it into the ground. The company is your child, it’s your baby. Even though you might reach the point where you want to quit and retire, your board might try to keep offering you more and more money because they’re afraid the second in command will run the company into the ground, and you’ve got that emotional connection so you use the money as a good excuse. You’re wanted and needed, so hell, you can find something to do with the extra money. You can save children in Africa.
-
Work is fun. It’s what you do. Do you really view yourself as someone who sits with his thumb up his ass, and who is going to be happy that way for the next 40 to 60 years? The kind of person who climbs to the top is probably going to say, “No.”
-
You feel that you still have more to give. Kevin Smith, the director, once said in an interview early in his career that he thought he had 10 good movies in him. He’d probably made a few million–plenty to live on for the rest of his life–after 5 movies. Should he have stopped?
-
Some do. Jim Davis may have stayed on writing Garfield for decades. Bill Watterson decided that he’d made enough money and he’d given the world what product he had in him, and he left.
When you got it, baby, flaunt it, FLAUNT IT!!!
- Max Bialystok in “The Producers”
Baby if you got it
You have got to flaunt it now
Baby if you flaunt it
You can make them want it now baby
Yes, I got it
And I’m gonna flaunt it now
- Donna Summer
Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me.
- F. Scott Fitzgerald
Flaunt. OK now, Splain.
Sure, but even now, Microsoft is a malign influence in the same areas of the world where the Gates Foundation is trying to do good. Read up on the history of the One Laptop Per Child project. It was designed to run on Open Source software - which was both a political goal, and a necessity to reach the intended price point of less than $100 a unit.
What was the response from Microsoft? With Intel, they have produced competitive units with a special version of Windows. They are out to crush a charity.
Is that evil enough for you?
I dunno about there being a spending limit. I have a personal dream of creating the world’s largest fireworks by smashing 2 explosive-laden remote-controlled 747s together in midair. But come to think of it, 8 would be better.
I’m sure I could go through several billion dollars worth of 747s over an Independence Day weekend.
I’d be willing to bet I could spend every penny of Bill Gate’s money in a few months, though I suppose there’s hardly a downside to losing a bet like that.
Think of the Carbon credits consumed in such an endeavor! 
Make sure it happens over an endangered species!
The hard part will be convincing Bill he ‘wants’ to give you all his money. I don’t think the Jedi Mind Trick will work.
Nothing says “Happy 4th of July” like crashing a bunch of airliners into other stuff and watching everything go up in flames. I’ll tell you what, we will do that some day and I have some tech projects in mind that might make it happen as soon as I get the funding. That does sound pretty cool. I personally never met a third world child that I cared for that much and they all lot pretty pathetic when they put them on those fund raising advertisements. I don’t know why they don’t find some better looking ones to use as models. It seems like the money could be much better spent on projects like this.
Funding? No problem. If I can get the funding for a couple of dozen 747s, I’m sure we can get a bulk discount and have some spare cash.
And we will probably have to develop some new technology to arrange a simultaneous midair collision of 8 airliners. 2 is a piece of cake, you just put them 180 degrees apart and run them head on. But 3 or more gets kind of tricky, especially if you insist on precision down to the microsecond and inch, which I do.
And I agree there are a lot of butt ugly poor kids out there. But out of proportion to butt ugly rich kids? I’m not so sure about that. Is there an ugliness scale that kids can be charted on?
Eh, maybe you’re right. Wealth has a beauty all its own.
There really isn’t such a thing as ‘unspendable’ levels of wealth. I highly doubt any rich person has millions in cash sitting under a mattress. Money in a bank or investment has spent. It has been used to purchase assets of some sort.
I think it depends on context. Can someone buy another house in Rio? Sure. But if they never go there, it just becomes an ‘investment’ (or burden if you don’t pay for some company to keep it up.)
I’m pretty sure nobody has ‘millions’ in an escrow account, available at the drop of a hat. Most of the wealthy have that money tied up making them money. (‘The Second million’s a lot easier to get than that first million.’) But if you don’t think a person could pull the money out in small bills with a little notice, you’re missing a critical point of economics.
Managing a large chunk of money becomes a career in itself, unless you’re rich enough to spin off a percentage to let somone else do it for you…and even then, the smart folks will keep a pretty close eye on things.
But what’s wealthy? $200k car? $5 million house? $60 million Jet? $100 million yacht? There’s folks out there with two of each (and then some.) Plus money in the bank.
I dated a trust-fund baby for a bit. It was an eye opening experience. On one hand, she had $64k in her checkbook. (about $80k in today’s dollars) She could walk into ANY dealership, and pay CASH for ANY car they had. She had a couple of houses here in town and had no problems walking into the local Walmart and buying two lawn mowers. Even though the other house had about 2 square yards of lawn. (Ski country)
On the other, her mom would collect all the garbage in the house, run the food down the dispose all, and take the rest every two weeks to the local Park and throw it in the dumpster. When I went to visit, I got a bill for a 20 minute call home…she wanted a check.
When things went pear-shaped, I had to write a check for my ‘wedding present’ to get the engagement ring back.
It was a seriously f’d up situation.
So, Microsoft developed their own laptop for under $100 to sell?
So now there are 2 (in theory) under $100 laptops available to the poor?
I fail to see the problem here.
No, Intel developed it with Microsoft in order to try to kill this project. If the poor, and computer users in developing countries grow up using Free Open Source Software (FOSS), they will never become Microsoft customers.
If you read the links provided, Intel is “dumping” these units - selling them for less than cost. They are not doing this to make the world a better place. This is a predatory business practice intended to destroy the competition - a charity in this case. This is all about preserving the status quo at the cost of a world changing technology.
They are selling this special version of Windows XP for $10. They are still getting 10% of the cost of something intended to cost as little as possible to make the world a better place. It’s telling that Microsoft is so rapacious that their only competition in this area is people giving their work away for free. (Apple, their only other competition, is a luxury brand.)
Oh I see. You have an axe to grind with MS and Gates over open source software.
It doesn’t matter if Gates wasn’t generous with his money before he got married, he’s done an outstanding job since then. That’s really all that matters.
I don’t see any solid evidence that the Intel-MS project is a case of predatory pricing. First of all the economics of predatory pricing is a lot more complicated than just selling a product below cost (what’s the evidence Intel is doing that anyway?). It also involves variables like a credible strategy of recouping losses later on by charging monopoly prices which implies strong barriers to entry in the market. The concept of predatory pricing is also tricky to apply when products are very different in terms of features which is definitely the case here. You could argue that the Intel product is simply better for education because it introduces students to a Windows computing environment which dominates the business world. More generally competition and choices are generally good for consumers; in this case it means that third world governments will be able to obtain computers at a lower price which in turn means that more kids will have access to them.
So yes this sounds much more like an uninformed rant against Microsoft and Bill Gates rather than a coherent argument.