I worked there and would encourage you not to do that.
It'd be smarter to see who they are giving money to (which is all public) and give directly to those orgs. The Gates foundation itself spends a lot of money on consultants, "government engagement" (aka lobbying by another name), and fancy dinners.
That's fine or maybe even noble for a family foundation, but it's probably not something individuals would want to fund.
Anecdata, but the brother of a friend was working on malaria in a SE Asian country and the Gates Foundation got interested in what they were doing, and wanted to find out more about it before possibly funding some of their work. They flew the entire team to the US, put them up in expensive hotels for a few days and flew them all back. They calculated that the cost of that was three times their annual budget. It would have made more sense to me to either (a) fly someone from the Gates Foundation to the country so they could see things first hand or (b) conduct the investigation / interviews via the internet. Given that the Foundation's people weren't in-country anyway, (b) seems like the best option all round given the environmental costs of flying.
> They flew the entire team to the US, put them up in expensive hotels for a few days and flew them all back. They calculated that the cost of that was three times their annual budget.
Are you sure about that?
Let's say every employee gets a $1000 round trip flight, plus $2000 for 4 nights in a decent hotel, a total of $3000 per head. Are you telling me that employee is paid $1000 a year or less?
The way they talked about it, the total per head was north of $5k, and they lived in an incredibly poor / cheap country. I wasn't fact-checking their figures, but they weren't the kind of person to exaggerate for effect.
The problem is the good guys have to spend donations on lobbying because otherwise the legislators are only hearing from the bad guys. This is a story as old as time I think.
So you appreachiate that the Bill Gates Foundation takes the time and energy / Resources to figure out whom to give money for the best impact, but you don't suggest others to give an organization, which actually takes the time and effort to figoure out how to spend money properly?
I find this dishonest.
And i find your point regarding 'fancy dinners' weird. You do know why they might spend money on this right? For doing lobbying which leads to real impact. Your 'fancy dinner' might be the difference between a political decision in favour for the right thing vs. some other company lobbying for the opposition.
Exactly. He doesn't need 20 years. That's just him trying to draw attention to himself.
If he was really serious about giving away his money, he could write a single check to the Red Cross || Doctors Without Borders || insert charity here and in five minutes be done with it.
The world doesn't need more vanity charities. It needs its existing charities to be better funded.
Says who? They can (ethically) invest it and fund programs off a 5%-8% or better return. They can find new things to do. They can donate some of it into health research that is currently under-funded.
And with such a sum of money they would surely have to hire staff to work all that out. Can thy do that?
I’ve tried volunteering at certain orgs before, I filled out forms and literally they rejected me because they had no more staff to organise and oversee more volunteers.
If your solution is just invest it, well, the Gates Foundation may as well hang on to it (you think you can do better job than Buffet?) and setup a system to dole it out.
If the org has to find new uses for it, surely the Gates Foundation is in a better position to get that done?
I'd be more willing to give this idea credit, if the total annual budget for the ICRC ($2B) and Doctors Without Borders ($1.6B) was more than a few percent of the total amount being proposed (>$100B invested or ~$8B/yr for 20 years).
You'd require those organizations to more than double in size to use the funding provided. That's not a good plan. Bluntly, his plan is better than yours.
I've got no love for Gates, but are you just trying to draw attention to yourself? What's your agenda? You're the one making a fairly outrageous unsupported claims.
I don't think you understand really how thngs work if you believe, giving something like the Red Cross Billions would just work.
Just googling it delivers enough critisism on worst level than you think Bill Gates Foundation is: "misusing funds, poor logistical planning, inadequate responses to specific crises, and even allegations of fraud and theft. "
Impact matters. Impact doesn't mean to just give money to some organization. Bill Gates actually played a significant role in Ebola vacination. Why? Because he/his team revisted why just giving out vacines was not enough.
Impact means helping as efficient as possible with the money.
And btw. a lot of other charities of this style (especially christians ones we all know) have also borderline ways of missusing believers to do their work. My aunt worked for nuns and got paid shit. This is now a problem for her retirment. Guess who pays that? Yeah the state...
> That much wealth could probably fund every food bank in the country indefinitely
That seems like an incredibly stupid way to spend money that has been eradicating diseases and saving lives in countries where food insecurity isn’t a choice.
It'd be smarter to see who they are giving money to (which is all public) and give directly to those orgs. The Gates foundation itself spends a lot of money on consultants, "government engagement" (aka lobbying by another name), and fancy dinners.
That's fine or maybe even noble for a family foundation, but it's probably not something individuals would want to fund.