[realityking]

> nor his nonprofit that gives less than 1 percent back to the country that allowed him to flourish.

Do I understand you correctly, that your objection to the Gates foundation is, that they don‘t spend on projects in the US?

[riversflow]

Im gonna go out on a limb and say that, yes, that is their objection. Does that surprise you, or do you find it objectionable? Why? Im legitimately curious.

[mullingitover]

The Gates Foundation has done a lot to save lives and reduce suffering in developing countries. It's a bit tone-deaf to knock him on that point, and also pretty myopic. The US does not exist in a vacuum, and having third world countries develop faster because they're not getting hammered by easily preventable diseases actually can benefit the US. The people who are alive today (or maybe their descendants) might be buying products and services from the US down the road.

[deadlyllama]

A lot, as long as it respects Western intellectual property "rights."

Like persuading Oxford University to NOT give away the rights to its COVID-19 vaccine: https://khn.org/news/rather-than-give-away-its-covid-vaccine...

[mullingitover]

I've heard that argument, but IP rights are really a red herring - the bottlenecks on production are in material inputs and manufacturing. Waivers on IP rights could actually have the opposite effect we want by creating pointless competition when what is needed is centralization and economies of scale to maximize output.

[glenneroo]

This is what I really don't understand and must assume ulterior motives. His altruistic intentions of trying to eradicate horrible diseases in 3rd world countries is highly commendable, yet this type of move will only allow new Covid-* variants to gain traction, therefore requiring new vaccines sooner than later. I definitely am not looking forward to a never-ending pandemic.

Does anyone know if he holds shares in vaccine producing companies?

[mullingitover]

> Does anyone know if he holds shares in vaccine producing companies?

What would the angle be here? Gates is in the process of trying to give away all least half of his money to charity. His net worth is ~125 billion, is making another billion or two really going to motivate him at this stage in his life?

[glenneroo]

That's a good question, hence my confusion. Perhaps it's merely a political move and he's doesn't want to upset the wrong people?

On the other hand, I've heard that anyone with that much wealth is operating on a completely different mental model than the rest of us. I can only assume he has a very high-level overview of any global aspects that he is interested in and therefore has completely different goals. I suppose that I can't even begin to fathom his thought process and perhaps my confusion is completely unfounded, I just wish I knew the reasoning for his recent Covid-vaccine decisions, which seemingly are detrimental to all human beings on a global scale.

[blindmute]

Why would you choose to save lives and reduce suffering in a far off land when you could save lives and reduce suffering for your own country? That is what I have never understood about foreign aid charities.

[ClumsyPilot]

Range of possible reasons -

Maybe because issues in poor nations are straightforward to solve: if you resolve the issue with clean water for a village, that improves lives of hundreds. Issues that plague 'The west' don't have a known solution.

Maybe because of most issues in poorest nations is lack of funs / tech, which he can provide, but cause of suffering in western world is usually political or mismanagement, which he cannot 'provide'

Maybe because for the same resources deployed the choice is between saving 100 kids from disease in Africa vs helping social mobility of 1 kids in US

Maybe you do not believe that from Alaska to Hawaii is 5,000 miles of "we", but 500 miles South from Texas it's "they". Nation-centric worldview is a relatively new idea that only existed for a couple hundred years, even today many people associate by faith, by town/province, by ethnicity or other things over nationality

[CRConrad]

Because there are more lives to save and suffering to reduce in that far off land than in your own country, perhaps?

Are you, say, a man? Then why would you give anything to a charity that helps women? (Or vice versa.) Or are you perhaps white? Then why would you give anything to a charity that helps people of colour? (Or vice versa.) Etc, etc... Get the point yet? If not, I'll spell it out for you: "Charity" that only benefits copies of yourself isn't really charity.

[mullingitover]

Simple: The US is the wealthiest country in the history of the world and we don't have a lot of low hanging fruit in terms of easily preventable/treatable diseases.

[jjk166]

$4 in burkina faso will protect a family of 4 from malaria

$4 in america will buy a latte.

[jasonwatkinspdx]

Most fundamentally, a lot of us are humanists, not nationalists.

But more narrowly: Gates Foundation focuses on straightforwardly preventable diseases. These are diseases of extreme poverty that are nearly or entirely absent in the US. The US's problems are of a different nature, largely stemming from inequality in access to healthcare which is a political problem.

It seems rather ghoulish to look at one of the most effective charities in the world, that has no doubt had an impact on millions of people, and say "I want those $$ to stay in the US instead" when we are the most wealthy and powerful nation in history. We need to fix our own political issues, not shame Gates for doing truly good things elsewhere. You want to help the US? Vote for people who want to help the most vulnerable among us vs the most powerful. Our government and society has the resources, they are simply being directed with deliberate inequities.

[CRConrad]

Is there any reason to think the money he made and is now giving away came mainly from the US? AFAICT there are a lot more users of Microsoft software outside the USA than within them. With that in mind: Yes, it seems rather ludicrous to demand that he use it for charity exclusively there.

Another reason being that the US is one of the richest countries in the world -- and therefore, logically, among the least in need of charity. (BTW, this shows the objection is ridiculous even if his fortune came mainly from the USA: If he had made his money from selling some luxury article, say Rolls-Royce cars or something, and then decided to spend the money so earned on charity -- should he have been expected to spend it only on helping the kind of people who buy Rolls-Royces?)

Both screamingly obvious reasons IMO, so I find it somewhat surprising that anyone needed to be curious about this.