Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Warren Buffett’s Best Investment

gatesnotes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 212 posts

Re: Warren Buffett’s Best Investment

#71

Post by ams6110 »

robocat wrote: post #64
hxta98596 wrote: post #29

It's hard not to be impressed by what the Gates Foundation is doing. I don't think they get the full recognition they deserve sometimes, maybe because much of their work is abroad in the poorest countries in the world. Hard to fathom the number of people out there in the world thankful and who owe their lives to the foundation choosing to help their community or their cause. With that said and not to diminish the goo…

I wonder how much of this particular philanthropy is just giving back money that those countries spent? I.e. Microsoft licences, or balance of trade with the donor countries? A kind of benevolent taxation?

I'd be more fearful of corruption in those countries. This is where so much foreign aid falls apart, it's siezed by the government, distributed to their favored constituents, and never makes it to the people who really need it.

Re: Warren Buffett’s Best Investment

#72

Post by pvg »

wyc wrote: post #40

I truly applaud the efforts of the funds. I don't think I could come up with any more noble endeavor, and I know there are some very capable people throughout their organizations who are dedicated to spending the funds wisely and impactfully. However, is it fair to credit philanthropy as the sole cause of quality of life improvements across the most destitute populations? It's a story about the stunning gains the poo…

Even the quote you've pulled doesn't claim the outcomes are due solely to the efforts of charities. The Gates foundation has a strong focus on health issues (just about everything listed in the report, for instance) and not the sort of aid the books you mention are criticizing.

Re: Warren Buffett’s Best Investment

#73

Post by peterarmstrong »

toastednz wrote: post #26

I find Gates' lack of focus on environmental issues disheartening. I know he does invest in clean energy and feels strongly about climate change, but this doesn't really do anything to prevent deforestation NOW. I know that bringing people out of poverty may have a side-effect of improving some environmental parameters, but it also makes whole swathes of people start demanding more meat, more palm oil, more cars, mor…

Except that's not true:

http://fortune.com/2016/12/11/bill-gates-john-doerr-venture-...

Re: Warren Buffett’s Best Investment

#74

Post by vacri »

vkou wrote: post #58
vacri wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of Catholics on the conservative side of things, and contraception has been verboten to Catholics since the early days ("sex is for making babies, not fun" is the company line)

This is quite false. Catholics split the democrat/republican vote ~50/50. They voted for Gore, Bush, Obama, and Trump with small margins. [1] They care about this question, but not very much. Evangelicals, on the other hand overwhelmingly vote republican. Catholics, in general, are the most liberal religious denomination in the US. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/how-the-fait...

Looking more closely at your link, the white catholics were more likely to vote for Trump than protestants were (higher than anyone except evangelicals), and as I understand it, it's white catholics that are the most prominent in congress.

Sorry, I meant politicians (as the parent referenced the GOP) rather than laypeople.

Re: Warren Buffett’s Best Investment

#75

Post by bluthru »

dsjoerg wrote: post #24
johnsea wrote: post #17

Nice On the opposite number side, I hope they can help to find ways to reduce the population growth. It is unsustainable, especially in Africa and Arabic countries. (Pity one cannot just implement a China-like one child policy:))

Here is the Hans Rosling video explaining why that's not a problem: https://www.gapminder.org/videos/will-saving-poor-children-l...

I'm not convinced. If we took a Star Trek "Prime Directive" approach and didn't interfere with Africa, why wouldn't their population be at a naturally lower carrying capacity?

Is it really wise to use all of that money in a part of the world where their carbon footprint is small, versus spending it on reducing the carbon footprint in the first world? Why are we exacerbating the problem by making Africa more developed and therefore worse for climate change? In the short term, we could be left with a greater number of Africans who leave Africa because of climate change issues way before 2100 when their population will supposedly level off.

Re: Warren Buffett’s Best Investment

#76

Post by bluthru »

harshreality wrote: post #66
dsjoerg wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is the Hans Rosling video explaining why that's not a problem: https://www.gapminder.org/videos/will-saving-poor-children-l...

Seems like he's assuming changing one of these changes all: child mortality == poverty == lack of education == large families High fertility rates, poverty, low education, lack of affordable birth control, child mortality... these and other things cluster together. What's causing what? If you found a genie and wished for an end to kids dying in Africa, with no intervention in any other parameters, how much do you rea…

To support your point: look at the fertility rate of Mexican-Americans.

Re: Warren Buffett’s Best Investment

#77

Post by toastednz »

downandout wrote: post #57
orbifold wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Climate change is not just about trees, but about the massive loss of biodiversity that goes along with rapid climate change. Sure most of Europe will be covered in pine trees, but at the same time a lot of species, essentially all that are not able to migrate with the same speed that the climate changes in their habitat will die out. This article for example claims that 1/2 of the known species have died out within…

Again, you completely missed the point. Bill Gates is one man with a certain amount of resources. He chose to go after a huge problem with known solutions: hundreds of millions of poverty-induced, completely preventable, childhood deaths. Climate change may be another worthy cause, but no one has any business criticizing him for not choosing that particular one over saving a massive number of children because they mi…

I think Bill Gates would agree that when you control the philanthropic funds of the 2 richest people on earth then you have some obligation to spend the money in proportion to the importance of the issues being addressed.

I won't argue the relative merits of the marginal value of a human life vs. mass extinction of species because I'm sure we both have different values underlying our respective views and will never convince each other of anything.

Re: Warren Buffett’s Best Investment

#78

Post by JshWright »

ams6110 wrote: post #69
aanm1988 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would I ever want Zuckerberg as president? Why would I want any of these intelligent, but unqualified people as president? Trump has about the same qualifications. Look at that so far.

Obama had minimal qualifications, himself.

Other than being a senator, a lawyer, and a constitutional scholar, you mean?

Re: Warren Buffett’s Best Investment

#79

Post by lostlogin »

obilgic wrote: post #13
GuiA wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that in the long term, Bill Gates running his foundation has a much deeper impact on humanity than being president, which would effectively cut him off from his philanthropic activities for 4-8 years. In other words, we're better off with Bill helming the Gates foundation rather than presiding the USA.

I would argue the otherwise. Imagine the resources and the influence power he would have on both U.S. and other nations, compared to few billion dollars spared by few people.

How many would vote for him if they knew he hoped to help non-Americans with US txpayer dollars?

Re: Warren Buffett’s Best Investment

#80

Post by lostlogin »

GhiliaWeld wrote: post #45
GuiA wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that in the long term, Bill Gates running his foundation has a much deeper impact on humanity than being president, which would effectively cut him off from his philanthropic activities for 4-8 years. In other words, we're better off with Bill helming the Gates foundation rather than presiding the USA.

I know it's called the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, but isn't it Melinda that runs and manages everything? I'm pretty sure Bill just donates to the foundation. I could be wrong tho.

Did you notice the format that report took? Melinda, Bill, Melinda, Bill...
Post reply on HN