Live data from Hacker News

Warren Buffett’s Best Investment

gatesnotes.com

31–40 of 212 posts

Re: Warren Buffett’s Best Investment

#31
post #2

I wish Bill or Warren would have run for presidency as an "outsider" instead of Trump. I guess our only hope will be their successor Mark (Zuckerberg)

Paraphrasing Oliver Wendell Holmes, one generation of sociopaths is enough. Zuck should stick with "curing all diseases".

Re: Warren Buffett’s Best Investment

#32
post #18
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:))

Check what Hans Rosling said about this. You don't need to do anything.

Well that's not quite true.

You have to fight poverty and improve educational attainments for those most in need.

Contributing to those causes will have the side effect of stopping overpopulation.

Re: Warren Buffett’s Best Investment

#33

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…

He's probably looked at it and felt that it wasn't as important in terms of the best ROI for his foundation.

His foundation takes a very analytical approach and he wouldn't dismiss that issue lightly.

They can't tackle everything. You have to pick your battles, even when you're the richest man in the world.

Re: Warren Buffett’s Best Investment

#34
post #13
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.

You're forgetting he'd be hampered by Congress. POTUS isn't a dictatorial position.

He can move more or less unilaterally.

Re: Warren Buffett’s Best Investment

#36
To Bill and Melinda Gates:

It was really uplifting to read this post.

Because of it, the world now looks a little brighter to me.

We're all surrounded by alarmist news every day and often lose sight of the big picture.

PLEASE write a post like this one at least once a year :-)

Re: Warren Buffett’s Best Investment

#37
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get Bill and Warren, but Mark?

Don't know about Buffett, but I don't get Gates either. He was a ruthless businessman using every trick in the book (legal and illegal) to solidify his company's monopoly.

Well it wouldn't be Gates of 1992 running, it would be Gates of today.

Have you changed in the past 25 years? I sure have.

Re: Warren Buffett’s Best Investment

#38
post #2

I wish Bill or Warren would have run for presidency as an "outsider" instead of Trump. I guess our only hope will be their successor Mark (Zuckerberg)

Bill and Melinda are better where they are, because they are free from political interference. Can you imagine the opposition they'd get from the GOP for pushing contraception so centrally? And if they get into power, probably from the democrats too, for not focusing on their favourite bandwagons.

OT: Can someone explain the GOP's strident opposition to funding contraception, both domestically and in the US's foreign aid? Apart from the obvious problems with unrestrained population growth, I'd have thought that aversion to abortion would imply whole-hearted support for contraception.

Re: Warren Buffett’s Best Investment

#39
post #7
post #2

I wish Bill or Warren would have run for presidency as an "outsider" instead of Trump. I guess our only hope will be their successor Mark (Zuckerberg)

I can't help but shudder at the thought of the dystopian future that leads to a Zuckerberg presidency.

He'll eventually do a 180 on most things we are miffed about.

He already has his name on a hospital. How long will it be before he decides he can do a better job as President?

Once these rich boys make their "nut"; they become very moral/ethical in their latter years, except Trump?

I think it has to do with their guilt? I don't know a wealthy man who didn't do some very unethical things clawing their way to the top.

Re: Warren Buffett’s Best Investment

#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 poorest people in the world have made
    over the last 25 years. This incredible progress has been made possible not
    only by the generosity of Warren and other philanthropists, the charitable
    giving of individuals across the world, and the efforts of the poor on their
    own behalf, but also by the huge contributions made by donor nations, which
    account for the vast majority of global health and development funding.
I think there is a fair amount of evidence that suggests development funding can have as much disastrous consequence as good. In his book The Great Escape[1], Angus Deaton (Nobel Prize economist) describes how non-interventionist economic development seems to have been the main driver of better outcomes across the world, and not the flush pockets of westerners, as convenient as that would be. Another book called The Road To Hell[2] provides many examples where large charitable efforts regularly produce even worse outcomes than no intervention at all. Is there some good evidence to suggest that the money spent by the Gates Foundation and other charities were solely responsible for the improved qualities of life across whole populations?

If you want to posit that their efforts have been invaluable in improving access to medical services across the globe, you'll get no argument from me. However, that's a small part of what makes up "stunning gains."

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Great-Escape-Health-Origins-Inequalit...

[2] https://www.amazon.com/Road-Hell-Michael-Maren/dp/0743227867

Post reply on HN