Sunday, April 05, 2009

Charity

Cow has been ruminating upon the list of the so-called largest charity donors.

Only problem is, when, for instance, Bill Gates gives to charity, he's merely transferring money from one of his pockets to the other. Because it's his own charity that he gives to.

So he still makes the rules, still has complete control over his money.

Cow just doesn't think this should really be credited as charity. In fact, were Bill Gates to really be charitable, he would have reduced the rip-off prices of his software and forgone the opportunity to make himself the richest man in the world by ripping off all computer users.

And, Cow doesn't see any of these billionaires stepping forward to help anyone in this crisis economy.

Humphf.

Moo!

9 Comments:

Blogger HEATHER said...

AGREED!!!!

8:32 PM  
Blogger A. Boyd Campbell, II said...

I gotta stand up for Gates. His charity spends millions on education in this country and millions more on education and fighting malaria in the third world.

This business of passing money from his own pockets to the charity fund is pretty normal and it allows the charity to continue even after his death.

One of his friends, Warren Buffet did spend billions trying to stem the bloodshed when the financial crisis first began. His efforts probably did slow the progression of the crisis but it's really hard to judge that kind of thing.

9:44 PM  
Blogger Gorilla Bananas said...

Maybe Bill needs to do a better job of telling people what his charity has actually done. I wonder how many mosquitoes he has killed? Or does he just attack their eggs? There are so many unanswered questions.

11:18 PM  
Blogger From the Doghouse said...

Don't worry, there will be plenty of billionares ready to swoop in and buy up all of the cheap stock, giving themselves more money and power.

7:06 AM  
Blogger The Topiary Cow said...

Watercolor and Heather: Thanks!

A.B.C: Cow's humble point was not that these self-funded charities don't do good work. Of course, they do.

What irks Cow is that instead of freely contributing to already-existing charities, Gates and others give only on their own terms, while maintaining 100% control.

What also irks Cow is that Gates took what was a free-exchange medium and was able to price-set without challenge from government and only the occasional hard-fought confederation of European states.


Gorilla: (Cow swishing tail annoyedly) pesky mosquitoes! Where is Gates when needed?

Dog: alas, Cow thinks you're right.

Moo!

12:31 PM  
Blogger A. Boyd Campbell, II said...

They do give to established charities though. In 2008 they gave almost a billion dollars to the united way.

As for how he made his money, Any alternative would require the consumer knowing how to select and install software and for whatever reason people decided not to.

90% of what I use is open source, but most of my peers have no clue what that means nor any desire to learn, even though it's free software.

1:00 PM  
Blogger The Topiary Cow said...

Ah, Cow bows to Boyd's superior knowledge...

Probably true, most people don't want to learn. Especially if they have had to learn at work, they don't want to learn something else at home.

Hooray for open source!

Moo!

1:22 PM  
Blogger linda said...

Charity with conditions attached is a bit off putting. Unfortunately Third world countries now depend on charity to function. It is worked into their budget. Better to create an infrastructure that allows people to become self sustaining rather than just give them food and aid etc...

3:48 AM  
Blogger The Topiary Cow said...

Agreed.

Cow not sure any third-world countries can ever become self-sustaining unless they limit their population growth.

Look at these places with limited water, poor soil, rocky terrain, and they were just not mean to support the millions of people now there...

Moo!

10:14 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home