Should Buffet have given his money to Soros instead?

[Dave1001]

The thought occured to me today that Soros may be doing more to save the world than Gates, by focusing his philanthropy on bolstering liberal government and open societies around the world. In contrast, Gates' philanthropy seems more targeted towards easy good press "Bill Gates Cures Malaria", etc. I understand Buffet's logic of distribution efficiency by giving his wealth to an existing large foundation. But it seems to me that Soros would have been the better, and perhaps the optimal choice.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The thought occured to me today that Soros may be doing more to save the world than Gates, by focusing his philanthropy on bolstering liberal government and open societies around the world. In contrast, Gates' philanthropy seems more targeted towards easy good press "Bill Gates Cures Malaria", etc. I understand Buffet's logic of distribution efficiency by giving his wealth to an existing large foundation. But it seems to me that Soros would have been the better, and perhaps the optimal choice.

No, Buffet should give his money to me.

And some to Shemp.

DR

 

[drkitten]

The thought occured to me today that Soros may be doing more to save the world than Gates, by focusing his philanthropy on bolstering liberal government and open societies around the world. In contrast, Gates' philanthropy seems more targeted towards easy good press "Bill Gates Cures Malaria", etc. I understand Buffet's logic of distribution efficiency by giving his wealth to an existing large foundation. But it seems to me that Soros would have been the better, and perhaps the optimal choice.

My understanding is that one of the major reasons that Buffett gave his wealth to the Gates Foundation is because the Gates Foundation is so well-run (in his opinion, obviously), and already
had experience in managing unbelievably huge sums.

It's not clear that the Soros Foundation has that experience.

From Buffett's words himself:

The short answer is that I came to realize that there was a terrific foundation that was already scaled-up - that wouldn't have to go through the real grind of getting to a megasize like the Buffett Foundation would - and that could productively use my money now.

The longer answer is that over the years I had gotten to know Bill and Melinda Gates well, spent a lot of time with them having fun and, way beyond that, had grown to admire what they were doing with their foundation. I've seen them give presentations about its programs, and I'm always amazed at the enthusiasm and passion and energy they're pouring into their work. They've gone at it, you might say, with both head and heart.

Bill reads many thousands of pages annually keeping up with medical advances and means of delivering help. Melinda, often with Bill along, travels the world looking at how well good intentions are being converted into good results. Life has dealt a terrible hand to literally billions of people around the world, and Bill and Melinda are bent on reducing that inequity to the extent they possibly can.

If you think about it - if your goal is to return the money to society by attacking truly major problems that don't have a commensurate funding base - what could you find that's better than turning to a couple of people who are young, who are ungodly bright, whose ideas have been proven, who already have shown an ability to scale it up and do it right?

You don't get an opportunity like that ordinarily. I'm getting two people enormously successful at something, where I've had a chance to see what they've done, where I know they will keep doing it - where they've done it with their own money, so they're not living in some fantasy world - and where in general I agree with their reasoning. If I've found the right vehicle for my goal, there's no reason to wait.

Compare what I'm doing with them to my situation at Berkshire, where I have talented and proven people in charge of our businesses. They do a much better job than I could in running their operations.

What can be more logical, in whatever you want done, than finding someone better equipped than you are to do it? Who wouldn't select Tiger Woods to take his place in a high-stakes golf game? That's how I feel about this decision about my money.

So the reason that you discount -- distribution efficiency through an existing large, well-run foundation -- seems to have been Buffett's primary motivation.

 

[Dave1001]

My understanding is that one of the major reasons that Buffett gave his wealth to the Gates Foundation is because the Gates Foundation is so well-run (in his opinion, obviously), and already
had experience in managing unbelievably huge sums.

It's not clear that the Soros Foundation has that experience.

From Buffett's words himself:




So the reason that you discount -- distribution efficiency through an existing large, well-run foundation -- seems to have been Buffett's primary motivation.

If you reread my post, I don't discount that motivation. I just speculated that Soros foundation may hit the same threshhold of distribution efficiency to be a viable alternative to the Gates Foundation for Buffet's wealth, plus it may distribute funds to better beneficiaries (even for accomplishing the goals of the Gates Foundation).

 

[drkitten]

If you reread my post, I don't discount that motivation. I just speculated that Soros foundation may hit the same threshhold of distribution efficiency to be a viable alternative to the Gates Foundation for Buffet's wealth,...

Well, I think the "may hit" is the key aspect there.

The Gates Foundation has a track record in this regard that Soros does not. $50 billion (or whatever the number eventually turns into) is a lot of money to sink into a "may hit."

 

[Dave1001]

Well, I think the "may hit" is the key aspect there.

The Gates Foundation has a track record in this regard that Soros does not. $50 billion (or whatever the number eventually turns into) is a lot of money to sink into a "may hit."

No way I'd give away that kind of percentage of my net worth, but if I did, I think I'd pick the Soros Foundation. Alas, Buffet's money is not (yet) mine to spend.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Not to mention that Buffett and Gates have gone golfing together on occasion for years, and seem to have developed a friendship and mutual respect going back some time.

AS

 

[firecoins]

Buffet should give his money where he wants to. I am not convinced George Soros is going to save the world. Nor am I convinced in Bill Gates for that matter.

 

[Merko]

I don't particularly like Gates. I absolutely hate almost all Microsoft products and go to great lengths to avoid them, and I'm positive their market share has nothing to do with any sort of quality or innovation. I blame users rather than Gates for this, though.

I'm also skeptical of charity in general and doubly so of billionaire philantropy. It's usually some reality-insulated housewife who needs something to do with her time (or some similarly challenged male equivalent).

However the Gates foundation actually seems to be a good thing. Obviously it will not save the world. I think the Gates' themselves have more realistic ambitions. But they are doing some of the things you can do with a lot of money. You can't lift a country out of poverty with some charity. Give every inhabitant a lot of cash and their children will still be just as poor. But you can do something about malaria for instance. Then the bright young children in these countries will be able to study or get some political experience instead of lying sick or caring for their siblings or getting orphaned.

 

[steverino]

Oh, that Buffet. (oops, One "T")

yawn. Byby.

 

[Dave1001]

I don't particularly like Gates. I absolutely hate almost all Microsoft products and go to great lengths to avoid them, and I'm positive their market share has nothing to do with any sort of quality or innovation. I blame users rather than Gates for this, though.

I'm also skeptical of charity in general and doubly so of billionaire philantropy. It's usually some reality-insulated housewife who needs something to do with her time (or some similarly challenged male equivalent).

However the Gates foundation actually seems to be a good thing. Obviously it will not save the world. I think the Gates' themselves have more realistic ambitions. But they are doing some of the things you can do with a lot of money. You can't lift a country out of poverty with some charity. Give every inhabitant a lot of cash and their children will still be just as poor. But you can do something about malaria for instance. Then the bright young children in these countries will be able to study or get some political experience instead of lying sick or caring for their siblings or getting orphaned.

Right, but I think Soros Foundation may be tackling these problems in an even more maximally effective way, by focusing on bolstering liberal government and open societies.

 

[andyandy]

Right, but I think Soros Foundation may be tackling these problems in an even more maximally effective way, by focusing on bolstering liberal government and open societies.

this seems rather simplistic. "Liberal" government isn't the great panacea to the world's problems.....

 

[Beerina]

Buffet should give his money where he wants to. I am not convinced George Soros is going to save the world. Nor am I convinced in Bill Gates for that matter.

By driving technology forward via investments in their corporations, they've done a lot more to make life better than any thousand politicians passing laws you care to name.

 

[cyborg]

I see you've swallowed that, "MS are big innovators" marketing hook, line and sinker.

 

[shemp]

No, Buffet should give his money to me.

And some to Shemp.

DR

I corrected your post to read what you meant to say, hope you don't mind.

 

[Merko]

Right, but I think Soros Foundation may be tackling these problems in an even more maximally effective way, by focusing on bolstering liberal government and open societies.

I'm not ideologically close to Soros, he's far too much market-oriented in my opinion. However, he's clearly aware of the limitations of markets. Some of the Soros-backed political initiatives, such as the Serbian Otpor, or the Ukrainian 'Orange revolution', have smelled a bit of commercially crafted PR campaigns dressed up to look like spontaneous popular movements. As far as I know however, Soros' projects have always played by democratical rules, and they have usually been more for good than for bad.

Socialists have always claimed that 'the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself'.[SIZE=-1] I think this is true for all groups, not just the 'working class': women's rights must mainly be conquered by women, minorities' rights must be conquered by minorities, and so forth. And I do not believe that political liberty can be achieved through foreign sponsorship. That doesn't mean such sponsorship can't be of some help, and I don't blame Soros for trying, but I'm not convinced that it is the best way to spend the money.[/SIZE]

 

[Dave1001]

this seems rather simplistic. "Liberal" government isn't the great panacea to the world's problems.....

I'm not sure. I'm open to the possibility that if I could only give money to one cause, and one cause only, to reduce the world's problems, that "promoting liberal governments" might be the single best one. That or "promoting open societies".

 

[Elizabeth I]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor
No, Buffet should give his money to me.

And some to Shemp.

DR

{OK, how do you do the strikethrough thing here?}

I corrected your post to read what you meant to say, hope you don't mind.

I told him he could give it to me and I would take care of it for both of you.

On the serious side, the Gates Foundation has provided dozens of computers for the library I work for, to make available for our customers' use. This means that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people have access to technology and information that would otherwise be out of reach for them. I think this goes a long way toward supporting a free and open society.

Just as one example (sorry to offer anecdotal evidence), several of our branch libraries report that they have patrons who use the library computers to support their small businesses.

 

[andyandy]

I'm not sure. I'm open to the possibility that if I could only give money to one cause, and one cause only, to reduce the world's problems, that "promoting liberal governments" might be the single best one. That or "promoting open societies".

How would you promote liberal governments?

 

[Dave1001]

How would you promote liberal governments?

Here's some truly amazing work his foundation is doing.

http://www.soros.org/initiatives

They give away 400 million annually. Thus I think they'd have the scale to disperse Buffet's funds effectively. As I do research on this topic, I'm increasingly impressed with how Soros engaging in philanthropy. the AfriMAP initiative for example.