Gates also acts as an economic enforcer for the IMF, quite literally using his charitable giving as a carrot/stick to force nations to accept policy decisions and often crippling loans from the IMF. But you don't have to take my word for it, listen to the man himself:

During the panel, Bill Gates and Jim Yong Kim concurred on the need to leverage increased private sector financing in development through business-friendly policies. While the World Bank President hailed countries who made “unpopular” policy choices, critical to “let private sector investors feel comfortable,” Gates hammered away the need to “reform the system” and underlined development aid’s capacity to influence the process.

Both ignored their co-panellist and Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, Raghuram Rajan, who called for development efforts to support the policies that developing countries want. Rajan also noted that global transparency on taxes and removal of barriers imposed by rich countries on exports from the developing countries would help build a more equitable world.

https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/blog/little-help-bill-gates...

> who called for development efforts to support the policies that developing countries want.

Do you know examples where the countries wanted something while Gates and Co wanted something else?

That is the same link which GP gave and it did not have any examples. Not sure why you linked it again

So let me ask again, do you known any specific examples?

More details here: https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/oaklandinstitute.org/...

Are you serious? This is almost too goofy to merit a response.

Yes, when a billionaire gives away billions of dollars he's not accountable to anybody else. Why the heck would he be? If he were, then he wouldn't have donated it in the first place but would have just "invested it" in a company he created and controlled.

There's no way to spin this where donating to a charity is more evil than what all the other .1%s do, hoard it.

It isn't that goofy, and it's a known issue in providing international aid. If I provide a country with agricultural issues a number of tractors, but then outsize repair, maintenance and consumable costs for operating the tractors while also ignoring the social issues associated with the donation, my donation of resources can cause downstream problems for the aid recipient which dwarf the benefit provided by the donation itself.

That said, without concrete examples of emergent issues, I err on the side of praising aid efforts rather than condemning them.

> Are you serious? This is almost too goofy to merit a response.

Unfortunately, I suspect the poster is dead serious. This is why I don't recommend trying to appease socialists. It is never enough and they'll never be happy until we're all 'equal'.

The first time I came across this phenomenon was while listening to Thomas Piketty on YouTube and he went on and on about how the philanthropic approach Gates and people like him (the wealthy) were taking to solve the world's problems was flawed. I couldn't believe it! Piketty disapproved of Gates' donations and his philanthropy on the basis that one cannot donate to a charity that one still controls. To him that was ridiculous despite the fact that Gates' foundation has done a remarkable job thus far; more than Piketty - with all his socialist nonsense - will ever do in a million lifetimes.

The irony is that, the first time I heard of Piketty was via Gates' reading list on his website.

The mistake that some wealthy people are making is that they assume that they can appease socialists. You can't. They'll always want more or everything if you let them!

Think about it for a second. He didn't really give the money away he gave it to a charity he controls. That gift reduced the amount of taxes flowing to the public/government vs if he cashed in the stocks himself personally.

You and I are paying more on a percentage basis to the government.

> Think about it for a second. He didn't really give the money away he gave it to a charity he controls.

He is in fact giving immense sums of his money away. You should indeed think about it for a second. The Gates Foundation has expended tens of billions of dollars so far.

Fact quote from their site:

"Total grant payments since inception (through Q4 2016): $41 billion"

"Total 2016 Direct Grantee Support: $4.3 billion"

That is an extraordinary sum already. That money is gone, it is not under their control. They're spending $4.x billion per year at this point, that money is non-recoverable, it gets spent. Over time, the fortune is extinguished, as they're forced to give 5% per year. Get it?

Every charitable endeavour gets accused of this kind of thing at some point. Even Mother Teresa [1]. Big money without any strings attached doesn't exist. What's the alternative? Government aid is no better in this regard.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/25...