Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- This Is Cardboard. Also Entirely Recycled, Water and Fireproof, and Dirt Cheap.
- Sen. Sanders: Wall Street CEOs are the 'Faces of Class Warfare'
- Change Is Coming: Factory Farms' Days May Be Numbered
- The Rise of the Sharing Communities
- Sec. of State Hopeful Susan Rice Reportedly Holds 600k Stake in Keystone XL Decision
Popular content
Today's Top News
Julian Assange Vows to Reveal Tax Details of 2,000 Wealthy People
Swiss banker gives WikiLeaks founder data 'to educate society' about amount of potential tax revenues lost to offshore schemes
Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, today pledged to make public the confidential tax details of 2,000 wealthy and prominent individuals, after being passed the data by a Swiss banker who claims the information potentially reveals instances of money-laundering and large-scale illegal tax evasion.
In a carefully choreographed handover in central London, Rudolf Elmer, formerly a senior executive at the Swiss bank Julius Baer, based in the Cayman islands, said he was handing the data to WikiLeaks as part of an attempt "to educate society" about the amount of potential tax revenues lost thanks to offshore schemes and money-laundering.
"As banker, I have the right to stand up if something is wrong," he said. "I am against the system. I know how the system works and I know the day-to-day business. I wanted to let society know how this system works because it's damaging society," he said.
Elmer will appear in a Swiss court on Wednesday charged with breaking Swiss banking secrecy laws, forging documents and sending threatening messages to two officials at his former employer.
He denies the charges.
He refused to comment on the period of time covered by the data, contained on two compact discs, or the precise source of the information; nor would he give the names of any corporations or individuals whose details he was handing over, saying that the information needed to be "investigated" before it was released into the public domain.
Assange, making his first public appearance since being bailed in December on sex assault allegations, for which Sweden is seeking his extradition, said he would pass the information to the Serious Fraud Office(SFO), examine it to ensure sources were protected, and then release it on the WikiLeaks site, potentially within "a couple of weeks".
"Once we look at the data, yes, there will be full disclosure," he said.
He would not be drawn on questions relating to the extradition case, which will be heard at Belmarsh magistrates court on 7 February, or on other leaks the site has promised are forthcoming, including information involving a "big US bank", which many believe to be Bank of America.
The site was not yet fully functional, he said. "We are not open yet for public business. The volume of material that we would receive is too high for our internal mechanisms, but we are receiving in other ways, like this, in this manner," he said. The release of leaked US diplomatic cables, which the site originally released through the Guardian and four other international media organisations, would continue, however. Elmer said he was passing the information to WikiLeaks because he had previously approached universities with the information but it had not been followed up. He said his attempts to interest the Swiss media had resulted only in his being dismissed as "a paranoid person, a mentally ill person".
"I was close to giving up, but then a friend of mine told me: 'There's WikiLeaks.' I looked at it and thought: 'That's the only hope I have to [let] society know what's going on.'"
In 2008, he released to the site a much smaller collection of documents, also detailing the tax details of some of the bank's clients. Though the site has never published that information, Julius Baer succeeded briefly in shutting down Wikileaks.org before the site, supported by a number of US media and civil liberties organisations, succeeded in overturning the injunction. He also passed the information to the US tax authorities.
The data was later seen by the Guardian, which found "details of numerous trusts in which wealthy people have placed capital. This allows them lawfully to avoid paying tax on profits, because legally it belongs to the trust"; the data also "[appeared] to include several cases where wealthy individuals sought to use trust money as though it were their own".
In a statement to the Observer on Friday, Julius Baer said: "The aim of [Elmer's] activities was, and is, to discredit Julius Baer as well as clients in the eyes of the public. With this goal in mind, Mr Elmer spread baseless accusations and passed on unlawfully acquired, respectively retained documents to the media, and later also to WikiLeaks. To back up his campaign, he also used falsified documents."
A spokeswoman for the SFO said it would "consider allegations made to it to determine if the matter is within its jurisdiction and criteria for investigation or possibly for another authority to consider".
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
135 Comments so far
Show AllThe following words in Ms. Addley's piece caught my eye: "I was close to giving up, but then a friend of mine told me: 'There's WikiLeaks.' I looked at it and thought: 'That's the only hope I have to [let] society know what's going on.'"
In previous articles written by others, reporters have said: "Elmer has been hounded by the Swiss authorities and media since electing to become a whistleblower, and his health and career have suffered.
"'My understanding is that my client's attempts to get the banks to act over various complaints he made came to nothing internally,'" says Elmer's lawyer, Jack Blum, one of America's leading experts in tracking offshore money. "'Neither would the Swiss courts act on his complaints. That's why he went to WikiLeaks.'"
Of course Net Neutrality faces overwhelming opposition by corporate egoists who believe themselves masters of the universe and that the middle and lower classes "chose" or "deserve" what deprivations they have.
The truth is that money talks and only the rich can be heard in U.S. courts, so the little people have turned to Wikileaks and the Internet while they still can. My own attempts to get Sol Zepnick to pay $1,400 he owes me for work done on his self-published peon to the greatness of lawyers have fallen on deaf ears or were made impossible by the logistics of getting to court for an unemployed man. Once you become unemployed, the wealthy drop you like a hot potato. You are of no use to them. "Close" friends for nine years in the legal field, such as Cary Peynolds, Posh Jeck, or Schil Phatz don't need you, after pursuing you to pad their treasure chests. It's the corporate inhumanity of "Nothing personal, you understand, it's just business." No, I don't understand. As Obama said after the recent shooting in Arizona, we must speak civilly [and verbal abuse cuts as deep as physical abuse]. When the Internet--you can bet your corporation on it--no longer is in play for middle and lower classes to let off steam, they will stew in front of their TV sets watching a U.S. broadcast system that has turned into the one I saw in 1987 on a trip to Moscow, Kiev and Leningrad, having only three stations available nationwide, covering Soviet-written news, classical music, and soccer.
"A spokeswoman for the SFO said it would "consider allegations made to it to determine if the matter is within its jurisdiction and criteria for investigation or possibly for another authority to consider"."
Yeah, right. More likely, there will be a long drawn out investigation (so that people forget) before a decision is made that there is insufficient jurisdiction / inadmissible evidence.
The SFO is extremely diligent in going after the small fry. The big fish? The SFO is too cowardly.
BRAVO! Elmer, Julian and Wikileaks!
Let's hope he wears a condom with made Marian [speak into the clitoris].
Trylon
Agreed. And let's not forget about Bradley Manning.
Bradley Manning has been deteriorating in solitary confinement for months and hasn't even been to trial. He took far greater risk than Julian A.
Amen! And let's not forget Bradley Manning!
He has done more service for us than every other government employee.
I'm going to vote for him.
What stronger message could I send?
Yep!
Gave his word.
Broke his word.
That took courage.
He's only "courageous" because you LIKE what he did. If you didn't, you'd condemn him, too.
Did he give his word to cover up crimes?
Gave his word to protect information.
Not all information he leaked was "crime" related info.
Additionally, what's to say he had the whole story? Without the whole story, something may be a crime. Or, it may be something else.
A man shoots someone.
Crime?
A man shoots someone who has broken into his home & his life is in imminent danger.
Not a crime, given the entire story.
Nice try. If the information pertains to the u.s. government, then it is crime related.
Nice analogy. A helicopter guns down people walking down a street in a foreign nation. A crime? Or do you need the whole story?
Whole story.
Who were they? What were they doing there? Where were they going?
Just a couple of the necessary questions, honestly. Every story seems cut & dry until you dig a little.
And, sayin information tied to US Gov't is crime related is a broad & unfair over-generalization.
Well, OK. Go ahead. Tell us what they were doing there shooting up civilians into bloods bits of meat.
That's the point - I don't know the whole story & neither do you.
There are basic truths, one such might be that it is wrong to butcher unarmed and innocent civilians, whether journalists or not. One need not know the entire story to take some kind of stand. Try it sometime.
I'm sorry, but I 100% respectfully disagree with, "One need not know the entire story to take some kind of stand."
None of us CAN take stands without the entire story. In making assumptions, there's a chance your assumption is right & a chance your assumption is wrong. Take a stand when your assumption is wrong? Not good, wouldn't you agree?
You assume that partial knowledge, when overwhelming, is still not a reason to act. Too many use any excuse not to act.
...and partial knowledge can very much lead you to jump to conclusions.
..and some use any excuse to remain on the sidelines. Even partial knowledge should engender some desire to explore further, to begin to opine, to seek the rest.
Fair enough.
I think some people automatically discount certain sources b/c of difference of opinion, prejudice or whatever. I believe in any news story, whether it be CD or Fox or MSNBC or CNN, there's a kernel of truth...and a kernel of the author's spin/interpretation. Because, last I heard, all reporters are still human. They may make great strides to take their own spin off the article, but some spin will get through. It's not a bad thing, provided you know there's an element of spin involved.
One must also take into account how very difficult it has become to unearth the entire story. We all make leaps of logic, some based upon more intel some on less.
A body in motion tends to stay in motion, a body at rest is of no use to anyone ( politically speaking of course). With apologies to Isaac Newton.
I see credibility in Mr. Elmer's actions. The article said that the U.S governmet was given this informartion in 2008 too. I also remember sometime in 2009, I think, about an IRS anouncement.
52,000 people were getting hauled into the IRS. I remember a story of a Malibu man who had to pay up and got 5 years in jail too. I wonder if it was the same information from Mr. Elmer, as the timimg seems about right.
I also remembered the 52,000 crooks and how we never did find out their names and the whole thing was deep sixed by our corrupt IRS.
I want to see some names. Announcing that 2,000 rich people are tax dodgers is a nice lead in but I want to see Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, media moguls and corrupt movers and shakers with their names in lights next to the word "criminal".
Gates and Buffet are heroes; they've pledged essentially their entire fortunes to charity, and I don't mean the damn Harvard Endowment, I mean real people in need. Do not drag these GREAT men into the dirt. They have saved more lives with their generosity than practically anyone else on the planet!
There's two sides to every coin. In this case, undoubtedly several more.
First of all, Warren Buffett has PLEDGED to contribute in the future to the Gates Foundation. He's got a plan in place: http://tinyurl.com/4qgqx2m But if you read the fine print there are several conditions on this charitable donation, and to date less than 20% (by my reckoning) of the total amount pledged in 2006 has actually passed from Warren Buffett's control to the Gates Foundation.
As to the number of people saved by the Gates Foundation, I would say that the UN-FAO, WHO and Refugee Commission are all each individually as organizations saving more lives than the Gates Foundation. In fact, I'm a huge supporter of the UN model and I resent the efforts by Gates and Buffett to make world public health a matter of private charity instituted at the whim of financial aristocrats instead of a matter of democratically created and egalitarian managed social justice.
Let's be clear about what Gates and Buffett are up to here. They are in the business of consolidating the power in the realm of public health into their own hands. This is potentially disastrous, as who is to say what these two men will decide to focus on? There is no democratic input into their idiosyncratic executive decisions. There is no aspect of this emulating the successful social welfare models of Western Europe. This is old-fashioned and rapacious Anglo-American capitalist robber baron mentality being applied to the world's public health system.
This ought to raise some red flags, don't you think?
Gates, Microsoft and their lawyers have worked tirelessly in the international patents/licensing area. This work has resulted in many millions of Africans dying of aids due to lack of affordable medicine. While his work in Africa has saved many lives, his work with Microsoft has killed far many more.
Link please...Microsoft makes software, never heard of them in the pharmacological business....plus Gates has been out of Microsoft more than a few years now.
Some folks here would bitch about a wet dream, and the Gates Foundation, including Buffet's contributions to it, is exactly that, a dream come true for millions.
http://www.windows-vista-update.com/Bill_Gates.html
He has spent about a third of his lifetime income on charity, although some question his intentions. Journalist Greg Palast suggests that the Gates Foundation is used to make tactical donations to hide media sensitive humanitarian side effects of treaties, such as the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which Gates has supported. TRIPS requires countries to agree to respect drug and other patents, therefore preventing the local manufacture of existing pharmaceuticals still under patent such as AIDS drugs in Africa.
Your initial accusation, which is not addressed by your link, was that Gates somehow affected, or profited from, the AIDS epidemic. That Greg "suggests" that Gates' gifting somehow influences something or other is far from proof, and represents, in my opinion, a fixation on Gates' piratical past and not his current humanitarian efforts.
doubledee,
Wonderful comment. I agree 100% that Gates fortune was based on "piratical" behavior.
Where I disagree is with your leap of faith that Gates is no longer a pirate.
Cheers
Let me try and explain this to you again. Gate's support of TRIPS and enforcement of international patents and intellectual property rights had the side effect of empowering pharma to strip the rights of African nations to produce generic AIDS medication. Surely you can see how both Microsoft and pharma had common interests in regards to international patents and intellectual property rights. Millions have died as a result of his efforts. He in turn uses his philanthropy to spackle over this ugly skeleton in his closet. Whether it is this effort or his effort to privatize public education, the man's philanthropy is a fraud. I never made the allegation that he profited from the AIDS epidemic. That said, you look at the stock investments of his foundation and it's the who's who of corporate criminality. It included a nice portfolio of big pharma that he may or may not have sold off.
Once more, into the breach....You really,truly stretch to implicate Gates in the abuses of Big Pharma. Gates was ( or is) a capitalist, thus he supports patents and property rights. That others use those to ill purpose is not the fault of Bill Gates. You know, Lefty, with all the wealthy folks in this world, doing little to nothing to make anything better except their own lives, I find your almost pathological view of Gates and his charities to be extremely puzzling.
As to the portfolio of the Gates Foundation:
http://gatesfoundationstockportfolio.com/
All pharma stocks sold.
I know these points require critical thought process and that makes for a difficult discussion. The laws weren't used for ill purpose. They were used as written.
There's nothing pathological about these points. They are very real. Gate's philanthropy revolves around his own business and political interests. It's fairly obvious. Whether it is privatization of schools or attempting to minimize the damage of his own business practices, the common thread exists.
In the final analysis, a modest shift in income disparities throughout the world would have tremendous impact. Wealth hoarding as witnessed by Gates and his cohorts should be recognized for what it is. This business of charity with strings attached is nothing more than fraud. Recognize it for what it is.
As I stated, he may or may not have sold off all his pharma stock. It doesn't matter. He did own it, he did take profit.
I believe that we both think the other rather lacking in "critical thought processes". I cannot fathom, for example, how your pretzel logic involves Gates in the machinations of the Pharmaceutical Industry simply because both Gates and the CEO's of that industry are believers in capitalism.
Further you continue to post imaginary "facts" regarding the Gates Foundation and the work it does world wide. There are numerous awards and honors accumulated by that Foundation, some from the UN you claimed to be uninvolved in it. That both Gates and Buffet are pledged to give away most of their fortunes, a mind boggling sum in fact, and do do without remuneration, though you desperately try to say it ain't so, should give you pause. But there is that "critical thinking thingie" after all.
You continue to insist that Gates has an ulterior motive in his gifting, insist without a shred of evidence excepting your apparent hard on against him. Just the way you condemn him for his Big Pharma holdings then , after being shown that the Foundation divested itself of them, say it doesn't matter because, after all, he once had them. Such a silly man you seem, and one with no clue as to how to achieve progress I fear.
It is so very easy to sit in your home disparaging anything and everything. A bit harder to compromise and find allies in an attempt to move forward. But do not despair, you imitation activist, others are doing your job for you. Stay close to your refrigerator and your comfy couch.
For my part I walk away from this particular conversation, as speaking to one with his hands firmly clasped over his ears and his eyes quite shut seems silly enough.
His work on crafting international law regarding intellectual property and patents allowed drug manufacturers to deny generic manufacture of drugs which in turn caused millions of people to die. Talk about eyes and ears shut.
As for his educational charity, it is well documented that it is wrapped up as part of privatization schemes. He made an offer in my own home city and fortunately, they told him to take a hike.
If you think touting a system and its leaders that has resulted in the gross inequalities we see on the planet is moving forward, I have bad news for you. This great system imperils the life of every creature on the planet. Over-populated, over-polluted, over-armed, pick your poison.
As a last comment I wish to thank you for opening my eyes. All those demonstrations, all that work for candidates, all those appearances before local government petitioning for this or that, all unnecessary!
All I had to do was stop Bill Gates and all would be well...Who knew?
Phobic much? All this time wasted on destroying the reputation of a man who gives away billions to good causes, despite your sketchy and doubtful opinions to the contrary. I would hate to hear what you think of Mother Teresa and Albert Schweitzer.....
Where did I attack your personal accomplishments? Is this some new hypersensitive discussion technique? When your opponent fails to perform an ad hominem attack, attack yourself.
I am not wasting time destroying Bill Gate's reputation. His reputation precedes him and his massive wealth speaks for itself. I can remember discussing a variation of this issue a couple of years ago with you. The results were identical. In spite of the fact that the cold war has ended, in spite of the fact that capitalism is the pre-eminent ideology of the world, in spite of the fact that billionaires are popping up all over the place, in spite of all these things, one billion people on this planet are starving TODAY, half the world's population lives on two dollars a day or less. At some point you have to come to the realization that all these billionaires are part and parcel the problem, human exploitation is indeed the name of the game.
The implication that I should hold Bill Gates in the same light as Mother Teresa is laughable. You can lead a horse to water...
Wait a minute!
You're saying protection of patents & intellectual property rights is bad?
Really?
So, I invent some awesome machine/medicine/software/whatever...
And, anyone can produce it & make money off my work? I reap NO benefits?!?
How is that fair?!? Why do I not reap any benefits for my work?
The capitalist laws of supply and demand are tricky business. How much would you pay for that life saving medicine? How much would you pay for a gallon of gasoline to get to work? How much would you pay for home heating so you do not freeze to death in the winter? Answer: Pretty much your last dollar.
Let's take big pharma and AIDS in Africa as another example. These people weren't part of an industrialized society that could pay the big bucks for the medicine. Big pharma had a couple of choices. They could negotiate generic production of these drugs with these poorer nations, extract a modest profit and millions of people could live. The other option was to withhold the medication and let millions of people die. They chose the latter.
This is a classic example of vampire capitalism at work. When people talk about the sociopaths and psychopaths that now run our country, this is a prime example of that fact. They always reap benefits. That isn't the issue. Fairness never enters the equation as evidenced by the huge number of people dead because the benefits were insufficient in their minds. I hope this helps.
Interesting...
When I mention to ObamaCare supporters that ObamaCare isn't going to actually solve anything because it didn't address what CAUSES high medical bills (the fact Big Pharma charges US patients more than overseas patients or the fact Big Pharma posts 20+% profit vs health insurance companies' < 15% profit), they get mad, b/c "it's the insurance companies, not the drug companies"
Meanwhile, the AIDS epidemic in Africa is b/c of Big Pharma.
How is it Big Pharma's profits in Africa are the problem there, but the fact they charge US more ISN'T the cause of healthcare issues in the US?
On top of that, a Big Pharma that DOESN'T operate in the black is worthless. If they operate in the red, they may produce this drug, but there will no more R&D for the next. So, you cannot condemn them for making a profit, when the ONLY way for them to continue operating is to MAKE a profit.
Finally, you DO realize the minute they begin generic production, the company loses. The generic will NOT be limited to just the poorer nations. Which goes back to what I said above - the company operates in the red, then or doesn't operate enough in the black to fund the next R&D program.
BUT, I see what you're saying. "fairness never enters the equation" - After all, the scientists who did the R&D shouldn't be paid for their efforts, hard work & expertise. The company shouldn't recoup their R&D dollars. To suggest either of these things would suggest we are "fair" to those employees, but, as you said, "fairness never enters the equation"
But, wait...why do I see commercials on TV that I can sponsor someone's medical needs in these poorer nations for just $0.80 a day? Big Pharma CAN'T be a vampire capitalist, if the drugs are available for $0.80 a day, right?
So, lemme get all this straight...
~ Big Pharma invests in R&D & develops a drug
~ Rather than post profits, pay their R&D department, etc, they should sacrifice at that point to help millions of people at a major discount
~ This major discount for the poor millions will mean there will be "black market" generics, meaning they will have no capital for the next R&D project & the company disappears - meaning no new drugs of any kind
~ And, this is okay
Fact is, yes, it would be a WONDERFUL world if people would bust their @$$e$ to learn how to do R&D of whatever type - construction, medicine, pharmaceuticals, etc...then, work their @$$e$ off to share that knowledge with anyone & everyone, but not receive proper compensation for it, just in the name of helping their worldwide neighbors. It would be wonderful if the entire world were on board.
Fact is, the world isn't. It won't ever be, unless there is a world-wide communist society where no one matters at all, but the collective does.
This is why these concepts are naive. Reality shows this concept may work on a small scale, but to suggest it work on the largest of scales is wishful thinking at best. You can't tell me you don't realize this - you can't MAKE someone bust their @$$ for everyone around them & sacrifice of themselves non-stop. It's just not feasible, I'm afraid.
You saw a commercial on TV and this is your rebuttal to the fact that millions of people died of AIDS due to lack of medicine. You're off into the weeds regarding ObamaCare, profit margins and R&D. Anything to avoid the basic point that this capitalist system would rather let people die than let the pie get spread around. Half the world's population lives on $2 a day or less, 1% of the world's population own 40% of the world's assets. This disparity of wealth, security and education is a huge problem. We can dance around it all we want.
As for the inventor who made good, I can't help but think of the guy who invented the intermittent windshield wiper. The corporations basically stole his idea, implemented it and didn't pay him a penny. He went through years of litigation and eventually eeked out a few million. Such is the nature of casino capitalism and visions of grandeur. I do a lot of R&D for my company and if one of my ideas allows them to make wads of cash, you can rest assured I won't be seeing any fair share. I need to bust my @$$ and sacrifice non-stop for shareholder equity. That's the ticket. It says so at the top of my company's mission statement so it must be true. I go to work to survive. Such is the nature of our specialized society. Which reminds me...
I'm not in the weeds. We reformed HOW a medical bill is paid - we did NOTHING to how the bill gets so high. Which means tax dollars pay the increasing costs vs individuals. Solved nothing.
And, your sarcasm isn't lost on me - do you REALLY think there's gonna be this myopic "world peace" & everyone lives off the same amount of money & life is just sunshine & roses? REALLY?
What's the motivation to work hard, then? There's none. There's no reward.
I won't lie - it's a BEAUTIFUL & NOBLE concept! What a wonderful world it would be! But, it's not gonna happen. Rather than tryin to push a concept that can NEVER exist, why not improve how we survive in what we have?
Hate to break it to everyone, but NOT everyone is perfectly equal - we're not equally smart, equally talented, equally anything. It's the truth & deep down, you know it.
I didn't write anything in the above post that was intended to be sarcastic. Whilst I prepare my Miss America speech on a daily basis in regards to world peace and butterfly nets, I didn't really touch on that subject in the posts above. Howze that for sarcasm? I am not talking about beautiful and noble concepts. I am talking about MODEST shifts in wealth. I am talking about decent pay and responsible development that takes into account ALL the costs. A modicum of respect for our fellow humans, fellow earthlings and the planet herself. Such changes do not imply the elimination of incentives and some sort of compulsive drive to equality.
I appreciate the discussion and your lack of hypersensitivity. Rare commodities these days.
"So, lemme get all this straight...
~ Big Pharma invests in R&D & develops a drug
~ Rather than post profits, pay their R&D department, etc, they should sacrifice at that point to help millions of people at a major discount"
Do your homework! The great majority of the funding for drug research comes from the government, in several forms. Thus there certainly is an obligation on the part of the drug company, one you seem to have missed.
From the link to your "statistical evidence":
The future of the gift
As Warren wrote in his annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders on March 1, 2007, he has stipulated in his will that the proceeds from the Berkshire Hathaway shares he still owns at death are to be used for philanthropic purposes within 10 years after his estate has been settled. This direction will affect any remaining shares that were included in his 2006 pledge to the foundation.
There are also three key conditions attached to the pledge:
* Either Bill or Melinda Gates must be alive and actively involved in the management of the foundation.
* The foundation must continue to satisfy the legal requirements qualifying Warren’s gift as charitable, exempt from gift or other taxes.
* Starting in 2008, the total value of the previous year’s gift must be spent. This means that in 2009, the foundation must spend at least the amount that was gifted in 2008, in addition to the amount we would be required to spend under federal tax law.
'''''''''
I fail to see how this is anything but a good thing, nor does the money come with ownership of the charities so gifted. I fail to understand why some find fault with everything......
That you "resent" so many billions being used for good is a strange position indeed. That you quibble that so much remains unspent is simply a ridiculous and rather pointless objection, in my own opinion, especially considering both the size of the contribution and the impact that liquidation of such an enormous amount of stock would have upon its value. I suggest to you that this need to maintain the value of the gift is the key to its slow dispersion rather than some "nefarious plot"..
Buffet has refused all compensation from Berkshire Hathaway for many years now. The Gates Foundation is doing incredible work in funding necessary causes world wide. Yet there remain those who, like termites, nibble at everything, contributing nothing.
On a different tack..I cannot help but wonder how long it will be before this whistle blower is charged with rape, or some other crime......
You don't address his two major points:
1. to date less than 20% (by my reckoning) of the total amount pledged in 2006 has actually passed from Warren Buffett's control to the Gates Foundation
2. He's not working within the framework of UN humanitarian efforts. Why?
As to #1 I certainly did address that non-issue. Read my explanation for the liquidation of stock coupled with the need to keep the value of said shares as high as possible. Do you not understand how the market works?
#2. So? When I make my yearly contributions I do not work through the UN either, though I did buy UNICEF Xmas cards this year. I cannot help but note that this is an absurd objection. Many large contributions are made, though none quite so large as Buffet and Gates. What on earth would make you insist upon working through the UN?
Oops..on a hunch I used a search engine, you have heard of them have you not? Lo and behold, I found you to be completely lacking in the facts,what a surprise!
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/speeches-commentary/Pages/william-gates-sr-2010-un-population-award.aspx
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/speeches-commentary/Pages/melinda-french-gates-unga-address-09222010.aspx
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/press-releases/Pages/united-nations-development-announces-glob@l-libraries-bulgaria-09-05-28.aspx
So, the Gates Foundation does indeed work through the UN....to whom do you answer?
None of your links are functional.
http://mphdegree.org/2010/20-facts-and-myths-about-the-gates-foundation-global-public-health-programs/
This article talks about Gate's public health efforts. No mention of the UN. I'm not continuing with this. Ray can buttress his own argument as it wasn't mine in the first place.
whoops, they don't work...Google ( or Bing) 'Gates Foundation and the United Nations'.. Three of the first four entries are what I tried to link to. Apparently that Foundation does indeed work with and through the UN.
The importance of that information is only to show that Ray hasn't much of a clue, and your defense of that carelessness sort of drags you down there with him. I only rise to defend Gates' Foundation, and Buffets contribution to it because the criticism is so much garbage, and because I am sick unto death of those who shite all over every honest effort by every damn individual who dares do something honest and honorable. No way to gain allies or make progress, but that may very well be that poster's aim.