Google's Philanthropy

[interlution]

"GOOGLE'S PHILANTRHOPY TAKES DIFFERENT TACK: FOR-PROFIT... MORE... Founders of GOOGLE have set up philanthropy, giving it seed money of $1 billion and a mandate to tackle poverty, global warming, NYT and others will report on Thursday. But unlike most charities, this one will be for-profit, allowing it to fund startup companies, form partnerships with venture capitalists, and even lobby Congress... Developing..." - from drudgereport.com

What do you think of this?

I totally agree with the idea. I don't understand why people, like Warren Buffet for example, give billions to charity to spend when they could set up a for-profit business or investment fund and spin a large percentage of the profits off to charity forever. Buffet even put a time limit on his donation to make sure it would be spent quickly. This makes no sense to me, especially coming from apparently the smartest business person in the world. Am I wrong? Don't you think charities instead of taking several billion dollars up front, which they'd probably spend immediately, wouldn't they rather collect a billion dollars a year for the forseeable future?

 

[droplister]

warren buffet is a different thing though, he could want to see it all spent soon because he doesnt want to leave all sorts of money behind when he dies. If he sets a time he can help oversee all the money if the money was spent slowly and he died and there was 30 billion bouncing around there would surely be a few lawsuits trying to get hold of the money. Google's for profit is smart it allows the available funds to dontate and use dynamic and highly likely to rise as opposed to a static available fund or depleting funds.

 

[NameYourself]

It's an innovative idea, and a good one at that. People might not like it or may even object to it at first, but if the for-profit model has proven to be a success over many years in getting organizations to reach their goals, sustain themselves, and continue to grow. Then why not apply that same model for growth in the area of solving world problems.

 

[interlution]

What I don't get with Buffet is he obviously has access to the best lawyers in the world, you mean to tell me he couldn't setup a fund/will/trust that exactly meets his requirements for future donations? It seems selfish to me to want to oversee the second largest personal fortune in the world be given away in your lifetime. I don't see how a lawyer couldn't create a document that would outline Buffit's wishes. He gave 30 billion dollars away, conservative interest on that of 8% a year, that'd be over 2 billion a year profit. Buffit will live 15 more years... I don't get it. 2 billion a year for the forseeable future is better than 30 billion now. You could compensate for inflation by only giving a portion of the interest or profits away and let the rest grow. A for profit charity may also increase its' donations over time.

Businesses already milk the generosity of consumers "for charity". They put a label on stuff that says "a portion of your money goes to save the rain forest" then you read it and only like a few cents actually goes to charity. People will usually choose the product that says "a portion goes to charity" over a regular product.

Imagine if the sole purpose of a business was to donate the most it can to charity.

 

[denny007]

1.
After Buffett dies - if lot money left, someone would try to claim insanity for sure.
2.
It is proved that businesses without real owner does not work well, can not compete. Business where the owner would be actually unknown would bancrupt sooner or later.

 

[interlution]

I guess I'm too idealistic with the idea of charitable trusts...

Some Google links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/t...?hp&ex=1158292800&en=0715e3c0dff465e2&ei=5094

Looks like they're setting it up on Google.org:

http://google.org