This is not as rare as the article says. In fact, giving my experience around rich people I would say it it the normal thing.<p>Most people believe what mass media tells them. The media talks about the actors, but not about the producers, they talk about the young sport star but not so much about the owner of the team, and so on.<p>And the main reason is: Most of them don't want to be famous, they don't want people stalking them for money whenever they go, or someone kidnapping their children. They don't need to show off their money. They live in good, but normal houses, and drive a 10 year car.<p>Most of them already made themselves, they don't need external recognition when they have the internal one. Most of them were naysed when they started their business(most people tell you "it wont work") or wanted to create something new and survived extreme negativity, so they are quite indifferent about what other people think about them(when you are super rich everybody wants to be your friend and the same person who told you "it wont work" the most now tells you "I always believed you were going to make it").<p>You have lots of them writing in HN with pseudonym. Like writers they want their words to carry a message from itself, not from the authority of the person who writes them, and it lets them interact with intelligent people in an equal level.
IMO the media should leave these donors alone. Charity is a great thing, and anonymous donors should be encouraged. They are giving their money without seeking any fame or other publicity from their generosity.
This is voyeurism, not journalism. These people are not interested in being public persons, and it doesn't take much thought to understand why. Leave them alone so they can do their work in peace.
Sorry. I had to bail out on the second page when the author wanted to pivot from "hey look, all these billions showing up to save the world!" to "the public has a right to know how these people made their money and why they're spending it the way they are"<p>No, we do not.<p>Then there was an argument that if these people hadn't have spent their money anonymously, the money would be available to the government to spend as it chose.<p>At that point I decided my 20 minutes were best spent somewhere on the net that had a higher caliber of analytic thought.
Off-topic question for the professional scientists in the room.<p>The OP reports individual donors contributing in excess of $100 million to particular causes. We've spoken often here about the various inefficiencies in the current research structures: top scientists spending too much time writing grants; disincentives for the curiosity-driven research that often leads to breakthroughs, etc.<p>So the question: is investment on the order of $100M+ sufficient to set up a private research facility with research "done right"? (By which I mean, of course, the way I would do it. :) ) It's easy to imagine a private facility that recruits top-notch but frustrated scientists from various schools, sets some important problems for them, and sets them free from grant writing, publishing pressures, etc.<p>The obvious objection is that the donor would call the shots and subvert the research... but on the other hand these sorts of donors are already willing to just fund research with no personal input into process.
I think the article raises some legit questions on how nearly $50B of tax money is being managed, not by the government, but by the criteria of private donors. The author also implies some lack of coordination in between scientists' and donor's priorities. I wonder how the public could measure philanthropy's performance. Having competing or independent research groups a productive thing? Or is it better to centralize efforts? Could it end up raising health care costs due to increased demand on biotech resources? Are there flaws in Gates' education initiatives? How can the public get a better saying on how this money is funneled into public institutions or even politics?<p>Not that I think government is immune to uncoordinated, flawed spending. Or that we need regulation. Or that we need to tax the rich to the fullest. Charity is a great thing. But imagine the absurd: that private donors donated to road construction foundations, and you end up getting two parallel highways that go from A to B. Wouldn't that be just a plain waste of a country's wealth, even if it belongs to private donors?<p>This reminds me of the story about how certain NGOs took used clothes from rich countries straight to Africa, only to realize how that was damaging these countries' textile industry. Nowadays many NGOs have adopted a more constructive approach in Africa or countries simply banned these shipments [1].<p>TGS Management's money is also somewhat exaggeratedly, if not suspiciously, split into many cascading foundations and companies, which also should raise an eyebrow or two whatever their reasons may be. Investigative journalism, and hopefully the transparency and insight it provides, can be powerful for setting long-term, effective goals for donors and charity that are in everyone's interest.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mariah-griffinangus/africa-charity_b_1623561.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mariah-griffinangus/africa-char...</a>
Bear with me as I'm an econ neophyte, but if as Wikipedia suggests the US stock market holds about 20 trillion USD, and the average rate of return is 10%, is 2 trillion a good estimate for how much is made in the US stock market annually?
<i>His investing success, he told the newspaper, was “all a matter of chance. It certainly wasn’t because I worked 5,000 times as hard as the average person, or was 5,000 times smarter than the average person.”</i><p>Huh, turns out he's about 5,0000 times smarter than the average billionaire that never realizes this.
Hmm.. yup.. looks like the stock market is just chalk full of Robin Hoods who are so humble they don't want any recognition.<p>Either that or some guys got filthy rich using questionably legal means, felt guilty so they started giving a lot of it away, and are worried they might get caught if they become well-known.
Mind = Blown! One of the most exciting stories I read on the internet. Not only the story is awesome, the writing also stands out. Kudos to the author: Zachary R. Mider.