A powerful investigation of Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation, showing how he uses philanthropy to exercise enormous political power without accountability
Through his vaunted philanthropy, Bill Gates transformed himself from a tech villain into one of the most admired people on the planet. Even as divorce proceedings and allegations of misconduct have recently tarnished his public image, the beneficence of the Gates Foundation, celebrated for spending billions to save lives around the globe, is taken as a given. But as Tim Schwab shows in this fearless investigation, Gates is still exactly who he was at Microsoft: a bully and monopolist, convinced of his own righteousness and intent on imposing his ideas, his solutions, and his leadership on everyone else. At the core, he is not a selfless philanthropist but a power broker, a clever engineer who has innovated a way to turn extreme wealth into immense political influence—and who has made us believe we should applaud his acquisition of power, not challenge it.
Piercing the blinding halo that has for too long shielded the world’s most powerful (and most secretive) charitable organization from public scrutiny, The Bill Gates Problem shows how Gates’s billions have purchased a stunning level of control over public policy, private markets, scientific research, and the news media. Whether he is pushing new educational standards in America, health reforms in India, global vaccine policy during the pandemic, or Western industrialized agriculture throughout Africa, Gates’s heady social experimentation has shown itself to be not only undemocratic, but also ineffective. In many places, Bill Gates is hurting the very people he intends to help.
No less than dark-money campaign contributions or big-business political lobbying, Bill Gates’s philanthropic empire needs to be seen as a problem of money in politics. It is a dangerous model of unconstrained power that threatens democracy and demands our attention.
If you saw someone reading this book in a cafe, I am not sure you would be able to immediately decipher their political leanings. This speaks to the bipartisan support against extremely wealthy individuals using their economic power to translate into more political power which reinforces their economic power in a recursive cycle.
This book is a candidate for book of the year for me. I contrast this book with Ida Tarbell's seminal book on the history of standard oil at the height of their monopoly powers. The reason I say this, Tarbell's book was widely influential by bringing to light to the American people the corrosive impact of monopoly power. This book brings to light the immense power the Gates foundation has on our lives but more importantly it showcases the political power of billionaire philanthropy and how it can be weaponized to dilute democracy rather than embrace it. The book's central thesis is not just a referendum on the Gates foundation but the entire economic system of allowing the billionaire class to park their wealth into tax free structures that maximizes their ability to influence the political process from every aspect with 0 accountability and 0 oversight. The Gates foundation has tentacles in agriculture, education, climate change, vaccine production and many mores ares of our lives. Should one individual who is not elected by the people, who is not representative of the people and who has a spider web of conflicts of interest be trusted with this much influence of our day to day lives? This is the premise of the book, with that being said, lets jump in.
Bill Gates is a billionaire. Holding the richest person in the world title for many many many years. He was able to amass a fortune through the monopoly power and strategic corporate takeovers of other software companies through his main company called Microsoft. Microsoft enjoys monopolies in many fields till this very day. For those of you who have had the pleasure of using his shitty software products like Microsoft Teams and many other programs. His products have been in our lives for decades, most of the time against our will. This is solely how Gates built his fortune and from that fortune he would eventually create his foundation. His foundation has donated billions but has also made billions to the point where he has been able to create a profit from his numerous givings that make you question the foundations very purpose. The Gates foundation is ran by Gates and he is the prime decision maker, it is a top down system that has not only become bloated with large staffs but every decision rans through Gates himself. He views himself as an expert, not an expert on one field but all fields. Gates reputation from numerous sources from past colleagues is that he believes he is the smartest man in the room and if you disagree with him, you're an idiot. Gates, one of the ultimate technocrats who believes his scores on standardized tests and immense wealth gives him the false sense of superiority to believe that he knows more than you. This type of psychological complex of someone with so much power and influence is obviously dangerous, you don't have to be a psychiatrist to see this. You might be thinking, "Maukan, this guys has donated billions and saved millions of lives! He is choosing to donate all of his money to move humanity forward! What other billionaire is doing this, clearly you're biased". Great point, let's discuss Gates's record.
Bill Gates often gives different numbers of lives his foundation has saved. One year its 6 million and the next its 10 million. If you make the mistake of criticizing Gates influences on any main stream platforms they will have a stroke, almost beginning to cry with emphatic and persuasive lines like "but he saves millions of lives!". This is a very central point to the book that we will get back to but reader I want you to remember this portion, keep it floating in the background because this response is important. When you give a closer look at the figures the Gates foundations gives on the lives saved, the studies that. are giving these estimates are funded by the foundation itself. Not to mention, it takes credit as the causation for the lives saved when there is no way you can make that claim when factoring in government infrastructure like access to resources, roads etc. The thing is the media takes Gates's foundations claims as truth and run away with it without any rigorous scrutiny. Why is this? The Gates foundation has a network system of donations that is so complex and opaque but funnels billions of dollars to media institutions, think tanks, universities etc etc. The Gates foundation does not explicitly state what they want researchers or news stations to say but the implication is clear, provide favorable coverage or research that agrees with out priorities and dollars will continue to flow. This is one of the main reasons why negative coverage of the Gates foundation is so uncommon. Gates has bought off everyone not to mention his organization is clouded in secrecy. If you criticize Gates, it could mean you will be blacklisted from everywhere since he is involved in so many issues and so many organizations. The foundations reach has infiltrated every corner of our lives and at every state level. One researcher claimed she was specifically forced by the foundation to publish research to disapprove a process the foundation disagreed with and it was willing to pay and fund this motive. The research was done in a way that did not meet scientific standards and she ended up quitting because she thought this was unethical. There are numerous publications from prestigious academics or journalists who do not disclose that they're in fact being paid by the Gates foundation, often times appearing in main stream platforms. News organizations will not reveal if they have received donations from the Gates foundation even when covering Gates. This speaks to the sheer power Gates has where he can effectively block criticism from an entire nation with the right incentives for ones career. This represents a power that is not compatible with democracy. To be clear, I am sure Gates has saved lives but not to the degree he states and more importantly it begs the question is the trade off worth it? Why can't we have this power and influence within our governing body rather than an independent actor who answers to no one? What is Gates track record?
If you look at Gates track record, it is a string of failures. Colossal failures that are reshaped and propagandized to make it seem like progress was made. Gates, who is a free market fundamentalist, who believes the government should not interfere in the market place. Maintaining the position to let the market operate on its own. This contradicts this with his foundation that acts like a government but with no accountability, in a top down technocratic way that is often times not aligned with the very populations the foundation is claiming to help. They set the priorities, everything is done through the lens Gates's sees fit, not something that is chosen by the people at large. This is a major contradictor to the Neo liberal free market consensus. Gates's foundations receives tax dollars from you and I. It then intervenes with social policy based on Gates's views that he clouds with "experts" but its "experts" that match his own ideology not ones that we vote on. For instance Gates's states publicly that he should not interfere in a democratic process in his own city of Seattle where some reform was being voted on, publicly he said we should let the people vote but privately he donated millions through groups for the agenda he wanted to pass. This is not democracy, when a billionaire can influence social policy on every level, effectively costing him nothing. This is what the foundation does. Which brings us to the conflicts of interest.
Gates's has many private ventures that are intertwined with the foundation itself. It makes it hard to spot where does his private business affairs end and where does his charitable foundation begin? This foundation like I have stated receives tax payer money and it is a massive political donator. Records show that they spent up to millions of dollars sending senators and congress members on first class flights around the country and globe to lobby them for favorable influence on voting matters. Gates's is able to take his money in private matters and potentially invest his foundations money in business he may have a personal stake in a tax free way. This is why we should always be suspicious of any billionaires motives even when it comes to philanthropy. There is a reason why his foundation has made billions in profit. Let me come back to a point where I may have overstated many times but its important to make this clear.
Remember when I mentioned media members almost crying in defense of criticism of Gates's? This peals back the curtain that if Gates's failures as a foundation are made known and questioned. It is a mortal wound in the heart of Neo liberalism. The mantra that billionaires can give back to society and make a positive difference is something that is religiously believed in the media. If this is questioned.. It signals that billionaires building there wealth in tax free ways and then distributing them into tax free charitable foundations do not actually bring the benefits that justify their ability to gain the wealth in the first place. It calls into question the entire premise of why the government should not be involved when individuals gain this much influence over our lives in undemocratic ways. It questions the heart of neo liberalism where successful businessmen and women does not transfer to successful social policy and the myth that the government should let private actors do as they please when it comes to their mega foundations comes into light.
This is why I think this book is 5 stars, there are chapters and claims that I did not agree with entirely but I believe this is an incredibly important book and topic. I would recommend it.
I have a longstanding bias against Bill Gates so my review is definitely going to reflect that. This book was chock full of information about the foundation and Bill himself. To be honest, it lowered my opinion of him even further. It gave me a glimpse behind the curtain on how these non profit companies use their money to influence politics to sway things in their favor. Basically using their non profit to push their agenda on people whether or not it’s founded in facts or what is best for the world. Their opinions rule and that is not okay. Props to the author for putting this all together, especially with the lack of participation from certain parties.
American billionaires Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Mackenzie Scott, and Mark Zuckerberg have together pledged hundreds of billions of dollars to philanthropy in the past couple of decades. In this endeavor, Gates, Scott, and Buffet receive much indulgence from the media, unlike Bezos and Zuckerberg. In this book, Tim Schwab questions the media’s adulation of Gates and Buffet, and raises fundamental questions about the Gates Foundation’s (GF) model of billionaire philanthropy. He spells out its deleterious fallouts on society, inequality and democracy. While challenging the GF, he asserts that the fight against wealth inequality, colonialist thinking, and rich nations' cultural biases and influence are associated struggles. He suggests the GF’s acts of charity function as a tool of power and control around the world. The book is a polemical critique of the Gates Foundation’s role in the world in vaccine production, managing Covid-19 in the US, school education and agricultural interventions in Africa.
The book contains fifteen chapters, each one investigating one aspect of the Gates Foundation’s involvement in the wider world. Tim Schwab probes the GF’s work in family planning, education, agriculture, India, Covid-19 management, and vaccine development. He also delves deep into the GF’s role in influencing journalism and news coverage about Bill Gates himself and how untransparent the foundation is. He shows how much of its giving is coming from taxpayer money and how it wields influence by lobbying the powers that be. I summarize here Schwab’s take on the Gates Foundation’s modus operandi.
The average citizen understands charity as giving money to poor people so that they can use it the way they choose to. The GF’s charity is different. Bill Gates donates money from his private wealth to his private foundation. The foundation then builds a plush, half-a-billion-dollar headquarters in Seattle, which operates more like a corporation, a la Microsoft. Then Gates hires experts and consultants (well paid, of course) who brainstorm with him and decide on the problems on which he would focus and spend money. This drives the GF to open its giant wallet and flood money into universities, think-tanks, newsrooms and advocacy groups, giving them action-items and other checklists. It creates a powerful echo chamber of advocates who push the discourse on the problems towards Gates’ ideas and solutions. For example, Gates prioritizes polio eradication in India and Africa, and directs resources and efforts. However, measles and tuberculosis are the main issues these regions think they need the GF’s support. But the foundation does not engage with institutions, countries, and individuals who comprehend these regions’ needs and issues. Hence, money stays in polio eradication. Schwab’s criticism is that Gates is not donating money to fight disease and improve health, education and agriculture. He uses his immense wealth to gain political influence and remake the world after his views. A major problem is Bill Gates’ immense belief in his superior intellect and the correctness of his diagnosis and solutions.
Tim Schwab provides detailed data-based analysis to support his charges. For example, Schwab says we, as taxpayers, are subsidizing much of the Gates Foundation’s charity. He quotes Ray Madoff, a law professor at Boston College, that every dollar the ultra-wealthy donates, can generate up to 74 cents in personal benefits. This happens by avoiding income tax, capital gains tax and estate tax on the donations. The US has 100,000 private foundations which control over $1 trillion in assets, and the Federal government barely scrutinizes how these foundations spend their charity money. The result is these foundations offset 75% of the funds against tax. Robert Reich, former secretary of labor, notes that the US Treasury loses tens of billions of tax dollars every year from these tax breaks to ‘charity foundations’.
The author challenges the GF’s claim on the 122 million lives saved by its interventions in medicines, vaccines and other areas of health. ‘The Guardian’ reported it with a glowing profile of the foundation. Where does this number come from? The number comes from the GF itself, citing a graph in ‘The Economist’. Schwab says the graph was based on a study by the Brookings Institution, titled ‘Seven million lives saved’. Neither ‘The Economist’ nor the Brookings Institution mentions 122 million. Most such evaluations come from the US Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). It was the GF which founded IHME and continues to fund it. Schwab argues that this is not an independent investigation, rather an 'in-house evaluation', resulting in a conflict of interest. On journalism, the GF’s grant records show it gave $325 million to myriad newsrooms. The Guardian, Al Jazeera, NPR, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, CNN, the Atlantic, El Pais, the Financial Times, the Spectator, and the BBC are some high-profile beneficiaries. The foundation’s total spend on all media since 2009 exceeds $2.5 billion. It helps them shape world opinion favorably to the GF and echoes its line on social and medical issues. Other chapters in the book on agriculture, India, education, etc, carry similar criticism of GF-funded projects and their dubious record and performance.
Schwab says Gates’ success in Microsoft makes him believe in solutions that are technology intensive and profitable. Activists and experts in developing countries do not believe in relying too much on hi-tech solutions. They prefer to redistribute the fruits of development, work on changes to the culture and reform the state institutions to solve the problems. Impatient technocrats like Gates assume they can solve complex problems in the developing world at the pace of microchips. The GF's efforts in Africa and India have been unsuccessful for this reason.
Schwab’s book delves beyond mere criticism. The last chapter, titled ‘Conclusions’, is perhaps the best chapter in the book. If one does not read the book, just reading this chapter would illustrate the problems and solutions that the author discusses throughout the book. Tim Schwab addresses the question of billionaire philanthropy and how to reform the Gates Foundation in particular. On billionaire philanthropy, he asks why our society allows anyone to have so much money and power. He probes whether the billionaires earned their wealth with fair means and are deserving of it. Then he challenges the ability of a software tech billionaire to drive social progress in medicines, vaccines, education and agriculture through philanthropy. However, he accepts the GF has a vast endowment of $54 billion today, which can be of enormous benefit to society and we must make use of it. So, we have to fix this ‘Bill Gates problem’.
First, the rules must clarify that it is not charity when Bill Gates moves his private wealth into his private foundation and controls it. One major problem with the GF is that it exercises a lot of control over the institutions to which it donates. A second problem is it uses charity to get tax breaks. Third, it uses charity as a political tool, and a PR machine for Bill Gates. Hence, Congress should impose new, stricter regulations and force it to act as just a charity. The IRS and the Washington state attorney general should have direct oversight over the GF in practice. The Department of Justice must investigate the anti-competitive allegations the GF faces in pharmaceutical development. Tax reforms must force the foundations to give away a larger percentage of their endowment each year than the mandated five percent. This would speed up their timeline to bankruptcy sooner, limiting their long-term political influence. The GF pours billions of dollars into underwriting groups it controls, such as the money it gives its surrogates and agents. Schwab argues we cannot consider these as charity and should not count it towards the GF’s payout requirements. The billion dollars a year it spends on McKinsey consultants, administrative costs and maintenance of its grandiose HQ in Seattle should not count towards its payout, either. The IRS should view GF’s giving to newsrooms and gifts to private companies as commercial contracts and not charitable gifts and not worthy of tax benefits. This is because Bill Gates derives benefit from them. His foundation often takes a share in the intellectual property of the companies to which it donates. The newsrooms burnish the reputations of the Gates family and foundation in the media. The government must require the GF to distil its financial flows with clarity and end its culture of dark money. It must mandate the foundation be subject to public records requests and make public all grants and contracts it signs.
Schwab also proposes that a strong, independent board governs the GF and decides how the foundation’s money gets spent. Since the GF donates money in many spheres, the people running the GF should come from teachers, farmers, doctors and patients from the poor locales the foundation serves. Schwab realizes such initiatives could make it harder to reform the GF, and Gates may shut down his foundation and start giving his wealth as a private citizen. By organizing his philanthropy as a limited liability company, Mark Zuckerberg forgoes some tax benefits but shields the details of his philanthropy from public scrutiny. Other billionaires may follow this line as well. Therefore, Schwab feels that the fundamental problem is to stop people from acquiring extreme wealth that allows them to wield undemocratic power.
One can appreciate and agree with Schwab’s impassioned arguments in favor of greater social justice and reform of capitalism. But the relentless barrage of criticism towards the GF in the book feels excessive. In the journalism chapter, he takes a swipe at fellow journalists for giving in to the GF’s money. I felt he could have toned it down. The author criticizes Gates for acting as an expert in agriculture, education, and pharmaceuticals, having little expertise in these areas. But the author himself does the same when he passes opinions on the Green Revolution, GMO foods, and climate change. He must be repeating the views of experts who are liberals like him. Why not give Bill Gates the same latitude instead of criticizing him for this? One suggestion in the book is to make the foundations disburse more money than the mandated five percent as now. Already, there is an excess of charity money ($335 billion) available every year. Many activists allege it makes NGOs, aid organizations and charities live a plush lifestyle with bloated administrative staff and fancy offices. If we flood even more money into the charity pool, won’t it lead to more corruption and inefficiency?
Schwab's silence on Gates' contradictory postures on climate change issues surprised me. On his website, Bill Gates writes well of the Canadian energy expert, Prof. Vaclav Smil, and says he is one of his favorite authors. Yet, Prof. Smil maintains fossil fuels will persist for many decades or even centuries. He also shows how unlikely it is that hydrogen would fuel aeroplanes or electric cars replace ICE automobiles in the timeframe that the annual COP summits envisage. Bill Gates attends these COP summits but never calls them out with the data that Vaclav Smil presents.
Despite its minor shortcomings, this book raises important fundamental questions on the type of society we have got because of forty-odd years of globalization. Globalization has widened the wealth gap immensely, giving extraordinary power to the wealthy in subverting democratic decision-making. Schwab stops short of saying that it has given rise to a new form of colonialism by the plutocrats, spreading their control in developing countries in the world. I wonder if the Gates Foundation will address the charges in this book.
An excellent work on the lack of accountability of billionaire philanthropy.
This book is a mixed bag, with many more negatives than positives, in my opinion. To attempt to be balanced—something that eludes Schwab’s reporting—here are some positive and negative takeaways that I’ll expand on throughout my review:
Positives: -The Gates Foundation (GF) is not very transparent about exactly how it spends its money. -GF spends an inordinate amount of money carefully crafting its public image so as to shield itself from negative press. It does so through donations to news media orgs, political lobbying (indirectly), and carefully selecting interviews it gives. -Schwab raises fair points about the role of extreme wealth for democratic integrity. -Likewise, since charitable giving acts a tax shield, extremely wealthy individuals can avoid paying taxes with their charitable giving. Even though this is private money, it has the effect of diluting the public tax base, and therefore, Schwab makes a reasonable case that the public has a right to know how such funds are spent.
Negatives: -One-sided reporting, failing to do due diligence on counter-evidence and counter-arguments that are easy to find if one looks. -Schwab really dislikes capitalism and allows his bias to infect his reporting, often deploying very flawed logic in how wealth accumulates, and selecting sources that share his bias regardless of their reliability. -Schwab fails to compare counterfactual scenarios: what would the world look like if extremely wealthy individuals like Bill Gates didn’t have a philanthropic focus, however imperfect? -Schwab criticizes GF for things that Schwab simply doesn’t like about capitalism, the tax code, and society in general.
The main problem I have with this book, as with so many books, is its low epistemic standards. Right on page 1 of the prologue, for example, Schwab says, “You will find many unnamed sources in this book, and you should not doubt the reasons for their having requested anonymity”, alluding to the negative reputational consequences of someone who speaks out publicly against the Gates Foundation (GF). But this isn’t the only reason to remain anonymous. One could remain anonymous as a cover for not having good, verifiable evidence for one's claims and not wanting to have to deal with the legitimate pushback.
Schwab doesn’t even try to hide his personal antipathy for Bill Gates throughout much of the book, and I wonder how this colours his journalistic decisions. For example, at the beginning of the intro: “Though [Paul Allen] wasn’t the dead-eyed bullshit artist Gates was, he at least looked like an adult.” Schwab then recounts some of the ways in which Paul Allen experienced the early years with Gates, which exaggerates Allen’s negative portrayal of Gates overall. Seriously, read interviews of Allen describing such events and he’s much more mixed than Schwab makes it seems. Besides, Allen and Gates were friends and worked together up until Allen’s death.
Schwab frames his main case against GF as follows:
“The way Bill Gates practices charity is categorically different from the way you or I do. The Gates Foundation is not handing over money to poor people to spend as they wish. Nor is it assiduously going out into the field to talk to intended beneficiaries—to hear their concerns, consider their solutions, fund their ideas. Rather, Gates donates money from his private wealth to his private foundation. He then assembles a small group of consultants and experts at the foundation’s half-billion-dollar corporate headquarters to decide what problems are worth his time, attention, and money—and what solutions should be pursued. Then the Gates Foundation floods money into universities, think tanks, newsrooms, and advocacy groups, giving them both a check and checklist of things to do” (p. 20), concluding “Bill Gates is not simply donating money to fight disease and improve education and agriculture. He’s using his vast wealth to acquire political influence, to remake the world according to his narrow worldview.” (p. 21)
Schwab further opines “And we’ve been made to see the Gates Foundation as a charity when it is, in fact, a political organization—a tool Bill Gates uses to put his hands on the levers of public policy” (p. 21), as though both those things couldn’t be true. A central point for Schwab is that GF has unchecked power that we rarely criticize or challenge—“power that he has not earned and does not deserve.” (p. 23)
Okay, first point to grant Schwab: he’s of course right that we should not solely rely on GF to evaluate their own success. Obviously, we need independent, objective evaluation of their successes and failures, and the counterfactual merits and drawbacks of a dollar spent on philanthropy by GF compared to others. There’s a reason organizations like GiveWell don’t recommend donating to GF—they’re not nearly transparent enough about what they donate to and exactly how they’re spending each dollar. That said, many orgs that GF gives to are more transparent, and it is possible to evaluate their efficacy, e.g., GAVI, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25613... “By 2013, the GAVI Alliance had immunised 440 million additional children and averted six million future deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases in the world's poorest countries.”
Things quickly go awry with Schwab’s scholarship. For example, Schwab quotes Gates’ claim in 2022 that “We supported the creation of a new vaccine for rotavirus that has reduced the number of children who die of this disease every year by 75 percent, from 528,000 annually in 2000 to 128,500 in 2016”, and then criticizes Gates by disputing that “[m]any, if not most, of these avoided deaths, however, have nothing to do with the foundation’s work with vaccines”—instead attributing the already declining rate of deaths from rotavirus to improved sanitation, hand washing, clean drinking water, among other efforts (p. 33). No source is given for any of these claims. First, notice that Gates’ quote doesn’t attribute the entirety—or even most—of GF’s funding of the rotavirus vaccine to the decline in deaths; he merely claims GF helped fund the vaccine, which itself helped the decline in deaths from rotavirus. It’s easy to find empirical evidence that supports this, which you can even find through the source—Our World in Data—that Schwab provides in the notes (!). For example, this JAMA paper found that in 2016 alone, 28,000 rotavirus-caused deaths were averted due to the vaccine: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama....
Schwab then goes on to suggest GF should do more to address the social determinants of health—poverty and inequality—rather than merely fund pharmaceutical interventions. But one could argue that, to be cost-effective and practical, the pharmaceutical interventions make much more sense for GF to prioritize given that social determinants often require major economic improvements to the country, which take a long time and likely can’t be spearheaded by philanthropy. Many such countries are held back through corrupt authoritarian leaders and inefficient governance, difficult problems for outsiders to solve.
Chapter 2 is a fishing expedition to attempt to link Gates’ meetings with Jeffrey Epstein to something nefarious… but what that is, is never clear. Schwab makes much of Gates’ several meetings with Epstein and uses the not-exactly-well-substantiated allegations of workplace misconduct of Gates towards female subordinates to suggest that Gates could be a predator of underage young women. This strains credulity to me (womanizing, I can buy though). Schwab also says it’s not believable that Gates could have been naïve to Epstein’s criminal, highly unethical behaviour, and that this implicates Gates in… again, it’s hard to know exactly. But, in my judgment, given that many rich, famous and smart people appear to have been duped by Epstein—and have attempted to explain their association with him—it’s not very implausible to me. Schwab even seems to recognize on some level, quoting NPR host Adam Davidson, “One thing that philanthropy sells is a product called reputation management” (p. 79). It’s easier to mislead people about your wrongdoings when you’re seen as a philanthropist—a point Schwab makes numerous times about Gates! This entire chapter was unnecessary, in my opinion, and does not help Schwab’s overall case against GF’s philanthropic work.
Chapter 3 makes many fair points about taxes and how wealthy individuals, like Gates, end up not paying their “fair share” of taxes due to how much they spend on philanthropy. Schwab criticizes this, arguing that the super wealthy shouldn’t be exempt from paying their fair share of taxes to spend on what the government determines just because they’ve decided to give inordinate amounts away to charity. This strikes me more as a fair but arguable critique of the overall tax system—and of capitalism in general—as opposed to a critique of Gates and other wealthy people. Schwab quotes Gates at length to showcase how Gates claims to support an increased wealth tax, then wonders why and criticizes Gates for not having spent time/funds advocating that the government raise such taxes. This is dumb. One can think both that (a) society should raise taxes on wealthy people like me, and (b) I would rather continue to spend my money on the philanthropy of my choosing. There’s not really a contradiction: (a) is a normative statement about how society would be better off, and (b) is a conditional statement about how you’re actually going to behave given the way society is. I can both think that alcohol should be taxed higher and also not want to pay more tax individually, reasoning that I’d personally spend that money in better ways.
Chapter 5 seems the most solid to me, about transparency—or GF’s lack thereof. Schwab notes how GF’s website doesn’t provide much detail on how funds are spent. Even if donor names and projects are listed, there’s little detail beyond that. Moreover, sizeable chunks of GF’s overall donations are not listed, which means the public doesn’t know what GF is actually funding. Schwab remarks how this is hypocritical given GF’s publicly stated commitment to transparency. This seems like a fair criticism and is why orgs like GiveWell cannot evaluate GF’s efficacy. While not a defense of GF, this is the norm for charities rather than the exception, so this is not particularly surprising. Schwab blames conspiracy theories against GF in part on this lack of transparency: “one reason people are drawn to such ideas is that the foundation is so nontransparent and so undemocratic” (p. 137). He further suggests that vaccine hesitancy is at least in part due to “Bill Gates’s interminable efforts to play expert” (p. 138). Both sound plausible, but Schwab supplies no evidence to support such claims. It seems just as likely to me that such conspiracy theories arise due to already existing anti-vaccine sentiment, propelled by heighted political polarization, fear/uncertainty (due to the pandemic), and a general anti-rich disposition that is found in countless conspiracy theories.
Schwab likewise makes fair points about GF’s lobbying efforts (chapter 6). While GF—as a philanthropic org—can’t directly lobby, they can certainly donate to other orgs that do. Lobbying is a fact of the US political and economic system (though one could try to argue that it doesn’t have to be). If GF sees avenues to make its goals more likely, e.g., through the support of governments, it’s hard to blame them it for exploiting such avenues. Yet again, Schwab’s overall point is that extreme wealth tends to undermine democratic power, which reasonable people can debate whether this is a societal net positive or not.
Chapter 7, on family planning, is very sloppily argued, almost as if Schwab isn’t even attempting to anticipate criticism. Schwab criticizes GF’s efforts at family planning on various grounds: (1) They aren’t providing enough contraceptive options to give women in the developing world the gamut of preferences they might have; (2) GF didn’t meet its target of 120M women in 2020 with the FP2020 program; they “only” reached 60M; 3) GF doesn’t fund abortion, insinuating this is because Melinda is Catholic (but all sorts of family planning have been and are opposed by Catholics), rather than that abortion is more politically controversial and thus more pragmatically difficult, and in a different category to the pregnancy prevention strategies GF has chosen to target. Though Schwab acknowledges that “population control” is unfairly tarnished due to its association with eugenics, he still associates numerical targets chosen by GF—which are fair game for questioning—in terms of how to assess their impact. Schwab grudgingly concedes that GF has done some good in delivering contraceptives to women in the developing world. But he thinks the more important point is that GF’s work is coercive, failing to apparently recognize that the alternative—no access to contraceptives whatsoever—is even more coercive. Not a very persuasive chapter.
While chapter 8 makes the reasonable point that many news orgs take money from GF with strings attached about what it can and cannot report, it goes off the rails yet again. Schwab demonstrates his ant-capitalist bias in full effect, citing very dubious sources about global poverty reduction. For example, Schwab cites the highly dishonest anthropologist, Jason Hickel, to dispute both the $1.90 extreme poverty line, and the fact of global poverty having declined. Schwab should have consulted Our World in Data (which he cites favourably elsewhere in the book) for an explanation of how this line is set, and how higher cut-offs also demonstrate significant reductions in global poverty. Hickel’s claim that “If we took a fairer and more honest accounting of what poverty really looks like… we would see that there are more people living in poverty today than ever before” is straight up false (https://ourworldindata.org/images/pub...), and Schwab apparently never bothered to look for counter-evidence. Having dived reasonably deeply into this literature myself, my view that Schwab is a hopelessly biased journalist became cemented.
Schwab’s ideological leanings and sloppy economic reasoning are not hard to find throughout the book. For example, remarking on GF’s alleged blurring of non-profit and for-profit philanthropic ventures, “How can capitalism, an economic system that depends on winners and losers, deliver equity?” This zero-sum thinking is popular among those who don’t understand economics and how the market delivers prosperity, even if it does so unequally. It’s simply false to think capitalism depends on winners and losers in the longer-term even if there are of course losers in the short-term. The economic pie really does and has grown over time, making people's lives measurably better on average—just not everywhere at the same rate or without setbacks.
Throughout much of the book, Schwab makes much of GF being an undemocratic force to solving world problems: “When we embrace and applaud the Gates Foundation’s philanthropic giving, we’re doing more than burnishing Bill Gates’s image. We’re also handing over unaccountable power” (p. 80). This sounds like tortured logic despite a more tepid, reasonable point underlying it: concentrated wealth can override democratic power. But, overall, this framing fails to take into account counterfactuals and pragmatics. Private individuals get to spend their money how they see fit. GF chooses to spend its inordinate sum on philanthropic endeavors—shouldn’t we encourage this? Short of there being no billionaires on the planet—a pipedream and a practical impossibility to achieve unless every country on the planet boosts taxation on the rich and eliminates all loopholes—our next best bet is to encourage billionaire norms that are closer to how GF operates, i.e., giving away a huge sum of wealth to do good. This can always be better, i.e., it can be more transparent, it can be directed towards more effective charities, etc. But why criticize this norm that GF is closer to that almost any other billionaire org? ...especially since GF funds so many things that a rational, evidence-based, effective altruist should want to see funded: vaccine deployment in the developing world, biotechnology, nuclear power, contraceptives, climate change mitigation, etc.
Furthermore, Schwab suggests we need to end tax benefits that we give to wealthy individuals. But this would dissuade huge amounts of charitable giving. It’s one thing to disagree with how rich, private individuals spend their money—including their philanthropic giving—but to simply tax it more almost certainly will dissuade them from giving as much as they do. And if other countries don’t impose similar laws and regulations, these rich people will just move to areas they can spend with fewer constraints.
Overall, Schwab makes many reasonable points, but they’re dwarfed by his ideologically biased, antipathy-drenched, selective reporting. I wouldn’t recommend the book unless you have plenty of time to fact-check Schwab’s sources and many dubious claims, and have some grounding in global poverty issues.
Full on demolition job on Bill Gates. And on the Gates Foundation. Yet the further I delved into the phenomenal mass of information Schwab has packed into this tome, the more I began wondering. Is Bill Gates the problem? Perhaps the problem really is an economic system that allows people like Bill to acquire such absurd wealth and the unreasonable power that accompanies it. To this author’s credit, he summarises his concerns with exactly this view—on page 350.
En los últimos suspiros de 2024 me crucé con esta obra, y cuando ya pensaba que ningún libro me gustaría tanto como lo que ya había leído en esta vuelta al Sol, ¡zas! Va, y El problema de Bill Gates me pone la cabeza del revés y no he parado de recomendárselo a varios amigos.
Tim Schwab es un periodista de investigación y parte de la premisa de desmontar ese halo de bondad y caridad que parece desprender Bill Gates tras aparecer en las noticias únicamente para anunciar que ha donado cientos de millones de dólares a alguna causa benéfica en el Tercer Mundo, normalmente relacionada con educación, vacunas o erradicación de enfermedades.
Sin embargo, el autor de este libro, a través de varios capítulos, describe el siniestro funcionamiento de la Fundación Bill y Melinda Gates, y desmonta su faceta benéfica a través de cientos de entrevistas y documentos públicos. Cada capítulo está dedicado a un área diferente de las actividades de la Fundación: fiscalidad a la que está sometida y oscurantismo que eso le facilita; área de educación; área de fabricación de vacunas; lobby farmacéutico; lobby agroalimentario...
A pesar del gran número de páginas de esta obra, se lee muy fácil, y a lo largo de cada capítulo se argumenta cuál parece la razón de ser principal de la Fundación Bill Gates y qué persigue. Desde establecer un relato entre las autoridades, hasta hundir competencia farmacéutica de las principales empresas, perpetuar la propiedad intelectual de las vacunas, o allanar el camino a su empresa Microsoft en un país.
Cualquier reseña que haga no hace justicia a este libro, por la cantidad de información que hay, el Imperio del Mal que se dibuja, y la constante permisividad de las autoridades por que existan estos supermillonarios que marcan la agenda pública de las naciones y organismos internacionales.
I admit it. I fell for the “Bill Gates - the philanthropist” myth hook, line and sinker. I really thought he was doing good in the world. This despite the fact that I know that pretty much every American billionaire has its own charity foundation for tax deduction purposes and for public influence. This book ripped the blinds down.
Gates with his money dictates media portrayals, among many other things. The foundation and Gates acts more like a private equity investor and venture capital fund than a traditional charity. There is little transparency on how money is spent and the results presented are educated guesses at best and willful distortions at worst. When Gates focuses on one thing, other things are disregarded and deprioritized. He has a grandiose view of himself, considers himself the smartest person in the room always and doesn’t listen for or explore other view points.
Because of all the tax reductions, Gates is basically spending tax dollars. The charitable foundations aren’t regulated like other institutions and they should be. So basically he is undermining democracy, both on his own turf and abroad.
There is no such thing as a good billionaire, sorry. Read the book.
Imaginary conversation in the future: Bill Gates: "We have solved ALL problems of mankind!" Tim Schwab: "What took you so long?" This book investigates the subtle nuances between journalism and nagging. Well maybe not so subtle .... it's 90% nagging
Writing this review as I read it. Learned of this book yesterday and thanks to the Nashua Public Library can read it today. 8) I like many am fascinated by what Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Vinod Khosla are doing in the area of Green energy and the future of the planet. One thing that annoys me is that Bill Gates had placed a large investment in shorting Tesla Stock . Betting against electric cars . Musk saw this move as being a hypocrite . Bill thought is was just being an astute business man. I agree with Musk. This is not covered in this book. Glad his bet was wrong . Hopefully this was not made in the shelter of Breakthrough Energy and not a tax protected bet.
My expectations prior to reading this book is that I will find that overall Bill has done some very solid things for the world . Vaccines, Next generation toilets and we can quibble about some of the other things he has done. ----- It starts off with Bill Gates and his relationship with Paul Allen and his screwing him by changing the ownership splits. It feels very much like the Jobs and Woz relationship. Elon Musk, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are all famous for saying " That is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard ". In my mind it is/was unpleasant to work for any of these fellows and they all could be jerks a good amount of the time. That must be weighted against doing important work.
It is noted that the Gates Foundation is Bill Gates and that like BG they are secretive and don't answer questions or do interviews that they don't control. It is pointed out that it is ironic that for an organization that speaks to how they bring by the number management and metrics but as an organization arent open to sharing much about the metrics of their results.
For every critical story published about the Gates Foundation, there are perhaps 5,000 praising the organization. Could it be because Gates spreads his wealth around to various publications and journalists to the tune of $325 million through 2023? The Guardian, The Atlantic, The Financial Times, the BBC and so many others are the recipients of his largesse. Just as academic institutions and researchers throughout the world are hesitant to bite the hand that feeds them, the media cower to him as the total amount bestowed on them alone since 2009 is a whopping $2.5 billion.
Bill Gates suffers from delusions of grandeur, believing he has the knowledge to eradicate poverty and illness throughout the world, when in fact, his meddling has worsened some conditions in African countries. Local specialists, mostly speaking on the condition of anonymity, have criticized the foundation for working exclusively to solve agricultural issues instead of working in concert with the various governments to develop the most efficient remedies. One such example is his interest in GMO farming, which doesn't necessarily translate in foreign countries. The Gates Foundation has invested heavily in Monsanto, which has profited enormously from the agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology industry. Should charitable organizations refrain from investing in companies from which they hope to profit, after strongly recommending the company's product to foreign nations? At what point does a non-profit organization become a for-profit one?
Regardless of his methods, one only has to look at how his foundation distributes its charitable contributions to have a clearer picture of his lack of altruistic motivations. About 90% of his donations go to wealthy countries. In fact, 80% went to only three countries: the United States, the UK and Switzerland. As with many charitable organizations, the majority of those funds pay for administrative costs, with only a small fraction of the amount reaching its intended destination. Researchers call it "phantom aid." Gates' overwhelming influence also steers the researchers' results to the conclusions he would like to obtain, which is called "the funding effect." There are so many factors to consider regarding the policies and actions of the Gates Foundation. Worth a read!
This book was a bold take on billionaire Bill Gates. Gates says he is an "impatient optimist" trying to save the world of every problem from overpopulation, education, food production, sanitation, vaccines and more. However, author Tim Schwab reveals his bully side as a clever broker that benefits both Microsoft and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In the Foundation, he shares that his "experts", the media, and even politicians are all under his control with money, which he has plenty of to spend on his "projects" and people. He believes he knows the answer to all the world's problems, not listening to any nay-sayers. This kind of uncontrolled power is quite dangerous and no one, including governments of every country he has his Foundation in, has any control over his power. Most willing to accept his power for the money.
Personally, I found the book enlightening and the part on population control with birth control in African countries scared me a bit after reading Take My Hand by Dolen Perkins-Valdez, which reminded readers of what the US did to young black girls in the 60's south with birth control and surgical procedures that took away freedom from these girls all in the name of controlling the birth rate in poor areas.
One area I disagreed with the author on is his question of why there are even billionaires allowed. This borders on another area of control, which dictates that "someone" (government is surely not a good choice!) should control this. There is much to ponder in this book and very glad I read it.
My thanks to Net Galley and Macmillian Audio for an advanced copy of this audiobook. The narration was done very well!
4 stars only because it’s pretty dry but that should be a given. Shocker, billionaire philanthropy doesn’t work. I thought the author did a great job with the research and building a story. Condemning a lot of the conspiracy theories around Gates (both good and bad) and sticking to the facts. Bottom line is we need more oversight and regulations on these philanthropic foundations.
Hago la reseña en caliente, nada más terminar este análisis de la Fundación Gates y de la persona de su creador Bill Gates. Tim Schwab no esconde su animadversión ante el personaje analizado, desde el principio de la obra, y prácticamente no concede el más mínimo crédito hacia las declaraciones filantrópicas que realiza la fundación desde su creación. Se me ocurre que el lector de esta obra debería empezar por el final de la misma, el capítulo de conclusiones sinceras que nos brinda una idea del pensamiento del autor, creo que de hacer esta lectura empezando por el final se distorsiona menos el enfoque y te llevas menos decepción con el tono narrativo. Tim Schwab es un progre-marxista bastante radical, odia a los ricos (no exagero con lo de odiar) y deberían ser exterminados, cree que las patentes son un engaño pernicioso, que las donaciones benéficas un esquema para evadir impuestos, que la gestión pública de la educación o la sanidad es siempre preferible a la privada, etc. Con estos mimbres intelectuales poco nos puede ayudar a entender el problema de la gestión fallida de la Fundación Gates. Porque el libro sí aporta una gran cantidad de información acerca de la actividad de Bill Gates, lo que muestra es un repaso detallado de los programas filantrópicos que la Fundación Gates lleva a cabo desde hace 20 años, la gran mayoría fracasados y el resto en fase de replanteamiento radical. De lo que aparece en el libro no se puede sacar ningun éxito palpable de la entidad benéfica y es muy interesante el repaso que hace de los programas y porqué todos terminan fallando o quedándose muy lejos de las metas propuestas. En suma, recomiendo la lectura de este libro de casi 500 páginas para repasar la actividad de la Fundación Gates pero casi pediría que empezarais por conocer al escritor primero y, amablemente, él se presenta en el capítulo final de conclusiones.
A horrifying, well-researched account of Bill Gates’ narcissism, greed, and white savior complex.
Exploiting tax breaks, intellectual property rights, and corporate partnerships, Gates has grown his wealth to $100 billion. With “a lot of opinions and no expertise” (page 47), he has wielded misinformation, conflicts of interest, and dark money to negatively impact vaccine development and distribution, the US education system, global health data, African agriculture, and journalistic integrity, to name a few. Everything from NPR to the World Health Organization to the University of Oxford is funded by (and therefore at the mercy of) the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
As someone who worked on a Gates-funded project summarized, “One man deciding what is good for the entire world is highly problematic. It is the same philosophy which dictators around the world have used—and still use. How does one man know what is good for everybody?” (page 319)
I am a Bill Gates fan so this was a difficult read. It runs through some of the failures of the Gates Foundation, and the dangers of the political I power it has amassed. It was interesting to understand the failure of the foundation to encourage big pharma to donate many vaccines e.g covid 19 to poor countries, rather so, it takes the license rights for these drugs! I think the problem is that the author refuses to let the facts speak for themselves and has written a very long, dark, and palpably angry overview of Gates which does leave me questioning the authenticity of the arguments. Regardless, what scares me the most is that whilst the Gates foundation cannot "lobby" they do so through a complex network of subsidary companies and companies they have vested stakes and unparalleled influence over. Bill and Melinda also donate as private citizens, using their enormous wealth to drive their own personal agenda (much as they do with the foundation) and it brings into question the appropriateness of having a Microsoft geek with no background in public health, dictating so many of the key priorities in public health and education.
Bill Gates 1. His charitable foundation allows him to save on taxes. And the foundation gives money often matched by governments. So he is using public money for his agenda. 2. Maybe he means well, but unlike other charities, the Foundation demands control in board seats, full disclosure of proprietary information upon application of its grants, and often invests in the startups itself. So it’s got to choose the winners. 3. The foundation sometimes has board seats in government organisation in developing nations, supports scientific organisations, and pay journalists to report. So it controls the whole narrative, with detractors risk being sacked or have their grants cut off. The Foundation also does not respond to independent journalists’ queries. So you would only hear the good news. 4. In the end, Gates and the Foundation gets richer and richer and control more and more. 5. Gates is known to make romantic advances to his subordinates, and is associated with Epstein. He thinks he is the most clever person in the world. He continues to advocate for the current winners-take-all unequal society. 6. The Foundation did not do too well in terms of vaccination. Even if the most successful program would not save too many lives because the fundamental requirement of good health, such as clean water and electricity, are often not available. An obsession with Polio vaccine also crowds out other vaccines such as Measles. And polio is not even the most dangerous problem. 7. This leads to the ongoing white saviour mentality, when Gates tells developing countries what they need and what is funded. Gates also advocates for GMOs where farmers have to buy the seeds from Mosanto like forever. No second green revolution has come from all his advocacy. 8. Gates’ education reform called the Common Core was a pure disaster. 9. Ultimately we need to ask why Gated can become so rich when others are so poor. Maybe we do need to be more socialist and tax billionaires much more.
This book by Tim Schwab is excellent. I used to admire Bill Gates greatly but lost my enthusiasm for the man during the COVID-19 pandemic. I also felt he spoke like an authority on subjects he had no training for; when I read the book, I brought my prejudice to my reading of the book. However, Tim Schwab has done considerable research on the subject, and it appears Bill Gates is tough to crack. He speaks a lot and uses this to hide the secrets he holds dear. The research is meticulous. I like how Tim Schwab divided the book into distinct chapters, each dealing with its topic. Without this organization, the book would have been a mess. The style is engaging, and while he has no sympathy for Bill Gates, he has done his best to be objective. His suggestions in the last chapter are bold. I doubt the powers that be will accept them! Beware of Bill Gates: this is the lesson of the book.
I went into this with a negative opinion of Bill Gates and I am leaving this with even more of a negative opinion but now I have more understanding to both sides of why he is unstoppable. I think the Schwab does a great job of breaking down each area and explaining why the Gates Foundation is problematic while also talking about some good that they do. I never thought I would say this, but I agree that we need some tax reform when it comes to philanthropy. Schwab makes a great argument that if you are giving to a charitable organization, you shouldn't be able to control how that organization uses the money for it count as a tax write off. That creates a fine line between charitable giving and a payoff or service (in my opinion).
Thank you NetGalley for letting me listen to the ARC audiobook!
This is a thorough and well researched book that is shocking in its breadth of scope- Gates certainly has his fingers in a lot of pies.
I was already on board with the central thesis 'no such thing as a good billionaire', but the absolute concentration of power and influence wielded without accountability is flooring. It definitely reiterated for me the importance of local issues being addressed through local people.
His broad interests in pharmaceuticals and patent rights were particularly revelatory to me, and I had no idea about the agri. Good to have some healthy distrust about the "green revolution" and tech saving all.
The book often revealed how his interests would overlap - journalism with everything, pharma and saving lives in 'developing countries', patents and new tech and pharma or Microsoft...it felt like there was really a point to be made here .. something about empires of influence.
Marked down because the book is too long. Schwab appears to have thrown in the kitchen sink, rather than laying out the evidence we need to understand his point. But- overall a very valuable read.
'We should aspire to a world in which the richest guy doesn't have the loudest voice.'
'Billionaire philanthropy, as practiced by someone like Gates, preys on our cultural biases to disguise its influence. It makes us believe that a billionaire's giving away his vast fortune is an unimpeachable act of charity that must be exalted, rather than a tool of power and control that must be challenged.'
I am already sold on "good" billionaires being a myth, anti-capitalist, and became disenchanted with the philanthropy industry years ago, so there's a lot about this book that is preaching to the choir.
Tim Schwab makes no effort to hide the fact that he and I are ideologically aligned, which is fine, but certainly doesn't make him a neutral party. And I do think the book would benefit from either tighter focus - the Gates Foundation and its lack of transparency, with less wandering into Gates as a person - or broader focus in examining more foundations and the way philanthropy subverts actual democratic priorities.
Kurzmeinung: Top-Kritik der schlimmsten? steuerbefreiten! Negativ-NGO (wie George Soros) mit ihrem scheinheiligen egoman-cholerischen (Welt)Oberhaupt! Mutige Kritik zu echter "Weltverschörung" (NWO! Neoliberalismus!) & einer hochgelobten Top-Figur der "gänzlich entarteten Menschheit" kurz vor Beginn des 3.Wk (Bertha Dudde, Jakob Lorber, m.E. 2026)! "Tausche Geld & Scheinheiligkeit gegen (Welt)Macht & noch mehr Geld & Entgelt" ist das offensichtliche Motto der krankhaft machthungrigen (Mit)Spitze des gigantisch-wachsenden "Eisberges" (George Soros, WEF/WWF, NATO...) der systematisch-demagogisch alles nach seinem Willen & Machtwahn formt oder vernichtet: Regierungen, Staaten, Medien...(Daniele Ganser, Noam Chomsky, Collin McMahon, Rainer Mausfeld, Alex Demirovic...)!
Meine Rezension bezieht sich auf die deutschrachige Buch-Ausgabe. Meine vollständige & aktuelle Rezension ist hier zu finden: https://www.lovelybooks.de/autor/Tim-...
1) Fazit: a1) "Wolf im Schafspelz": "Gates löst keine Probleme, er ist das [immer größer werdende Riesen]Problem!": Eine unkontrollierte Riesenmacht (Märkte, Politik, Wirtschaft, Medien...) als neoliberaler Wegbereiter von Entdemokratiserung, Totalitarismus, der katastrophalen NWO (Neuen WeltOrdnung)...!
a2) "Bei den dubiosen Vorgängen rund um die Corona-Lockdowns wurde die Kritik an der Gates-Foundation noch als böse Verschwörungstheorie abgetan, obwohl viele sehr wohl den Braten rochen, was da anbrannte und nicht funktionierte und wenn, dann in die falsche Richtung. Bei diesem Buch klappt das Abwerten nicht mehr so einfach, denn der Investigarivjournalist Tim Schwab sitzt an der Quelle und hat seit mehr als 5 Jahren genau recherchiert. Seine Analyse ist nicht gerade ermutigend. Gates löst keine Probleme, er ist das Problem. Er hat sich mit der weltgrößten Stiftung für Gesundheitsprojekte eine unkontrollierte Marktmacht geschaffen, deren Ziel es ist, den Gesundheitsmarkt der Zukunft im Sinne der US-Pharmaindustrie für diese gewinnbringend so zu gestalten, dass sie möglichst viel Geld verdient. Die geretteten Leben der armen Kinder in Afrika sind dabei nur eine vorgeschobene Schimäre, denn die Afrikaner werden nicht gefragt, was sie brauchen oder wollen. Sie müssen tun, was Bill Gates will, sonst bekommen sie die Impfstoffe einfach nicht, die angeblich das Rotavirus, die Pneumokokken und vieles mehr besiegen können. Nachdem Gates mit seiner Foundation nahezu alle Forscher und alle Forschung rund um Gesundheit bezahlt, beißt natürlich keiner die Hand, die ihn füttert, denn das würde mit sofortigem Forschungsgeld-Entzug bezahlt. Alles was in diesem Buch an Schaurigkeiten beschrieben wird, beschreibe ich seit 3 Jahren in allen meinen Essays und Rezensionen. Meine Analysen werden hier nicht nur bestätigt – was Schwab beschreibt, ist noch viel schlimmer als alles, was ich zu denken und zu kritisieren wagte." Rezension von "S.A.W." thalia.de
b) Mutige Kritik zu echter "Weltverschörung" (NWO! Neoliberalismus...!) & einer hochgelobten Top-Figur der "gänzlich entarteten Menschheit" kurz vor Beginn des 3.Weltkrieges (Bertha Dudde, Jakob Lorber, m.E. 2026)!
c) "Tausche Geld & Scheinheiligkeit gegen (Welt)Macht & noch mehr Geld & Entgelt" ist das offensichtliche Motto der krankhaft machthungrigen (Mit)Spitze des gigantisch-wachsenden "Eisberges" (George Soros, WEF/WWF, CIA, NSA, NATO...) der systematisch-demagogisch alles nach seinem Willen & Machtwahn formt oder vernichtet: Regierungen, Staaten (deep state,Tiefer Staat), Medien- & Presse-Institutionen... c1) Top-Bücher von Daniele Ganser, Noam Chomsky, Collin McMahon, Rainer Mausfeld, Alex Demirovic, Bernd Hamm, Christoph Butterwegge...)!
2) Hilfreiches Rezensionen: Siehe unten de.wikipedia Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Kritik-Teil siehe unten) de.wikipedia Melinda French Gates wikipedia Staat im Staate Ullrich Mies: Fassadendemokratie und Tiefer Staat - Auf dem Weg in ein autoritäres Zeitalter
Videos youtu.be: 5 min Hörbuch: Tim Schwab - Das Bill-Gates-Problem - Der Mythos vom wohltätigen Milliardär youtu.be: The Bill Gates Problem: Reckoning with the Myth of the Good Billionaire youtu.be: Die Macht der Superreichen: Bill Gates | ZDFinfo Doku youtu.be: Amerikas Superreiche: Wie gefährlich ist die Macht der Multimilliardäre? | ZDFinfo Doku youtu.be: Robert Malone Reveals The Truth About Bill Gates youtube deep+state youtu.be: The “Deep State” Explained youtube tiefer+staat
zu de.wikipedia Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation "Am 25. Juni 2006 kündigte Warren Buffett eine Zustiftung von Berkshire Hathaway B Aktien an, die zu diesem Zeitpunkt 32,5 Milliarden US-Dollar wert waren. In einem Interview mit dem US-Business-Magazin Fortune hatte der zeitweise reichste Mann der Welt angekündigt, 85 Prozent seiner Aktien an diverse [Steuer-freie!] Stiftungen zu verschenken.[nur aus Profit- & Machtgier um über diese noch mehr zu erhalten]"
"Im Januar 2007 veröffentlichten Journalisten der Los Angeles Times einen Bericht, in dem sie der Stiftung vorwarfen, nicht ausreichend zu prüfen, ob die von ihr geförderten Unternehmen umweltverschmutzend agieren oder etwa Medikamente zu teuer verkaufen („blind-eye investing“).[31]
Eine andere Kritik bezieht sich auf die enge Verknüpfung der Stiftung mit dem Agrochemiekonzern Monsanto, der seinerseits in der Kritik steht, die angestammte Landwirtschaft in Afrika zu bedrohen und vor allem über die Patentierung von Saatgut in wirtschaftlicher Abhängigkeit zu halten.[32]
Die von der Gates-Stiftung in Höhe von rund einer Milliarde US-Dollar geförderte Allianz für eine Grüne Revolution in Afrika (Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, AGRA) könne laut einem Bericht des sozialistischen Magazins Jacobin kaum Erfolge vorweisen: Die Resultate von AGRA seien schädlich für kleinbäuerliche Erzeuger, die Hirseproduktion sei seit Beginn der Initiative um 21 Prozent zurückgegangen. Bei den Wurzel- und Knollengewächsen sei ein Ertragsrückgang von 7 Prozent verzeichnet worden. Insgesamt nehme durch AGRA die Vielfalt auf dem Acker und damit auch die Saatgutvielfalt ab. Dies mache die Landwirtschaft noch verwundbarer für die Folgen der Klimakrise.[33][34] In einer Arte-Dokumentation werden gentechnologische Projekte von AGRA in Afrika kritisiert.[35] Weiters kritisierte Svenja Schulze ein von der Gates-Stiftung und Bundesregierung gefördertes Agrarprojekt in Afrika wegen des Einsatzes von Pestiziden, welche in der EU verboten seien.[36]
Der Arzt David McCoy kritisierte 2014 die Konzentration der Stiftung auf wenige ausgewählte Technologien und Krankheiten.[37][38] 2016 kritisierte die britische NGO Global Justice Now, dass die Stiftung intransparent und bürokratisch sei; außerdem soll sie eine „neoliberale Wirtschaftspolitik und eine konzernfreundliche Globalisierung“ fördern.[39]
Der Journalist Greg Palast wirft der Stiftung vor, das TRIPS-Abkommen zu unterstützen, welches ihm zufolge Medikamente in Entwicklungsländern verteuern und die Herstellung von Generika erschweren könnte.[40][41]...
Der Stiftung wird vorgeworfen, dass sie gezielt Maßnahmen von Firmen propagiere und unterstütze, deren Aktien sie hält. Beispielsweise speist sich das Budget der Weltgesundheitsorganisation mittlerweile unter anderem auch aus Spenden dieser Stiftung,[43] so dass diese auf die Politik der WHO Einfluss ausüben könnte.[44][45][46] So wurde die WHO 2018 nur noch zu einem Fünftel durch Beiträge der Mitgliedsländer finanziert, die weiteren Mittel stammen aus Spenden. Die Gates-Stiftung ist mit fast 210 Millionen Euro der größte WHO-Spender. Sie legt fest, für welche Programme ihre Spenden verwendet werden sollen.[47] Nach Angaben des WDR machen die Zuwendungen der Stiftung fast 11 % des gesamten Etats der WHO aus.[48]...
Es wird weiters kritisiert, dass das Engagement der Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – als größte Privatstiftung der Welt – dazu führen könne, dass sich Regierungen von ihren staatliche Aufgaben (Daseinsvorsorge) zurückzogen und somit Kontrolle abgaben.[47]"
3) Weitere Rezensionen & Kurzmeinungen (für/als Buch-Werbung) a) thalia.de: "Ein wichtiges Buch, das zeigt, wie elementar ein unabhängiger Journalismus für das Funktionieren einer liberalen Demokratie ist. ("Spektrum der Wissenschaft") Ein spannendes und wichtiges Buch. ("Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung") Der Autor argumentiert überzeugend ("Deutschlandfunk (Andruck)") Schwabs Recherche ist eine Pionierleistung, aber auch ein Rundumschlag. ("Manager Magazin") Eine sehr umfassende Bilanz ("Deutschlandradio Kultur – Studio 9")"
b) handelsblatt.com: Thomas Jahn, 2023: "Intransparent, technologiebesessen, aufgebläht...Nach Meinung von Schwab ist Gates ein „Wolf im Schafspelz“, der gnadenlos nach Macht, Einfluss und dem eigenen Vorteil sucht. So wie er einst Microsoft mit großer Härte zum Tech-Giganten formte, so gehe er heute bei der Bill-und-Melinda-Gates-Stiftung vor. Das ist erst einmal ein erfrischender, weil neuer Ansatz. Schwab führt auch einige fesselnde Fakten an: wie wenig die Stiftung von ihren Spendengeldern offenlegt, wie beinhart sie mit Start-ups umgehen kann, wie sehr sie Wissenschaftler, Journalisten oder Kongressabgeordnete umgarnt und finanziert...Schwab ist ein sehr fleißiger Rechercheur, seit 2019 arbeitet der Amerikaner an dem Thema, veröffentlichte als freier Journalist bereits verschiedene Artikel..."
c) perlentaucher.de: Deutschlandfunk, 05.12.2023 Michael Meyer kennt die Kritik an Bill Gates und seiner Foundation. Tim Schwabs Buch aber gräbt tiefer, meint er. Indem der Autor die Nähe der Foundation zur WHO beleuchtet, die Wege aufzeigt, wie Gates den politischen Diskurs in seinem Interesse lenkt, den Druck spürbar macht, den die Organisation auf Gremien, Kritiker und Journalisten ausübt, und dem die tatsächlich eher kleinen Erfolge der Gates Foundation, etwa bei der Bekämpfung von Krankheiten, gegenüberstellt, zeichnet er laut Meyer ein detailreiches wie nachdenklich machendes Bild. Für Meyer auch das Porträt eines Helden, der vor allem seiner eigenen Sache dient, wenngleich er immerhin mehr für die Allgemeinheit mache als andere Superreiche, wie Autor und Rezensent einräumen [?].
d) bibliomaniacs.de: "...Besonders bedenklich sind Gates‘ Initiativen zur Bevölkerungskontrolle in den armen Ländern des Südens, die aus dem rassistischen Programm der Eugenikerin Margret Sanger hervorgegangen sind. Sangers Ziel war es, die Vorherrschaft der Weißen durch die Reduzierung der Farbigen mittels Zwangssterilisation und ähnlicher Maßnahmen zu sichern. Die Tendenz zur Bevölkerungsreduktion durchzieht alle Aktivitäten der Gates Foundation und spiegelt das Misstrauen der Öffentlichkeit gegenüber Gates‘ angeblich noblen Zielen wider.
Gates baut Monopole. Nachdem er bereits ein de facto-Monopol bei Computer-Betriebssystemen etabliert hat, strebt er nun ein Pharmamonopol durch die Gates-Stiftung an. Auch ein Schulmonopol steht auf seiner Agenda, indem er versucht, ein Windows-Bildungsprogramm mit von ihm festgelegten Standards für alle Schüler in den USA durchzusetzen. Dies erklärt möglicherweise das tiefe Misstrauen gegenüber der Pisa-Studie und der Gleichmacherei im Schulsystem.
Informatik, Gesundheitswesen, Bildung – Gates versucht, seine Standards in verschiedenen Bereichen durchzusetzen und dabei alle Konkurrenten zu marginalisieren, und das auch noch unter Ausnutzung von Steuerbefreiungen, die seiner Stiftung Narrenfreiheit ohne jede Kontrolle gewähren.
Im Jahr 2020, als die Covid-Panik geschürt wurde, hatte Gates bereits die WHO entmachtet und ein Quasi-Monopol auf die neuartigen, jedoch unerforschten mRNA-Impfungen errichtet. Als die WHO, von Gates-Personal dominiert, die Pandemie verkündete, befand sich Gates auf dem Höhepunkt seiner Macht und präsentierte sich in zahlreichen Talkshows als Retter in der Not. Die nachfolgende Chaosphase ist mittlerweile jedem bekannt.
Die zahlreichen Projekte der Gates-Stiftung folgen einem ähnlichen Muster: Sie sichern die persönliche Macht von Bill Gates und setzen seine Monopolinteressen durch, gestützt auf großspurige Versprechungen für die Zukunft, die nicht nachgewiesen und auch nicht überprüft werden. Letztendlich scheitern sie alle aufgrund ihres Mangels an Erfolg, da man die 8 Milliarden Menschen nicht über den Kamm eines größenwahnsinnigen Milliardärs scheren kann.
Was in diesem Buch an brisanten Informationen beschrieben wird, entspricht dem, was der Autor seit drei Jahren in all seinen Essays und Rezensionen diskutiert. Die Analysen werden nicht nur bestätigt, sondern Schwabs Darstellung geht sogar noch über alles hinaus, was der Autor bisher zu denken und zu kritisieren gewagt hat."
e) spektrum.de: Maxime Pasker, Literaturwissenschaftler, Philosoph und Wissenschaftsjournalist: "Enthüllungsjournalist Tim Schwab blickt hinter die Kulissen der »Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation«. Sein lesenswertes Buch zeichnet ein beunruhigendes Bild ihrer Einflussnahme im Gewand der Wohltätigkeit. Wenn Sie den Namen einer Person googeln, ist das Ergebnis in der Regel unspektakulär. Bei den meisten Menschen erscheint mindestens ein Social-Media-Profil, vielleicht aber auch ein Zeitungsartikel über eine Tätigkeit in einem Verein oder ein Bericht über ein Unternehmensjubiläum. Anders sieht es bei der Google-Suche nach bekannten Persönlichkeiten aus. Dort erscheinen allerlei Informationen zum (Privat-)Leben, zu ihren letzten Erfolgen oder auch Skandalen – bei den wenigsten ist das Bild ausschließlich positiv. Umso mehr überrascht, dass bei einer Recherche zu Bill Gates, dem berühmten Mitgründer des Softwareunternehmens Microsoft und einem der reichsten Menschen der Welt, kaum eine negative Schlagzeile zu lesen ist. Unter den ersten Links fand sich zum Zeitpunkt des Verfassens dieser Rezension eine Nachricht darüber, dass die »Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation« einer Schweizer Forscherin drei Millionen Euro für ihre Arbeit zukommen lässt....
Die Gründung der Stiftung fiel in eine Zeit, in der Bill Gates‘ Ruf schwer gelitten hatte. Microsoft sah sich mit Monopolvorwürfen konfrontiert, und Bill Gates wurde nachgesagt, dass er ein cholerischer Geschäftsführer sei. Die Gründung der Stiftung konnte die öffentliche Meinung allerdings sehr schnell wieder ins Positive wenden.
Doch war diese Einschätzung korrekt? Tim Schwab vertritt die Ansicht, dass sich vielleicht die Außenwahrnehmung von Gates geändert habe, nicht aber der Gründer der Stiftung selbst. Die Logik, nach der die Stiftung agiere, sei dieselbe, die auch ihren Gründer bestimme: Bill Gates denke, er sei der Einzige, der wisse, was für die Menschheit richtig ist, und der qualifiziert sei, die großen Probleme zu lösen. Hier zeigt sich bereits eine der Grundfragen des Buchs von Schwab: Ist Bill Gates eine Person mit guten Absichten, die der Meinung ist, dass der Zweck die Mittel heilige? Oder ist er ein Machtmensch voller Kalkül, der etwa durch die Ausrottung von Polio versucht, etwas Bleibendes zu hinterlassen, das sich mit seinem Namen verbindet [Nein, Entgelt-belohnte Zuarbeit für die Pharma-Lobby!]
Tauscht die Stiftung Geld gegen Macht ein? Was genau ist aber das Problem mit einer milliardenschweren Stiftung, die sich die Rettung der Menschheit auf die Fahne geschrieben hat? Das zentrale Problem liege, so der Autor, darin, dass die finanzielle Unterstützung der Stiftung immer an durchaus weitreichende Bedingungen geknüpft sei. Sie verlange etwa, politisch mitzuentscheiden, und tausche so – plump gesagt – Geld gegen Macht. Zudem übe sie nicht selten im Kontext der finanziellen Zuwendungen Zwang aus, so etwa beim Thema der Familienplanung. Die Stiftung gebe vor, Frauen in Ländern der Dritten Welt ermächtigen zu wollen, ihnen die Entscheidung über Verhütung und Schwangerschaft zu überlassen. Tatsächlich wende sie aber massiv Mittel dafür auf, die Kleinfamilie als Idealbild darzustellen, und fördere zusätzlich nur Verhütungsmittel wie Intrauterinpessare – auch »Spiralen« genannt –, die gleich mehrere Jahre lang wirken. Es drängt sich hier der Verdacht auf, dass man das Bevölkerungswachstum kontrollieren wolle. Zudem hinterlasse die Tatsache, dass sich die Stiftung mit Pharmakonzernen abstimme, die Produktion solcher (und nur solcher) Verhütungsmittel hochzufahren und diese dann günstig, weil subventioniert, in ärmeren Ländern anzubieten, einen unangenehmen Beigeschmack.
Es ist kein Zufall, dass sich hier Parallelen zur Kolonisierung des globalen Südens durch den Westen aufdrängen. Das Hauptproblem der Stiftung ist, folgt man Schwabs Darstellung, die Verstrickung von Reichtum und Macht. Tim Schwabs Ausführungen stützen sich auf jahrelange Recherchen, bei denen auch ehemalige und aktuelle Mitarbeiter der Stiftung sowie betroffene Forscher mitgewirkt haben, und benennen Machenschaften einer Stiftung, deren Intransparenz System zu haben scheint. Die 15 Kapitel des Buchs lesen sich flüssig. Der bissige Stil und bisweilen überzogene Vergleiche schaden der Glaubwürdigkeit der Darstellung allerdings hin und wieder. Trotzdem handelt es sich bei »Das Bill-Gates-Problem« um ein wichtiges Buch, das zeigt, wie elementar ein unabhängiger Journalismus für das Funktionieren einer liberalen Demokratie ist."
4) Zitate aus dem Rezensionsbuch S. 19 "Hillary Clinton geriet in die Kritik, als bekannt wurde, dass sie sich in ihrer offiziellen Rolle als Außenministerin der Vereinigten Staaten mehrmals mit Spendern der Clinton Foundation traf, darunter auch Melinda French Gates (Clinton bestritt jegliche unangemessene Beeinflussung). [41] "
S. 21 "Selbstverständlich schadete es auch nicht, dass die Gates Foundation begann, Hunderte Millionen Dollar an Nachrichtenmedien zu spenden (vom Guardian über den Spiegel und Le Monde bis zu ProPublica und National Public Radio), und ebenso wenig, dass Melinda French Gates mehrere Jahre der Redaktionsleitung der Washington Post angehörte. [45] Außerdem standen Gates’ philanthropische Erkundungen in Einklang mit dem damals vorherrschenden neoliberalen Wirtschaftsmodell, wonach agile und effiziente private Akteureunserer schwerfälligen bürokratischen Regierung eine Menge Arbeit abnehmen konnten – und sollten. Ob in großem Stil geförderte Landwirtschaft, Bildung oder Finanzgeschäfte – Bill Gates wurde zu einem wichtigen Partner und unersetzbaren Vorkämpfer für Geschäftsinteressen, der eine kommerzielle Ideologie im Zeichen der Wohltätigkeit gesellschaftsfähig machte. Im selben Maße, wie Microsoft durch Entfachen einer Computerrevolution im Handumdrehen den gesellschaftlichen Fortschritt befeuert habe, so Gates, werde seine Stiftung nun mit pharmazeutischen und agrochemischen Unternehmen zusammenarbeiten, um Kranke zu heilen und Hungrige zu speisen."
In writing about Tim Schwab's "The Bill Gates Problem", I'm just going to start with full disclosure of my opinion: there can be no ethical billionaires, much less a 'good' billionaire. IMHO, you can only accumulate billions of dollars by exploitation, be they in terms of resources (countries & environment) or manpower (human beings). Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Sergei Brin, the Koch brothers et al. are all examples of the kinds of billionaires I'm talking about.
That said, I had given Bill Gates the benefit of the doubt before reading this book since I viewed his involvement with the pandemic vaccination program and his efforts to help with the fight against climate change in good faith. So imagine my dismay at discovering that I've been duped into thinking that billionaires (& to some extent millionaires) can ever be trusted with their words.
Schwab has done a good job at exposing the facts surrounding this myth of the good billionaire because oftentimes we view them through an optimistic lens whenever we hear about all their philanthropic ways. None of the 'philanthropic billionaires' are as famous as Bill & Melinda Gates with their Gates Foundation, and they have spearheaded countless projects with their charity money, the public health & education sectors being the biggest beneficiaries from the foundation.
However, the adage that "nothing comes for free" is so fitting because as revealed by Schwab's investigative journalism into the foundations' activities, it was revealed that the Gates Foundation is just a way for Gates to: (a) evade paying more tax (since US gives tax breaks to charities & nonprofit foundations), (b) use his wealth to lobby for his agenda (amongst others, Gates has pushed for certain vaccines and products because he could profit off the R&D and patents from the researches he helped t fund, and he has also helped fund a few education policies to push for more privatized education), and (c) accumulate more wealth through his nonprofit foundation.
If the last point didn't make you raise your eyebrows, consider the paradox of Gates becoming richer by funding these nonprofit foundations; and consider the many facts that Schwab uncovered from the money trails (and sometimes the lack of it) that showed how Gates has used his tremendous wealth to drive policy changes without accountability since he does so through undemocratic means, i.e. using his dark money to influence the outcomes of certain decisions and researches; consider also that Gates has become the largest private farmland owner in the US, which he can utilize to further his agenda.
There were plenty of hair-raising issues that Schwab had uncovered through three years of investigative work, which he had broken down into 15 chapters that deal with different facets of Gates' supposedly philanthropic work. They showed how the Gates Foundation did not achieve what it had set out to do and has actually worsened things by further exacerbating existing inequalities, all because Bill Gates has the money to do so. Also, the fact that Gates heavily relied on the Big Four consultants (McKinsey was prominent throughout the book) was a major red flag for me; I have ranted exhaustively about these consultants in my review of The Big Con: How the Consulting Industry Weakens our Businesses, Infantilizes our Governments and Warps our Economies, another book that I'd highly recommend.
Overall this was a great read for a first book, but it does have its teething problem, mainly to do with the way this was written; Schwab is no Patrick Radden Keefe, so he does have areas where he can improve, especially when it comes to source citations & the way the narrative is presented. And admittedly this wasn't the most objective book since the title already tells you that Schwab deems Bill Gates as a problem. But TBH if you don't see Gates and the other one-percenters' undue influence on the US government and their meddling 'poorer developing nations' as a problem, then I'm going to assume that the current inequalities do not bother you & that you'd prefer to maintain the status quo because it benefits you.
In short, if you enjoy investigative journalism books in the vein of "Catch and Kill", "Bad Blood", and "Empire of Pain", I recommend picking this one up!
Thank you to Definitely Books & the publisher for providing me with a copy in exchange for an honest review.
Had een 4-sterrenboek kunnen zijn. Interessant inkijkje in ontwikkelingshulp en wat daar allemaal bij kan misgaan. Bill Gates is duidelijk een engerd. Maar het boek bevat zoveel grootspraak & herhalingen dat het geschreven lijkt door iemand van een debatclub. Erg vermoeiend. 😅
A revelation! I knew bits and pieces about the Gates empire and its influence, but this is a well researched, in-depth analysis into how much control Bill Gates has over agriculture, health, education, and ecology across the world.
Não dou cotação máxima porque só o faço a livros imprescindíveis a qualquer pessoa! No entanto investigação jornalística pertinente interessante sobre “o outro lado”
I read this entire book and it was a thick one. I am from Seattle so I have followed Bill Gates much of my adult life. I knew his father, who was a great man, with a big brain, combined with a big heart, and sincere modesty, a boy raised in Bremerton whose son made it big.
I felt the book was worthwhile and had merit but it droned on a bit much. It seemed there could have been at least 100 pages cut out but old-school editing is a thing of the past.
He has some interesting points of criticism about BillG and the Foundation and the question if an organization such as this should have such tremendous political power internationally and power over the media because of their reach.
Schwab goes over the many projects they have been involved with and how they are seen in their home countries including unrealistic expectations for them coming in and setting up programs expecting the government to take them over and take them to scale.
His exploration of Gate's ideas about the American education system reforms seemed to follow the pattern of a brilliant engineer not thinking through the downstream repercussions of their actions or considering real people in the mix, just A to B, why not?
His point is well taken as to who would speak out about such a huge funder who has their hand in so many things that no one dares to question him. The "I'm King of the World" and smarter than anyone else came through loud and clear. I kept asking myself what it would be like to be married to him if indeed he felt that way, no thanks!
How would anyone go about giving away as much money as has been given to the Foundation to distribute? It is like running a country.
Should anyone be allowed to amass so much wealth?
Should the US change its laws as far as reporting and transparency goes for such "charitable" organizations?
What about the dark money?
Anyone who lives in Seattle and is paying attention knows someone who has worked for the Foundation and the workplace culture seems tense at best.
While there were certainly some important points brought up the reader is left to sort out the author's impressions given his research vs the real story He had limited access because of the veil of secrecy required to be a part of Bill's sphere.
I do not regret reading it but I would also have a difficult time knowing who in my circle would invest this much time in a book on this topic. Read it and decide for yourself.
I don't fully agree with every aspect of this book, but it's a thoroughly researched, if not potentially biased, examination of a very polarizing figure and the systems that enable his white savior complex.
The major takeaways that I think are important here boil down to the author's examination of: 1. How the Dunning Kruger Effect allows for the proliferation and acceptance of "good billionaire" saviors 2. How structural inequality and institutionalized racism allows for these billionaires to deploy lobbying, tax loopholes, and dark money to amass political power 3. How private institutions/charities like The Gates Foundation waste taxpayer money and suppress innovation to publicize sexy goals and ideas that they are not held accountable to 4. How unchecked unethical behavior is driving further imbalances in power and inequality in society 5. How foundations and charities like this can create their own inaccurate stats to inflate PR and drive goodwill
Basically, the point is that privately rich, unelected savior-types undermine democracy.
The author does a good job tracking the money, PR, and marketing efforts of Bill Gates and The Gates Foundation. He examines how money and power destroys democracy and how the unchecked egos of white billionaire saviors propels colonialism.
Whether you agree or not, it's worth reading to understand how we all ultimately pay for a lot of the secret failures, good publicity, and fake stats that benefit Mr. Gates and his legacy.
The author ties this all together to ask why we are giving so much trust and control to billionaires who got rich bilking us in the first place. Is it even their place or within their expertise to be solving large complex world problems? Should we reconsider how we allow private benefactors to operate and work in public spaces?
Maybe we can start by questioning why individual humans are allowed to amass such fortunes....isn't that the real problem?