I'm participating in this site, in which economics superstars (and, gulp, me) comment on Bill Gates' theory of philanthropy. The results, including some of the comments, will ultimately be turned into a book.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I'm calling redundancy on the title.
To me, the situation revolves around self-interest v. Self-interest. The former concerned with, and, solely, informed by Finance, and the latter, edified, by Economics.
There is nothing Socialist, or contra-Capitalist, to being Economically Self-interested, quite the Contrary, it is what made the, former, Republic of the united States the Economic locomotive of the World's, incomplete as the job has been left, improvement.
Bill Gates is not going for the big win.
The way to fix the world's problems is to make everyone richer. To make energy and material resources abundant and cheap. There are a number of investments where the amount is large enough and the payback timeframe long enough to discourage investors. The payback for everyone, though, is huge.
Government won't do it. Politicians don't seem to think past the next week's poll. Corporate executives don't think past the next quarter's results. And charitable foundations have to give money away.
I can't really complain about his investment in vaccine research. It has the delayed/indirect payback feature that inhibits investment.
What Bill Gates is doing is high on the feel-good scale, and higher on the effectiveness scale than what other givers are doing, but he's wasting an historic opportunity. Warren Buffett's gift to the Gates foundation just rubs salt into the wound.
Where is D. D. Harriman when we need him?
Thanks for the pointer. I'm always excited to see the name Landsburg. If I hadn't read his first book when I was 13, I wouldn't be reading this blog now.