09.27.10
Gemini version available ♊︎Fake or Dodgy Donations
Summary: A sample of new ‘donations’ from Microsoft and an exposé from the British press about what happens to money Bono is given for charity
LATER on in the week we are going to deal with the Gates Foundation separately. Today, we shall start by focusing on the man who was famously shown on the cover of Time along with Bill and Melinda. The British press is currently exposing his charity as somewhat of a farce. He got caught in a ‘charity’ scandal and current news headlines include:
1. BONO CHARITY SPENDS MORE ON WAGES THAN GOOD CAUSES
2. BONO’S ONE CAMPAIGN GETS £10M DONATIONS BUT GIVES JUST £118K
Another charity effort gone awry? Well, in Gates’ case it is even more complex because a lot gets spent on publicity (i.e. controlling stories in the press to eliminate or wash aside legitimate criticism). But there are many other factors. Either way, the party best known for fake donations would be Microsoft in our case. Later on we are going to write again about Bong [sic] bribes, which the company labels “charity”. Looking at last week’s news we find several more examples of this kind.
“Microsoft donates to Tutorial Center” says this one headline, but it’s utter nonsense. They are ‘donating’ copies of something which costs nothing to reproduce. Worse — they are donating Office lock-in. “The software, valued at $57,000, are for TTC’s Microsoft Office Suite applications and Windows 7 for both Macintosh and PC computers,” says the article. This is no donation, it’s just PR. Microsoft has already explained its views on counterfeiting.
“They are ‘donating’ copies of something which costs nothing to reproduce.”For PR value that’s akin to what’s gained from American EDGI [1, 2, 3, 4], Microsoft is now exploiting the situation in Britain [1,
2] and it is pushing its lock-in into more academic environments, brainwashing young people inside the school system, at taxpayers’ expense.
As one last example of fake donations from Microsoft, consider the Russia NGOs spin [1, 2]. This Microsoft PR success story is still in the news [1, 2] as they don’t tell the original story anymore. Rather than report about Microsoft cracking down on political opposition the story told is one about Microsoft ‘donation’.
It often seems like donation is ~90% about publicity and a lot less about practical gain to society. These proportions may vary depending on individual cases and generalisations help not at all. In Microsoft’s case, the so-called ‘donations’ do great long-term harm. They may injure more than they actually help. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
Jose_X said,
September 27, 2010 at 10:15 am
The more people contribute to the Gates’ Foundry (especially if without strings attached), the more the Foundry will be able to support Microsoft and other Gates company sales.
How about this offer to Mr or Mrs Wealthy Person:
Put vast wealth in stock holdings under the Foundry. We make sure you retain control in voting as you desire (and you can even buy extra voting power from other free-and-clear shares we may also own in such companies). Of the significant amount of money saved in taxes, we get 25% diverted to our choosing, and we will find a way to invest the remaining 75% through companies of your choosing. Meanwhile, the principle stays in tact. Well, more or less that is the offer.
Result is that the wealthiest avoid paying their share of taxes, while they further can use that leverage to promote their own other private investments and hence make it that much more difficult for smaller third party businesses to compete.
In short, paying taxes at least ensures most of that money gets redistributed more evenly than if no taxes were ever paid. This is more true if those avoiding the majority of the taxes are the wealthiest among us and they then specifically apply the saved money to promoting their own selves over smaller business people. [Note that the government is a significant employer and contractor, where these funds have a greater chance of being distributed to a wide audience. They also help set up court and police systems that are much more likely to be even-handed to all than would be the case with "private armies".]