Dollars

CHARITIES


July 15 2016 – 7:34AM

Warren Buffett donated about $US2.2 billion ($2.9 billion) of stock in his annual gift to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, betting that risk takers at the group will make breakthroughs in global health and US education even as they acknowledge that some efforts will be unsuccessful.

“Some of the projects we fund will fail,” the Gateses wrote in a message on their website. “We not only accept that, we expect it — because we think an essential role of philanthropy is to make bets on promising solutions that governments and businesses can’t afford to make. As we learn which bets pay off, we have to adjust our strategies and share the results so everyone can benefit.”

The Sage of Omaha and Berkshire Hathaway’s CEO isn’t likely to want to leave his investing powerhouse.

“If you succeed in everything you’re doing in charity, you’re attempting things that are too easy,”: Warren Buffett. Photo: Thomas Lohnes

Buffett, 85, contributed 15 million Class B shares of his Berkshire Hathaway stock to the foundation Wednesday, according to a regulatory filing Thursday. He made a pledge in 2006 to hand over a total that equates to 500 million shares, and each year he gives 5 per cent of the remaining total.

Through last year, he donated more than $US17 billion of stock to the foundation. The annual sums have often climbed because of gains in the share price.

Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway has donated over $US17 billion of stock to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation Photo: AP

‘Too Easy’

While he is known for looking for a margin of safety with Berkshire’s investments and often faults himself when his stock wagers sour, Buffett is more tolerant of bets going bad in philanthropy. “If you succeed in everything you’re doing in charity, you’re attempting things that are too easy,” the Berkshire chairman and chief executive officer said in 2011.

The Gates Foundation has donated more than $US36 billion, including for projects that expand access to immunisations in developing countries and provide financial services to poor communities. Bill Gates, the 60-year-old co-founder of Microsoft Corp., has acknowledged it’s been more difficult to make advances improving US education than in boosting mortality rates for children.

Henry Sapiecha

John Arnold and his wife Laura are targeting contrarian, underappreciated causes, things like research integrity, drug-sentencing reform, organ donations and broken pension systems, an especially radioactive issue.

When John Arnold was a trader, he had a serene – some would say bloodless – way of seeing the world. He wanted the truth, the cold, hard truth, and embraced the power of an idea no one else was seeing. Then he bet nearly everything he had on it.

In 2006, Arnold’s hedge fund, Centaurus Advisors, took a huge contrarian position on natural gas prices and made a fortune. In 2008, it anticipated the commodities crash.

Three years ago, at the tender age of 38, married with three children and $US4 billion richer, Arnold shut his fund and decided to spend the rest of his professional life giving away his money as counterintuitively as he had earned it.

He had made millions at Enron and billions at Centaurus, zigging when others zagged. Now, that rare person who grows less popular the more he gives away, he is focusing on dilemmas dragging down the nation that no one else wants to confront.
Advertisement

Sitting in the Houston offices of his foundation, he explained, “I was troubled when I was trading that it’s hard to make that direct tie between the financial industry and the greater good. My life was 100 per cent trying to make money in the first phase, then 100 per cent trying to do good in the second.”
Contrarian causes

Arnold and his wife, Laura, a former corporate attorney, are targeting contrarian, underappreciated causes, things like research integrity, drug-sentencing reform, organ donations and broken pension systems, an especially radioactive issue. This is partly, they say, because while a billion dollars sounds like a lot, it isn’t when applied to a multitrillion-dollar conundrum.

“I try to look at it from supply and demand,” Arnold said. “Where is the need being met today, and where is there unmet demand?”

Of cultural facilities, research universities and hospitals that raise money briskly, he said, “I’m not saying those are bad things to fund, I just think the value of an incremental dollar to these is lower than other avenues.”

Arnold is a private man who doesn’t engage in a lot of pleasantries. He has grown a beard that disguises a trademark boyishness. He chooses his words deliberately and folds his hands together.

Pension reform appealed to Arnold the moment he first read about it. The problem is complex, seemingly unsolvable, and just about no one else was willing to get involved.

And Arnold, a moderate Democrat who believes a rich country like the US should provide a high safety net for its citizens, sees the stakes as being no smaller than the survival of the very governments that provide that net.
Quality of life

“The financial health of a city or a state is directly attributable to outcomes in education and outcomes in public safety and quality of life,” Arnold said. “This isn’t just an accounting problem. It directly leads into all the things people care about.”

Pensions work like this: every year, employees and the government both pay into a fund, and when the employees retire the government uses that fund to pay them until they die. There are decades between the pay-in and the pay-out, so the government can invest the fund and make sure the money is there.

But problems have arisen. While employees’ contributions are taken directly out of pay cheques, mayors and governors have routinely not paid their share into the system, arguing (often wrongly) that they will get a higher return than predicted. In addition, the market crash of 2008 wiped more than $US1 trillion off pension funds’ assets.

A study of more than 150 state and local pensions found the total unfunded liability between $US1.1 trillion and $US3.1 trillion.
Fixing pensions

This is not a problem most philanthropists have had any interest in solving.

“Fixing” pensions means, almost by definition, cutting payments to people who need and were promised them, raising retirement ages, reducing cost of living adjustments, introducing defined contribution plans for new workers and increasing how much employees must put into their retirement. The Arnolds argue that despite the pain caused, without the changes both governments and pensioners have no future.

They don’t recommend specific changes, only present states and municipalities with options. Through their advocacy organisation, they support candidates and ballot initiatives, sometimes providing the vast majority of the donations in places including Phoenix and San Jose. They include legal work to defend the changes from court challenge. The Arnolds supported the overhaul of the Rhode Island pension system led by state Treasurer Gina Raimondo who they later backed in her successful gubernatorial run.

Critics say pension reform is a euphemism for denying workers what they have been promised and paid for. One Rolling Stone writer called Arnold a “ubiquitous young right-wing kingmaker.”

Bailey Childers, president of the National Public Pension Coalition, a union-backed group set up in part to help counter Arnold’s influence, said, “There’s not this crisis that they want you to believe there is in states that are doing what they’re supposed to do. This is an attack on workers who have played by the rules.”

Arnold, who grew used to being unpopular as an investor, says the pension work has been worth all the criticism. He acknowledges that policy is a squishier realm than the metrics-oriented world of financial markets. Failure is a frequent, even elemental, part of success. But he finds inspiration from the recent and sudden surge of gay rights, a once unpopular cause.

“Things seem to be happening very quickly now, but only because there was 10 or 20 years of work done on these issues when progress was frustratingly slow,” he said. He hopes the same will hold true for his work on pensions, that groundwork now will yield results in a decade. By finding what he calls “leverage points in the system,” he figures he has “higher potential for value added.”

Bloomberg

Henry Sapiecha

Sean Parker of Napster fame image www.acbocallcentre.com
Donating millions: Sean Parker.

Sean Parker of Napster fame is donating $US24 million ($AU29 million) to create a new research institute at Stanford University with the mission of finding a cure – not just another treatment – for allergies.

In announcing the gift, the 35-year-old technology whiz revealed that he has suffered from life-threatening food allergies and asthma for most of his life. He said he missed the final weeks of his senior year at Chantilly (Virginia) High School because of complications from allergies and that his wife estimates he has been hospitalised 14 times in the time they have known each other.

“We think of allergies as being a nuisance or inconvenience, but there are a huge number of people for whom it is pretty debilitating,” Parker, who is estimated by Forbes to be worth $US3 billion ($AU3.7 billion), said during a conference call Monday with reporters.

Parker, co-founder of the Napster file-sharing service and Facebook’s founding president, said that while the number of people with allergies is rising, research has been “stuck in the stone ages.”

About 30 per cent of the global population is affected by allergies each day. Those with allergies to things such as pollen often use antihistamine pills and nasal sprays. Some build tolerance by getting shots that expose them to tiny amounts of allergens.

There are not any approved treatments for people with food allergies, so they must avoid exposure to foods they are allergic to. Many carry around devices with epinephrine, which can stop an attack, in case of accidental exposure.

Parker said he wants to move the field away from managing symptoms and toward delving into the mechanisms of the immune system’s response during allergic reactions.

The new institute, which will be called the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy Research, will be led by Kari Nadeau, a researcher at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford. She has pioneered research that involves exposing patients to small amounts of peanuts, wheat and other allergens in a controlled setting.

Parker has become an influential philanthropist and spokesman for research into the immune system. His largest donations before the one to Stanford have gone to the emerging field of cancer immunotherapy, which looks at how the body’s immune system can be harnessed to stop cancers.

Washington Post
project & construction finance banner image www.money-au.com (2)
Henry Sapiecha

www.newcures.info

 

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett in 2012 image www.acbocallcentre.com

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett in 2012. Photo: Bloomberg

Warren Buffett, the second-richest person in the United States, made his largest single charitable contribution ever when he donated $US2.1 billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The chairman and chief executive officer of Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc. gave 16.6 million Class B shares Monday in an annual gift to the foundation, where he is a trustee, according to a regulatory filing Tuesday. The donation beat last year’s record gift of $US2 billion, when he gave 17.5 million shares. The stock has gained 8.8 percent this year through the close of trading yesterday to $US128.98.

Buffett, 83, has vowed through the Giving Pledge initiative to give away most of his net worth, which is more than $US60 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaire’s Index, a daily ranking of the world’s wealthiest people.

Along with Microsoft co-founder Gates, the world’s richest man, he has urged other ultra-wealthy people to give away their money.

“I will give 99 per cent, but the other 1 per cent is way more than enough,” Buffett said June 9 at the Edison Electric Institute annual convention in Las Vegas.

“I have never given a dollar that caused me to give up something I wanted to buy.”

Most of Buffett’s donated money goes to the Gates Foundation, which focuses on hunger, poverty and education.

He earmarked 10 million Class B Berkshire shares for the Seattle- based charity in 2006 and gives 5 percent of the remaining total each year.

The shares were split 50-1 in 2010.

The Washington Post

Henry Sapiecha

AUSTRALIA is the most charitable nation on earth, a new study shows, with Greece being the meanest.

The Charities Aid Foundation World Giving Index ranked Australia first followed by Ireland, Canada, New Zealand and the US.

The pressure on the household budgets of Greeks was reflected in most of the 146 nations surveyed, with the aftershocks of the 2008 financial crisis reducing the amount of time and money people were willing to devote to charity. The survey showed 28 per cent of people gave money to charity last year compared with almost 30 per cent in 2007.

”In large parts of the world, household incomes are being squeezed, prices are rising and job insecurity is on the increase, with the result that many simply have less time and money to spare,” John Low, the chief executive of the group, said.
Money Mart Online Payday Loans

In Greece, the share of people donating to charity fell to 5 per cent from 7 per cent in 2010.

Still, 3 per cent of Greeks volunteered time to charitable causes, unchanged from a year earlier, and 30 per cent said they had helped a stranger compared with 28 per cent.

About 165 million Indians, 143 million Americans and 126 Indonesians donated money, the survey showed.

Women donated more money than men last year around the world, although men were more likely to volunteer time and help a stranger, the charity said.

Gallup interviewed more than 155,000 people in 146 countries on behalf of the group, which provides financial services and social finance to charities

Home Money Manager Software

Sourced & published by Henry Sapiecha

 

BILL GATES THE EXTRAORDINARY PERSON DESERVES A KNIGHTHOOD

Bill Gates today ruled out ever returning to the helm of Microsoft and dismissed harsh barbs by his former arch-rival Steve Jobs.

In an interview with Fairfax Media, Gates said Jobs was driven by the fact that “Microsoft machines outsold his machines by a lot”.

Bill Gates
Bill Gates … philanthropy is the focus on his life. Photo: Danielle Smith

This month Fortune reported rumours that Gates was considering a comeback to Microsoft, the company he founded in 1975 but stepped back from in 2006 to focus full-time on philanthropy.

But speaking in Sydney today, where he is on holiday with his family, Gates said he had made the transition to work full-time at his Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation “and that will be what I do the rest of my life”.

“I’m part-time involved with Microsoft, including even being in touch this week to give some of my advice but that’s not going to change – the foundation requires all of my energy and we feel we’re having a great impact.”

A possible comeback was loosely compared to Jobs, who took the reins at Apple in the late 90s after a decade in the wilderness and saved the company.

Steve Ballmer, who has been Microsoft’s CEO since taking over from Gates in 2000, is widely considered to have missed the significance of what Jobs dubbed the “post-PC era” and Microsoft is now an also-ran in smartphones, tablets and music players.

Gates, who plans to donate nearly all of his money to charity when he passes away, may be just as culpable as Ballmer for missing the new era in computing as he has been quoted questioning the viability of Apple devices like the iPod and iPad.

Gates on Jobs

Gates and Jobs were the founders of the personal computing revolution and although they have displayed great mutual respect, over the years the competitors frequently took potshots at one another.

Jobs recently said Gates was “unimaginative” and hadn’t invented anything.

Today, Gates said Jobs was “brilliant” and he enjoyed working with him on Mac software and also competing with him, but “because the Microsoft machines outsold his machines by a lot he was always kind of tough on Microsoft, but that’s fine, he was a brilliant person”.

‘Tough things’

“Our work at Microsoft was super successful for all good reasons but Steve made huge contributions and he actually in his last few years was a lot kinder than that but over the years he did say some tough things,” Gates said today.

Gates’ approach – to license his software to all computer makers – contrasted sharply with Jobs’s philosophy of controlling the entire user experience from top to tail.

Gates’ method saw Windows dominate the PC industry but the Jobs philosophy is proving powerful in the smartphone and tablet era.

Gates has previously said of Apple’s closed model: “The integrated approach works well when Steve is at the helm. But it doesn’t mean it will win many rounds in the future.”

‘Crappy’

Jobs said of Gates’s open model: “Of course his fragmented model worked, but it didn’t make really great products. It produced crappy products.”

Gates has previously described Jobs as “fundamentally odd” and while recognising his mesmerising effect on people, described him as “weirdly flawed as a human being”.

Jobs, who went on a journey of spiritual enlightenment in his younger years, said Gates would “be a broader guy if he had dropped acid once or gone off to an ashram when he was younger”.

But Jobs’s harshest barbs came during an interview with his biographer, Walter Isaacson.

“Bill is basically unimaginative and has never invented anything, which is why I think he’s more comfortable now in philanthropy than technology,” Jobs told Isaacson. “He just shamelessly ripped off other people’s ideas.”

Jobs has previously complained that Gates stole the idea of bringing a mouse-operated graphical user interface to Windows after seeing it on the original Macintosh.

‘No shame’

“They just ripped us off completely, because Gates has no shame,” Jobs said in the biography, to which Gates replied “if he believes that, he really has entered into one of his own reality distortion fields”.

Of Jobs’s technology prowess, Gates has said: “Don’t you understand that Steve doesn’t know anything about technology? He’s just a super salesman.”

But in an internal email that previously surfaced, Gates was more charitable: “Steve Jobs’ ability to focus in on a few things that count, get people who get user interface right, and market things as revolutionary are amazing things.”

When Jobs and Gates appeared on stage together in 2007 in a rare joint interview, Gates said: “I’d give a lot to have Steve’s taste.”

Gates on … bringing his family to Sydney

“They thought it would be fun to come down and see some of the neat places around Australia. Sydney is a great place and it’s summer here. Wish it was a tiny bit warmer, but it hasn’t been too bad”

… on Australia’s overseas aid 

“Australia is making good increases” but “The other rich countries on average are doing even more.

“I think it’s important to get out to Australians that this kind of generosity really makes a difference. Actually the most impactful dollars that Australia can spend are actually what goes to help the poorest.”

Sourced & published  by Henry Sapiecha

BILL GATES THE EXTRAORDINARY PERSON DESERVES A KNIGHTHOOD

Bill Gates today ruled out ever returning to the helm of Microsoft and dismissed harsh barbs by his former arch-rival Steve Jobs.

In an interview with Fairfax Media, Gates said Jobs was driven by the fact that “Microsoft machines outsold his machines by a lot”.

Bill Gates
Bill Gates … philanthropy is the focus on his life. Photo: Danielle Smith

This month Fortune reported rumours that Gates was considering a comeback to Microsoft, the company he founded in 1975 but stepped back from in 2006 to focus full-time on philanthropy.

But speaking in Sydney today, where he is on holiday with his family, Gates said he had made the transition to work full-time at his Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation “and that will be what I do the rest of my life”.

“I’m part-time involved with Microsoft, including even being in touch this week to give some of my advice but that’s not going to change – the foundation requires all of my energy and we feel we’re having a great impact.”

A possible comeback was loosely compared to Jobs, who took the reins at Apple in the late 90s after a decade in the wilderness and saved the company.

Steve Ballmer, who has been Microsoft’s CEO since taking over from Gates in 2000, is widely considered to have missed the significance of what Jobs dubbed the “post-PC era” and Microsoft is now an also-ran in smartphones, tablets and music players.

Gates, who plans to donate nearly all of his money to charity when he passes away, may be just as culpable as Ballmer for missing the new era in computing as he has been quoted questioning the viability of Apple devices like the iPod and iPad.

Gates on Jobs

Gates and Jobs were the founders of the personal computing revolution and although they have displayed great mutual respect, over the years the competitors frequently took potshots at one another.

Jobs recently said Gates was “unimaginative” and hadn’t invented anything.

Today, Gates said Jobs was “brilliant” and he enjoyed working with him on Mac software and also competing with him, but “because the Microsoft machines outsold his machines by a lot he was always kind of tough on Microsoft, but that’s fine, he was a brilliant person”.

‘Tough things’

“Our work at Microsoft was super successful for all good reasons but Steve made huge contributions and he actually in his last few years was a lot kinder than that but over the years he did say some tough things,” Gates said today.

Gates’ approach – to license his software to all computer makers – contrasted sharply with Jobs’s philosophy of controlling the entire user experience from top to tail.

Gates’ method saw Windows dominate the PC industry but the Jobs philosophy is proving powerful in the smartphone and tablet era.

Gates has previously said of Apple’s closed model: “The integrated approach works well when Steve is at the helm. But it doesn’t mean it will win many rounds in the future.”

‘Crappy’

Jobs said of Gates’s open model: “Of course his fragmented model worked, but it didn’t make really great products. It produced crappy products.”

Gates has previously described Jobs as “fundamentally odd” and while recognising his mesmerising effect on people, described him as “weirdly flawed as a human being”.

Jobs, who went on a journey of spiritual enlightenment in his younger years, said Gates would “be a broader guy if he had dropped acid once or gone off to an ashram when he was younger”.

But Jobs’s harshest barbs came during an interview with his biographer, Walter Isaacson.

“Bill is basically unimaginative and has never invented anything, which is why I think he’s more comfortable now in philanthropy than technology,” Jobs told Isaacson. “He just shamelessly ripped off other people’s ideas.”

Jobs has previously complained that Gates stole the idea of bringing a mouse-operated graphical user interface to Windows after seeing it on the original Macintosh.

‘No shame’

“They just ripped us off completely, because Gates has no shame,” Jobs said in the biography, to which Gates replied “if he believes that, he really has entered into one of his own reality distortion fields”.

Of Jobs’s technology prowess, Gates has said: “Don’t you understand that Steve doesn’t know anything about technology? He’s just a super salesman.”

But in an internal email that previously surfaced, Gates was more charitable: “Steve Jobs’ ability to focus in on a few things that count, get people who get user interface right, and market things as revolutionary are amazing things.”

When Jobs and Gates appeared on stage together in 2007 in a rare joint interview, Gates said: “I’d give a lot to have Steve’s taste.”

Gates on … bringing his family to Sydney

“They thought it would be fun to come down and see some of the neat places around Australia. Sydney is a great place and it’s summer here. Wish it was a tiny bit warmer, but it hasn’t been too bad”

… on Australia’s overseas aid 

“Australia is making good increases” but “The other rich countries on average are doing even more.

“I think it’s important to get out to Australians that this kind of generosity really makes a difference. Actually the most impactful dollars that Australia can spend are actually what goes to help the poorest.”

Sourced & published  by Henry Sapiecha

CHINESE PRETTY BABY RORTS RED CROSS CHINA DONATIONS

She calls the white Maserati she drives the “little horse”, and her orange Lamborghini the “little bull”.

Guo Meimei, 20 – who goes by the name “Guo Meimei Baby” – may be just another young woman flaunting her wealth through photographs posted on Weibo, the Chinese version of Twitter, but her link to the Red Cross of China has sparked a national debate around how donations to charities are used.

The Red Cross of China is one of the country’s largest charities and has strong ties to the communist government. And evidence of Ms Guo’s extravagant lifestyle has made the Chinese suspicious in a country where the divide between rich and poor is growing and corruption is rife.

Guo Meimei Baby ... accused of taking money that was meant for charity.Guo Meimei Baby … accused of taking money that was meant for charity. Photo: AFP 

In her microblog, Ms Guo, whose name “Mei” means “pretty”, has posted photos of herself with the sports cars, a pile of luxury Hermes handbags, sipping drinks in business class on a flight and showing off her luxury villa.

She identified herself as “commercial general manager” at the Red Cross, a position verified by Sina – the company that runs Weibo.

Suspicious Chinese netizens are asking how a young woman such as Ms Guo came into such wealth. Did she or her boyfriend embezzle money from the Red Cross to line their own pockets?

In business class ... Guo Meimei Baby.In business class … Guo Meimei Baby. Photo: AFP 

Their suspicions were fuelled by a photo that surfaced on the internet in April, which revealed the Shanghai branch of the Red Cross spent 9859 yuan ($1420) on a meal.

China’s state auditor also announced in recent weeks that it found five discrepancies in its review of the Red Cross’s 2010 budget, prompting a denial of corrupt practices from the organisation, which has often been in the forefront of official fund-raising drives following natural disasters.

Ms Guo later backtracked on her Red Cross job title as China’s online activists swung into action and dug up information about her past and her relationships.

One of her cars ... Guo Meimei Baby.One of her cars … Guo Meimei Baby. Photo: AFP 

But the damage had been done and rumours about Ms Guo and the Red Cross continued to grow.

When she tried to leave the country – purportedly to Australia – to get away from the spotlight, the Australian embassy in Beijing was inundated with calls and emails from people expressing fears that she was going to run away with “their donation money”, the Shanghai Daily reported.

The netizens had alleged Ms Guo was the girlfriend or mistress of a senior official, 42-year-old Wang Jun, who organised charity campaigns for the Red Cross.

Living the high life ... Guo Meimei Baby poses on a horse.Living the high life … Guo Meimei Baby poses on a horse. Photo: AFP 

On Weibo alone, more than 600,000 posts a day were written about Ms Guo, London’s Daily Telegraph reported. It claims more than 140 million users.

Mr Wang was forced to resign from his job as a result of the furore, while the Red Cross vehemently denied any links to Ms Guo.

Ms Guo played down her links with the mega-charity in a special report into the controversy on national broadcaster CCTV.

“The wording ‘Red Cross Society’ is too sensitive,” Malaysia’s The Star newspaper reported her as saying.

“Everybody was saying that I used the organisation to make big bucks.”

The English-language China Daily – another state-run paper – weighed in on the debate.

“The RCSC [Red Cross Society of China], as a non-profit charity organisation, has the obligation to keep all its activities transparent and let the public know how it manages its donations and where it has spent them.

“Yet, its lack of transparency in the use of charity donations has long been a matter of concern to the public.”

The People’s Daily – the mouthpiece of China’s Communist Party – also acknowledged the growing influence of social networking tools on Chinese society and politics in an article titled: How microblogging power shakes reality in China.

“Microblogging was introduced in China in 2009 and has quickly developed into a major channel of public opinions within less than three years. Many hot incidents were first exposed through microblog posts.

“From the forum to microblogging, the people’s enthusiasm and ability to participate in public affairs has greatly risen along with the [i]nternet, which is developing at an unbelievable speed.”

English-language social media sites Facebook and Twitter – which attract millions of users worldwide and through which aspects of the Arab Spring revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa were organised – are banned in China.

Yet local sites Tencent (China’s largest internet service portal), Weibo, Baidu (a search engine) and Renren (sometimes dubbed the Chinese Facebook) have grown in popularity in recent years, and are among the world’s most visited online networking sites.

The ultimate victim of the widespread outrage may be China’s philanthropy drive.

Last year, Chinese citizens donated 70 billion yuan ($10 billion) to charities compared with 54 billion yuan in 2009, Agence France-Presse reported, quoted the official Xinhua news agency.

The country is still new to philanthropy and the China Development Brief, a prominent publication, said local charities’ “lack of transparency and mechanisms to track donations” remained major stumbling blocks, AFP said.

The China Daily said as a result of the uproar over Ms Guo, 90 per cent of people who took part in an online poll the newspaper conducted indicated they would not donate to the Red Cross of China any more.

The Financial Times noted: “There is also a deeper problem in the lack of trust in a society whose wealthiest members often get rich through government connections.

“The idea that people would, out of the goodness of their hearts, give money away is scoffed at.”

Sourced & published by Henry Sapiecha