Charlie RoseFrom our studios in New York City, this is Charlie Rose.Fifteen years ago, in the year 2000, Bill and Melinda Gates created the Bill and MelindaGates Foundation.Nine years ago, in 2006, Warren Buffett pledged part of his fortune to the Bill and MelindaGates Foundation.The Gates Foundation has since become a leader in fighting global issues such as hunger,poverty, infectious diseases, and education.In 2010, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and Melinda Gates joined forces one more time.They created the Giving Pledge.It is a request for the very wealthy to pledge to give away at least 50 percent of theirwealth to charitable causes before they die.That effort has grown to include 137 contributors from 14 countries.Last week in Sun Valley, Idaho, I talked to Warren and Bill and Melinda about their livesand how the Giving Pledge came about.Well, it really grew out of Warren's idea that we should meet with other people who'dbeen serious about philanthropy and learn from them.
QuestionerWhy were they engaged?How were they thinking about it?And through those dinners, the idea that we'd actually create a group emerged.And it's really been amazing to us.We have a yearly gathering.People who have common interests will meet separately.And I've learned a lot.I look forward to those gatherings.It's not people pitching each other, but there's so much in common that we can learn, and sometimespeople do end up working together.
Charlie RoseI'll come back to what you've learned.Where did the idea come from, and what were you thinking about?
WarrenI'm not exactly sure where it came from.Like Bill says, we had a dinner that David Rockefeller hosted.And I would say it sort of evolved out of that.We had 15 or so people there, counting couples, it was two.And we went around a table, and we just asked people to sort of explain where their givingphilosophy came from, not to make a pitch to anybody, and how their thinking went.And they talked about their families, and they talked about their parents' influence.And it took at least two hours to get around the table.People were really interested in talking sort of peer-to-peer about it.And there was so much.We clearly hit a chord someplace, and then the three of us talked later on, and the GivingPledge evolved out of that.
Charlie RoseI remember you talking to me about it at the time, and you said there was an emotionalconnection between people, because they thought and they found themselves listening to other
Otherpeople and feeling like, this is exactly the way I feel.Yeah, they didn't feel awkward in talking about themselves.I think we were a little lucky perhaps in who we called on first even, because the firstperson, their degree of candor, the first couple, their degree of candor I think wascontagious as we went around the table.So nobody engaged in any posturing or anything of the sort, which you might get sometimesin a group, particularly where some of the people don't know each other well or are acquainted.But instead of that, we got this very candid discussion by really everyone there, and theytalked about their children sometimes, and sometimes their disappointments, or sometimeshow they felt good about what happened with them.And it became clear that if a bunch of people somewhat similarly situated would get together,we'd learn from each other and perhaps have a lot of other good things come out of it.So it just sort of evolved out of that first dinner, I would say.
OtherMelinda, how's it growing?
OtherWell, it's been growing substantially.We have 137 pledgers now in 14 countries.And I think one of the neatest things now is when we get together for these annual gatherings.And the first night that you sit down at dinner, you realize you're amongst friends, that allthese people we've met over time, not only are we getting to know them, but they're gettingto know each other, and they look forward to the event.I think because of the candor of the conversations we can have about what do you do about yourchildren, what about the next generation, how do you think about a leader, how do youeven start a foundation if you're just beginning.Those are conversations you want to have in private, in a small group, and I think that'swhat our gathering affords.There's no one-upsmanship or anything like that.I mean, some of these people are quite capable of that in different situations.But I would say it brings out the best in everybody, and they're not trying to impressthe other person.And they're genuinely interested in successes, failures, family situations, whatever it maybe.And so there's a level of candor that's really impressive.
OtherOh, you may have an international dimension.Was that bridge hard to get people who were not as familiar with philanthropy as Americansare?
OtherWell, one of the things the U.S. should be proud of is that it is the leader, the mostengaged in philanthropy, and most of the really strong historical examples, Rockefeller, Carnegie,
OtherFord Foundation, were American foundations.And other countries are interested in it, because whether it's helping universitiesor research or trying out new ways of doing education, philanthropy has proven, even thoughit's a small part even of the U.S. economy, it's been a very innovative part, where peopleshow new pilot programs that then really influence a lot of other activity.Most of our members are from the United States.We've done a slightly better job of reaching out to people in the United States.But the international piece is going to grow, and we'd like to see philanthropy strengthenon a global basis.We always like to see people getting involved when they're younger, a bit more collaboratively,and hopefully with even more of their resources.That's one of the tenets, trying to tell people to think about this early in your life ratherthan think about it at the end of your life, because you're better equipped to make decisionsat this time.
OtherDefinitely.And I think by having people come together once they've decided that they're going topledge, even if they're pledging to give it away at the end of their life, if they cometo a gathering, they start to learn from one another about what's even possible in maybethe field they're interested in and how did you get going.And so, yeah, we're trying to get people to learn from one another and hopefully to getstarted a bit earlier, because if they put their brains against these problems, whateverthey've done in their business life against the problems of inequity or whatever theychoose, they can have a huge effect, and they're learning that from one another.
OtherSo what's the pitch to somebody?
WarrenHe's a mess at it.
OtherI know.That's why I direct him.I've been that guy.You call him up and you say, what?Well, I usually send him some material on it first, because there might be some misconceptionsabout it.But so I ask him whether they've got the material, whether they've got any questions.You read it.Yeah.And what you want to do is get them talking.And there's some people that aren't interested, but a very significant percentage are.I've been amazed at, frankly, at how well it's gone.I would have said if we had 50 by now, I would have had 130.137.Yeah.And I had a dinner here some months ago, and one of the people that came had misconceptionsabout that they had to do this or that.And by the end of the evening, this particular person was ready to join.
WarrenAnd we'll give 99% on this particular case.
QuestionerSo what's the transaction?
WarrenThe transaction is simply that they write a letter explaining, making a pledge to give at least 50%, although a lot of them name a larger number, but give at least 50% during their lifetime or at death to philanthropy. And then I encourage them to explain how they got to that decision. Is it from their parents? Is it from the examples around them and why they're doing it? And we get some magnificent letters. And I tell the people I talk to that the letters are enormously important because somebody 10, 20, 50 years from now is going to read that like maybe Bill or Melinda or I've read about Carnegie or Rockefeller or Rosenwald or you name it, you never know what's going to strike a chord.
QuestionerThat's like a lawyer making an argument. I mean, you try to name 20 reasons why your client isn't guilty, even though you may only think one or two of them are really that good. You want to make sure you've got the one covered. And all you've got to do is hit a chord on one of them.
QuestionerBut do you all make the calls? I mean, the three of you are engaged in a real personal way in terms of recruiting.
WarrenWell, the thing that has worked the best is just to invite people to a dinner that's about philanthropy. And that's not a recruiting dinner. When I'm traveling around, I always look on my schedule. Do I have time for dinner, even outside the U.S.? And you have anywhere from six to as many as 15, which is almost too many. And you talk about philanthropy. And then afterwards, if you get a sense that it might be a fit for them, I can follow up by sending the material and making a call. So a lot of the people who are joining already had the intention to give every dollar. But they do find the idea of being part of the group that it'll help them engage and make sure that it's a fun thing for them.
QuestionerWe love the impact and diversity of philanthropy, but we also feel like people, it's a voluntary thing.
WarrenRight, right. And it can be one of the most fun things you've ever done, and yet hiring staff or picking exactly what cause or force you to think about death and how your kids may be involved in some in different ways than others. These are complex issues. And even a great, somebody who's successful at business, it doesn't necessarily prepare you for answering these questions. And sometimes they have to have a family conversation. So they'll say, we're in favor of it in general.
OtherWe've kind of had an initial conversation over the years with our kids, but we've nevercommitted like this.So give us some time.And then they'll say, we'll call you back in three months or four months.And we do.And the neat thing is if they'll share with you sometimes the conversations they had withtheir kids because they're so proud of how their kids responded.I know one case where the kids actually talked one of the parents into doing it, when thatparent was initially not inclined to do it.
QuestionerWhat are the resistances to do it?
OtherThey don't want to give away the money.When I call them and they say, I'm actually planning to have all my money put in my coffinwith me, I do not have much of a chance.But I tell them, there's no four of four hundred in the graveyard.And how about people who say, I want to pass it to my family?That's what I want to do.That's what they want to do.That's their wish.And we do have some of those, definitely.If they want to pass it all, then they're not a fit for the group.We particularly see that if the bulk of it was passed down to them.Because then it's like breaking a chain.Why should they break the chain?So first generation fortunes tend to be more philanthropic than inherited fortunes.
QuestionerThe interesting thing, you have young members, too.
OtherWell, that's huge.31 years old.Right.Yeah.That's huge.20 years from now, there will be dozens and dozens and dozens of billionaires, hundredsthat have come up who their heroes are the Steve Jobs or the Mark Zuckerberg or you nameit.I'm really particularly excited to see what Mark and Priscilla do.They're already learning a lot about philanthropy.Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, how they will come at it because she's soembedded in health and he's so embedded in education and Facebook and yet the way theysee things together.So I think they will totally inspire a group of people.We're having a session for the younger members of the family of people who signed up herein a short period.I think 35, I know 35 are coming, probably more will come.And their attitude toward philanthropy, some of them are maybe beneficiaries that trusttheir grandfather signed up or something.But it's the influence on future giving that I think will be very, very substantial.I think it's having an effect currently, but it'll be bigger over the years.That's a group we call the next generation group.So they're getting together on their own.
QuestionerAnd so I think their next meeting is actually in Omaha, right?
OtherYeah, right.
QuestionerWhat do you learn at these sessions?
OtherWe have people get up for almost a TED-like thing and give a six-minute explanation of something they're excited about or something that's gone well or something that didn't go well so they think they're smarter.
A sharing of experiences.
Then we'll have breakouts.
And so things like, can you do investments that advance your philanthropic means?
We have giving internationally.
We have scientific research, education.
We had four breakouts this time, and people's main complaint was that they had to pick one of the four because they saw several that they were interested in.
QuestionerI should make this before we start talking about the foundation in general.
There is no legal commitment made.
There is an ethical, moral commitment.
But that's it.
When you set up the foundation, the two of you, what was the idea?
OtherWell, we talked about it even before we got married.
And so that was about six years into our marriage, and I was seeing that I could spend a little more time on it.
I turned the CEO title over just that year.
And we made a pretty big set of gifts, $20 billion that particular year.
And that kind of forced you to get going.
Fortunately, my dad and a great person who had been a Microsoft executive, Patty Stonesifer, partnered to create the organization, even though between children and work, we weren't able to give as much time as we have now.
So we got started.
And we can look back on that now and say that was the start of a learning curve.
We did a lot of reproductive health.
We learned about that.
We thought, okay, let's do some science.
We weren't working with governments as much.
We learned that's super important.
And so it was great that by the time we both got more time, the foundation was already going.
It had a core team of people, a bit of expertise, made some mistakes, done some things well.
So by 2008, when we're both increasingly engaged, there's a lot there to build on.
QuestionerWhat were the principles that you began with?
OtherAll lives, all lives have equal value, no matter where they are lived on the planet.
And yet, as Bill and I would travel and read and look out, you'd realize we don't treat all lives as if they're equal.
What we spend, for instance, the United States to save one adult or one child from death, it takes $30 to save a child's life with basic packets of vaccines in a developing world.
OtherAnd yet, we weren't doing that.We weren't making those investments as a world.And we said to ourselves, there has to be something we could do about it.So we decided to invest in health outside of the United States.We thought that's where we could have the most impact.And in the United States, we felt like not all kids were having an equal chance at agreat education.And so our predominant investments in the United States have been around the U.S. educationsystem.Has that changed in terms of where you see the focus for this foundation?Those two big themes will be our focus for our entire lives.Those are big enough problems that, you know, once we lick polio, which looks good, we'llmove on to malaria.There's enough diseases for our lifetime.We'd love if the foundation in our lifetime really could conquer a lot of that.And so people then later could focus on other problems.And education has been, I'd say, the one where we've seen less progress, but we'restill totally committed to it.It's the right cause.And the United States created this amazing framework that allowed Microsoft and Berkshireand amazing educations that we were both – had the opportunity to have.And so we wish we could have the same type of impact in U.S. education as we feel quitesure we'll have on global health.And I think the other thing to say is that –
QuestionerYou wish, but you're not sure you'll be able to keep them.
OtherNo, we're not sure.It's the – of all the things we're doing, it is the riskiest.That is, you know, we spend in education broadly about 800 million a year.And that money has not in some dramatic way – neither our money nor the other philanthropists– and there's some great partners in this, Michael Bloomberg, Eli Broad, a ton of peoplewho do amazing work –
QuestionerOn education.
OtherFocused on charter schools.
QuestionerYeah, on U.S. education.And as a group, we can't say that the educational scores have moved up a lot.Dropout rates have come down some, and there's a few points of light in terms of some goodcharter schools.
QuestionerWarren, you're watching this from a place of friendship as they did this.You obviously – I think it got accelerated after Susie's death – began to say, whatshould I do?Did you have evolving thoughts about philanthropy?
WarrenI – no, I thought fairly fast about what I wanted to do.I don't go into a trance over it, as they like.And I had it, you know, well thought out before – in terms of before Susie died, and then
WarrenI had to make a change. But, you know, it was obvious what I should do, actually.
QuestionerObvious that you should give your money away, or obvious you knew where to give it?
WarrenWell, I was going to give it away, under any circumstances, but there really isn't any other option, Charlie.
QuestionerAnd I had a whole lot –
WarrenYou can't take it with you.
QuestionerI had everything in life I wanted that money would buy, I mean, long, long ago.
WarrenSo money had utility to other people than it had utility to me. And then the fact – the approach that all lives are of equal value, that – I couldn't– I wouldn't change a word in that. I mean, that is exactly how I feel. And then the question is, is what's the best way to translate a bunch of little paperstock certificates into something that is consistent with the belief that all lives have equal value? And here I had the perfect situation in that, you know, an entity was already in existence, it was run by two extremely bright, energetic people who were going to devote their lives to it – young, by my standards, anyway – spending their own money, which is a real factor, so it wasn't play money. And so it was very natural. And of course, I did it in conjunction with four other foundations, too, that were smaller, that wouldn't scale up the same way.
QuestionerOf your foundations?
WarrenYeah, and all five of – I mean, I couldn't feel better about it.
QuestionerAnd so what was your response?
OtherTears.
QuestionerWell, it was really –
OtherTears?
QuestionerTears. Both of us, yeah. We took a walk, and we were both in shock.
OtherYou both took a walk?
QuestionerAnd –
OtherWho was on the walk?
QuestionerYou and –
OtherThe two of us.
QuestionerThe two of us, yeah. Just walked and said, wow. Unbelievable. Wow. What a sense of responsibility and – you know, we've benefited so much from our friendship with Warren, even independent of this. You know, the whole idea of giving it away – I read the Fortune article that was about giving it away even before we met Warren, and that had greatly influenced my thinking. And you know, then as we'd been going about the foundation, I'd been talking to Warren one-on-one, and he had a group of friends together when, within a few months of us being really inspired about, okay, global health, we can have so much impact, you know, I was just electrified to share my enthusiasm in front of Warren and a group of his friends early in the life of the foundation. And so he was an advisor, a helper, a mentor every step of the way. And the idea that, wow, we were going to be able to magnify this and our sense of responsibility
Otherback to him would be even greater than it had been, it was very touching.
QuestionerSo what role do you have?
OtherJust a couple days ago.
OtherEvery July, I make a – I multiply 5% off a certain number.
OtherIt's still – I may be poor, but it's still well within my capabilities to do that.
OtherThat's about the limit.
QuestionerIt's not a small number, is it?
OtherWarren just sent to the five foundations, I think 2.48 –2.8 billion.
Questioner2.8 billion.
OtherThat's your annual –
QuestionerWe're the Berkshire stock.
OtherIt shares the Berkshire stock.
QuestionerRight.
OtherSo he's named an amount, and then he takes, you know, 5% of that, of the remainder everyyear, and Berkshire stock has gone up enough, even though the number of shares goes down.
QuestionerThis is a record, you know, gift, you know, really incredible.
OtherSo all five foundations got this amazing check.
OtherI hope we sent a thank you note.
OtherI'll have to check on that.
OtherThe thank you note is what they do.
OtherThank you note is what they do.
QuestionerWhat is it that brings you the most satisfaction from being engaged with them in this work?
OtherWell, it's the satisfaction of knowing what I've built up over a lot of years is goingto get used to improve other people's lives.
QuestionerHave the ambitions of the foundation changed?
QuestionerBecause clearly I have read the annual report, read his annual report, and didn't now readyour report, and clearly you have talked about things about measurement.
QuestionerYou've talked about the importance of government in terms of partnerships.
QuestionerHow has it evolved in terms of the ideas that permeate the work of you three?
OtherWell, we're on a learning curve, and from the year 2000 to the year 2015, the causeof global health had some great achievements.
OtherSome governments and we came together for a vaccine fund, Gavi.
OtherLikewise, a similar set of partners for the global fund, which was about HIV, tuberculosis,and malaria.
OtherAnd those funds were established and set very ambitious goals.
OtherAnd they ran into some corruption, and the prices didn't go down as much as they wanted,and some countries weren't getting stuff out as much as they wanted.
QuestionerHow did you build the management of those organizations?
OtherBut overall, they were phenomenally successful.
OtherSo we'd probably put that at the top of the list of things that we really can point tothat we, with partners, feel incredibly proud of.
OtherAnd so I can rank, of all the years we work in, those would be at the front.
OtherThe education stuff, although we remain committed, we haven't moved the dial on the averagemath capability or reading and writing capability of particularly the inner city schools.
OtherBut we have enough successes to really be energized and really get a pattern of, okay,how do you work in very poor countries?How do you engage the best scientists in the world to come up with new tools?And so I'm more enthused about the work today than even at the very, very beginning.
OtherAnd so are you.
OtherAbsolutely.And I think one of the things, one of the premises we have about how we workhas to do with innovation, that we believe in innovations,whether it's an innovation in a vaccine, a malaria vaccine,or an innovation that comes along technologically.Those innovations allow us to push forward on behalf of the poor.So a great example is polio eradication.We couldn't really be talking about polio eradication if we didn't have the right vaccines,the right tools, but also the mapping that's come along has what's allowed usto get down to the village level to know if we're making progress.And so we believe in innovations, making sure those come out of the labs from all over the world,China, India, the United States, UK, get them out on behalf of the poor.But then it's up to governments to scale up.So even though we've put in billions of dollars into vaccines,there are tens of billions put in by governments to scale it up so that we can have so many.
OtherSo you're saying you do some of the groundbreaking work in the beginning,almost pilot projects that give people in government who have the ability to scale up, to scale up.
OtherEvery single thing we're in requires government scale-up,whether it's reducing tobacco usage, whether it's eliminating malaria,whether it's the U.S. education system.And we could spend down our resources on the U.S. education system in less than a yearif we were just putting all of our resources into U.S. education.But that's one extra value they bring.Both Bill and Melinda have the ability to bring others along with them,both governments and individuals.So there's not only the funds of the three of us combined,but they have the stature, the eloquence, the experience to talk with maybe governments,maybe very wealthy individuals,and corral hundreds of millions, maybe billions of dollars additionally on this.So there's a multiplier effect.
OtherYou would know better about this and probably better to speak about it than they are.
OtherTheir participation on the ground makes a difference.I think it's unmatched.To see them in a village in India.
OtherNo, it's unmatched.I mean, Rockefeller and Carnegie and Roosevelt, they did wonderful things.
OtherAnd they spent a certain amount of time on it.But they were not working 50- and 60-hour weeks all over the globeand going to some places I don't want to go to.It's hands-on to an extraordinary degree.And that not only gets results,but it attracts other people to go along with them because they know it's for real.It's big.But you don't do it because you know it'll make a difference.You do it because you want to be there.You want to see it with your own eyes and feel it with your own hands.You have to.
QuestionerYeah, trips, there's a mix of things.
OtherAnd some trips are purely learning tripswhere you don't go and see the government.You don't go and see the press.You just go out and see, okay, what's up with malaria or what's up with farming.We didn't grow up knowing much about even rich world farming.Poor world farming is quite unique.And then there's the trips where you really are sitting down with the presidentand saying, hey, your vaccination rate compared to other countries is far lower.And so the way you get the vaccines out, you can do a lot better.And we're here to help.Yeah, we'll put money behind it.There's a measurement system so you will know what parts of your countryor what parts of the ministry are really doing the job well.And so let's get engaged in this.And the willingness of those leaders to sit down with usand talk about these things has been a positive surprise for us.There's a number of countries, Ethiopia would be the top of the list,where they really changed a lot of policies.And although it took some of our resources,they made permanent changes to the health and agricultural sectors.
QuestionerWhat kind of resources, what kind of people,what kind of institution are you creating?We work with so many partners.But are these all come together for the foundationor are they sort of on hoc basis?
OtherWell, it depends on what you're working on.So we have different gatherings in different settings.So for instance, and polio is a great example,we have UNICEF, GAVI, World Health Organization,all working together on polio.And so on the ground, you have different partners with different expertise.And then back in the UK or back in the US,you may be using a partner who's doing the mapping and the modelingand the disease surveillance.Some of it happens on the ground and some of it happens back at home.But is it the foundation that's coordinating all this?Yeah, we have about 1,500 people in total.
OtherMost in Seattle, but with offices in Africa and India and China.Also an office in Europe.And so we use grantees as much as we can.But a field like malaria,we have a group of around 20 people who are experts.And so they can go out to the vaccine experts,the drug experts, the mosquito experts,the modeling experts,and orchestrate those skill sets together.And then take that and say,okay, which countries are we going to get rid of malariaand how are we going to reduce that map?And so in many cases,we are helping to convene different silos of expertisewith people at the foundation.Talk about expectations.Polio 2020 eradicated?The best case, which is actually a possible case,you know, I'm so close to...Don't make stock market predictions.I'm so close to saying I can have a positive bias, but...So close to polio eradication?Yeah, it's gone very well the last year.We haven't had a case in Africa since last August.So almost a year, not one single case of polio.In Africa.And so the only two countriesthat we've had wild polio casesare Pakistan and Afghanistan.And even there,the two regimes, including the army people thereand the various political parties,have stepped forward to improve the quality of the campaigns.And so we are now reaching almost enough childrenthat we feel there's a good chanceof the last polio case being in Pakistansometime in 2016,which then you would start a three-year clockto make sure that you're lookingand that there's not some hidden pocket of the disease,which is a very appropriate time period.And then that would lead to a certification,in the best case, by 2019.And that's so exciting.You're living this, aren't you?It's so exciting because it has been hard.It's been delayed from what was expectedwhen the whole thing got started.But a lot of brilliant ideas came along in the process.And those ideas will apply to improving world healthand going after other disease eradicationsonce we're successful on this one.When was the last time humanity eradicated a disease?Only one disease has ever been eradicated,and that was smallpox.Last case is 77,and the certification was in 1980.And think how important that was. Absolutely.It killed millions a year,and the U.S. took the lead, and we did it.I mean, they didn't even have Internet and modeling.Now they have some amazing people.But that was inspirational.Go ahead.I was going to say, the other thing that I think,
Otherbesides the modeling now, is this expectation.You asked earlier about ambitions of the Foundation.It's not necessarily just ambitions.It's expectations.So when Bill and I came into philanthropy,one of the things that was shocking to us is,when we were at Microsoft, both of us,you could get a report on your desk about salesany day of the week.You clicked on it, right?Well, you couldn't get it.So if you're trying to eliminate malariain certain countries or eradicate polio,those data systems didn't exist.Now, every 30 days, we get a report on poliothat says exactly which villages it's in,in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and in Nigeriaup until last year.One more example of the significance of dataand the data revolution.You have to have data,and it allows you to know whether you're making progress,but it's also starting to allow us as a worldto know how and where to act on some of these problemsat a much deeper level.And if you can eradicate polio,you wanted to give an inspiration to peoplethat it is possible to do these things.Definitely.If you bring enough resources, will...Focus, talent.Focus and talent.Yeah, after smallpox got done,the head of UNICEF, Jim Grant,a brilliant person who's responsiblefor saving tens of millions of lives,said, okay, our next phase is going to raise that...to be...to raise vaccination coverage from 30% to 80%.So he took the 1980s and 90sand got us very close to that percentage.So that's another miracle.Really, the second big miracleother than smallpox in global health up to this point.And it was all driven off of the kind of confidenceand energy and resources that camebecause smallpox worked.
WarrenWarren, you got to look at this and say,my God, you know,I couldn't be spending my money any better.No, exactly.And, you know, it's gratifyingbecause to be able to translatean accumulation of wealth that really, like I say,it basically has no meaning in terms of your lifeunless it gets translated into somethingthat really does save lives.And one thing that is worth emphasizingis when you get into large-scale philanthropy like this,take the eradication of polio.It's not a cinch.I mean, you know, it's...It's setbacks, too.But in the field of philanthropy,big-scale philanthropy,it's not the batting average that counts.It's the slugging percentage.It measures...Do nothing in life but butt and get singles, you know.I mean, that's fine.You'll have a high batting average,
Otherbut the best slugging percentage is...Got you.
OtherA big foundation should be shooting for a high slugging percentage, not a high batting average.
OtherAnd that is so reassuring. I mean, that, what Warren said to us and the other foundations that he put his money into, is swing for the fences, and you've got to take risk. And particularly that we're working on problems that society has left behind. That rings in your ears when you're doing some really hard days. You know, and there are hard days where you feel like we're not making progress or what haven't we seen? How did we not go about this right? We have to remember that it's these hard problems. And that keeps you going. That and meeting the people in the field, the amazing partners that we work with, but also the families who are lifting themselves up under unbelievable circumstances.
OtherA couple of quick things, too. One, malaria, you're hopeful that by 2050, perhaps, if lots of things come together?
OtherYeah, we ought to be able to do better than that. We're in this period where we need some new tools. And so in the drug pipeline, the vaccine pipeline, the killing mosquitoes pipeline, there's some really good stuff. And we expect that sometime between 2030 and 2050, it could be eradicated. The actionable thing at this point is to take that map of where malaria is and pick a few areas and do regional eliminations. So Southeast Asia, Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar, there's quite a bit of malaria there. That's one of the first regions that we've gotten all those governments together. Australia is helping, U.S., U.K. And we're going to prove that even with today's tools, we can do it there. And we have about four or five shrinkages before we'll have the confidence and all the experts will align to say, okay, let's go after it in the heart of Africa. That will be the last place, Nigeria, Tanzania, Democratic Republic of Congo. Equatorial Africa is the toughest. And so we're going to corner malaria there and learn as we go and then have that final push.
OtherChildhood fatalities. Nothing could be more important. Nothing could be more important. And the thing that is amazing about it is the world has made huge progress. Childhood deaths have been cut in half since 1990. Cut in half. And part of that is because the U.N., with the Millennium Development Goals, set a roadmap that said we have a goal of cutting childhood mortality by two-thirds. Now, we got it by half. But what happened was all of the NGOs
Otherand the partners and the governments,we all started to say,what investments do we need to make?What investments in vaccines?What investments in malaria?How do we get malaria bed nets out and get them used?What do we need to do about women's education?Because if a child is 50% less likely to dieif his or her mother has been educatedbecause of every change that she then makesin terms of accessing the healthcare systemor what she invests in her own child.So the world started to make those investments.And now we actually have a roadmap for what works.And so it's just a matter of scaling those things upmore and more and more.Some are innovations like vaccines.Some are very basic things like breastfeedingand keeping your baby warm and clean cord care.Things we do in the United States,you can do very inexpensively.And it's just cultural change for women.Malnutrition.That attributes to almost half the deaths.And I think the saddest thing about malnutritionis that if a child isn't fed properlyin what we call the first 1,000 days,while the mother's pregnantand then after birth for those first two years,they are not cognitively able to learn in schoolthe way that they were meant to learn.For every child who dies,there's four childrenwho don't develop physically or mentally.It's only in the last three or four yearsthat the incredible problem that ishas become evident to us.And even today, understanding exactlywhich interventions solve malnutrition,we're doing a lot of pilot studies.It looks like helping the womenhave chickens in an areaso that there'll be more eggsor getting cows so there'll be more milk.That is going to be an element of the strategy.And that's a nice onebecause it advances the economic well-beingof the livestock ownersas well as the nutrition of the communitythat they're in.But there's a lot that we are just learning.And we're trying to putsome of the micronutrients into the salt.And why hasn't that worked in the past?And you need to cook with it.You know, I will be smarter about malnutritionwhen you see me a year from now,two years from now, five years from now.I just, in the last two weeks,our son, who's 16,Rory and I stayed in a Malawian household.This couple was amazingto let us live with them for a couple of days.They just knew we were friends of the NGOwho was there and we wanted to learn.And it was amazing to seebecause they were diversifying their diet.
OtherThey had learnedthat they needed to eat something more than maize.And so they had takentheir little bit of moneyand invested in new chickens.And that was allowingnot only protein for the family,but they were selling chickens on the market,selling eggs to their neighbors,and getting a little more income.And then they were startingto diversify into pigs.And they had, by this point,three small pigs.And I said,well, what are you going to do with the pigs?I thought maybe they were going to eat them.And they said, oh, no, no,that's a high school educationright there for our daughter.That's part of the school fees.And that one,that's part of the school fees for our son.So when they can startto make those diversification,it not only helps nutrition,but it helps their livelihood,which then helps their family.And there is not a familyI have not met around the globe.When you ask themwhat their hopes and dreams are,they say, I want to educate my children.Because they believethat is the ticket for their children.They know it's the ticket.They don't believe it.They know it.You watch this.You must be on a learning curve yourself.I mean, to understandhow muchthere needs to be done in the world.But how there are these solutionsand these ideasthat are coming out of this.
WarrenYeah, but I've always beena great one for lettingother people do the work, Charlie.And what you've justgotten through hearing,I mean, the differencebetween having two very smart peopleworking partly withtheir own funds,committed to the work,and who care enormously about it,compared to runningsome organizationwhere it got set up 20 years earlierand, you know,it just gets handedfrom one person to the next.It's night and day.And this is the wayto make a difference.
QuestionerAnd do you thinkyou're having an influencein terms of other peoplewho will want to engagein philanthropyexactly the wayyou have engagedin philanthropy?Because you've madea dramatic shift in your life.I mean, you've led the way.Then you joined full time.I mean, this has been...I mean, the wayyou spend 24 hours nowis very differentfrom the way you spent24 hours in 1995.
OtherAbsolutely.The goals are very different.Some of the ideasof meeting with scientistsor learning...The processof acquiring information.I was well trained.The Microsoft workwas like an ideal preparation.I'd say if we can sharetwo things,one, that philanthropycan be funand be living examples of that,
Otherand on someof the riskier causesthat we can get peopleto feel like,okay, it's a little bitless risky.Maybe they'll do itin a different countryor a different way.What does risk mean?Well, risk...Taking philanthropic moneyand spending it in Africais very daunting because...Daunting becauseit may not be successfulor daunting because...Yes.The idea of, okay,don't these governmentsalways take thisand it's corrupt?Or even if you make progress,then there'll be instabilityand whatever you've donewill be wiped out.Could I look foolishand where do I start in Africa?Who do I trust?It took us many yearsand mistakesbefore we feltany confidence there.And so I thinkeveryone in philanthropykind of encouragesother peopleto take a bit more riskand try somethinga bit more on the frontier.There are some great causesin down universities.That's a fantastic thing.The scientists theredo very good work.
OtherLet me talk a bitabout women and development.That's become a focus of yours.
OtherDefinitely.And the reason for thatis becausewomen are agents of change.And I think for too longthe community looked at themas somebodywe should do something toinstead of sayingthey are the agents of change.And if you unlocktheir potential,that is,if you make surethat they're healthyand their children are healthyand you make surethey have somedecision-making capabilityand economic opportunityand you invest in them,they invest in everybody else.Every marginal dollara woman in the developing worldgets in her hands,she puts 90%back into her family.And she's often the onewho's making the decisionabout what the kids eat,who gets to goto the health care clinicwhen they're sick,who eats first in the family.So we have to invest in themif we want to gethuge, wide-scale impact.And I think we weren't,as a community,really looking atinvesting in women at scale,which we need to doand are starting to do.And secondly,how do you lookat your programming?You can't just assumethat if you do something,you create a new seed.We have nowa drought-resistant maize,which is great,a corn seed.But if we assumethat the agricultural dealersin Africawould get it outto all the farmers,that's a false assumption.They don't reach women.So you have to gothe extra mileto actually reach the womenand make surethey get the crop,they get the seedin their hand,they understandthe planning techniqueand they can keep the income.
QuestionerThis must resonatewith you a lot.
OtherWell,if you believeevery life has equal value,you've got to be doingsomething for womenbecause the truth is,in many culturesand in our own,and going backfor thousands of yearsin many cases,it has not been the casethat society has saidthat women's liveshave equal valueto those of males.I mean,our own Constitution,you know,when it talks aboutthe qualificationsfor the presidency,it has a whole bunchof male pronouns in there.We wrote that13 years or soafter sayingall men are created equalbut just look,just read Article 2,Section 1.And the thing is,we can measure it.That's the other thing.I think in the past,it's funny,you know,so much of this has to be,and it should be about dataso we know where to invest.Well, first of all,we didn't collect the dataabout womenwhen we did household surveys.Literally,the household surveysin Bangladeshand Africa and India,the only question they askis who's the mainbreadwinner in the familyand as soon as they learn that,and it's the man,they go down that path.They don't even askabout secondary income.So,there are so many placeswhere we haven't hadgood data about women.We haven't collected it.But it turns outwhen you start to collect it,you can actuallymeasure empowerment.You can actually measurewhen a woman startsacting differently,making different decisionswhen she getsthat economic means.So,we're going to do thatbecause that's whenyou get prime ministersand presidentsto act differentlyeven in their own countriesand make investments.And there's this thingyou have calledno ceiling report.What is that?So,we partnered in 2013with the Clinton Foundationto really figure outhow do we have data on women?We used the EconomistEconomic Unitand UCLAto partner and say,collect all the datawe have around the worldin every countryabout women.Childhood marriage,where they werein the workforce,labor force participation,do they have a chanceto go to school?And so,we looked at thatand we also visualized itso that peoplecould go up and read itand now we're goingto fill in the gapswhere we don't havethe right data.So,the childhood marriage datathat we all useand we all quotearound the world,it's really not.So,if you want to knowhow to actin childhood marriage,we need a lot better datato know how and where to act.How does technologyaffect all of this?For better or worse?Well,technology is very helpful.If you're not careful,technology respondsto the large markets
Otherand so,the middle incomeand rich peoplewill drivewhat applicationsget writtenand how it gets used.But,piggybacking onthe amazing cell phone,the amazing internetconnectivityand saying,okay,what about a farmerwho wants to learnwhen to plant their crop,which seeds to pick?What abouta primary health care clinicand making surethat the supply chainreally gets everything there?We know,is that worker thereand are they doingwhat they should do?We can takethat digital foundationand with a little bitof extra money,make sure thatfinancial services,health quality tracking,even budget trackingalthough we haven'tdone this yet,we're in the early stageof brainstorming it,how can you follow moneyand gather evidenceof when the moneyis used appropriatelyso that donorshave more confidencethat the auditingis really built inin a low cost way.So,that digital platformallows usto be way more ambitious,starting withsatellite photographythat's told usthe populationfor these polio activities,all the way downto reaching somebodyso that theirsavings accountis literallyon their cell phone.When you go inthe developing world today,cell phones are pervasive.I don't care whatrural village you're in,there are cell phonesand they're the oldplastic ones we used to usebut what that's allowingis those digital platforms,as Bill says,mobile money.In Kenya,87% of the GDPruns througha mobile payment system today.Phone,in Kenya,87% of GDPruns throughbut we've got themin the Philippines,Bangladesh,Tanzania,so these are happeningat scale.A remote womanin a rural area,if her husbandgoes into Nairobi,let's say,to get a job,he can senddigital moneyback to heron her phone.Meanwhile,she can be savinga dollar a dayfrom the eggsshe's selling at market.So when it comes timefor the school fees,they've got the moneyand not only that,as the cell phones get better,which we're puttingher crop prices at market,when she gives her cropto a middle man,she now knowswhat the market price is.So when he comes backand says,I only got $10 a bushel,she says,well,the market price was $20.What that's going to happenwhen those start to becomesmartphones,women will tell youall over Southeast Asia,we know that one in three womenexperience violencearound the world.There's now an applicationthat I can givesix peopleon my smartphone networkmy cell phone number.And so if a womangets in a violent situationin India,she can press one button
Otherand six people immediately knows he's in trouble. And eventually, we'll know her GPS location. That changes things for women. If you improve agricultural techniques, though, you're going to change the lives of hundreds of millions of people. I mean, if you just look at what it's done in this country in a couple of hundred years, I mean, it was innovation, you know, when the planter came along, when the tractor came along. And if you look at how primitive agriculture is in so much of the world, you're really talking about hundreds of millions of lives that can be improved if you enable them to get more out of that acre than they've been getting before. I just want to touch on, because I've seen what you've learned about Ebola and other possible diseases and how this global community can do something that they hadn't done before to be able to make sure that the worst doesn't come.
OtherWell, Ebola, we're still in the final efforts to try to get the numbers down to zero. The numbers are down quite a bit. And then even once they do get to zero, the three affected countries will need a lot to rebuild back to have decent health systems and get their economies going. But it's also a lesson globally. We were lucky that it stayed in the three countries and didn't get more widespread. There are diseases other than Ebola that will come in the future. But you were concerned about an early warning system and the capacity to respond early with the maximum.
OtherRight. And what you need is a reasonable health care system and then surveillance sites that are gathering data from them. And the Foundation is reaching out to other people to say, let's get this early warning system going. There's a lot of reports being written about how to strengthen the WHO that kind of has a central role here. The contrast I've drawn is that when it comes to military activities, we have people in reserve, we do training, we plan ahead. For an epidemic, which could be a natural epidemic or even worse, intentionally bioterrorism epidemic, we're not as ready. We don't have the volunteers and the supplies and the training. And so the only good thing that could come out of Ebola is if it's used as a wake-up call and those resources are put in place so that we'd be a lot faster. That will be very important if it's a more infectious agent than Ebola.
WarrenWarren, I'm sitting listening to these two people that must make you enormously proud because of their enthusiasm and because of the commitment to be there, but also as they live this experience,
Otherthey, like you,could be doinga lot of other things.But something brings the three of youto this table,to a table wherever you are,whether it's Seattle or Omahaor wherever it might be,India,the driving compassionand the driving willto make a difference.Well, what you hopeis that somebody listeningor just like we through readingor whatever it may have been experienced,Bill had parentsthat were very involved in philanthropy,that they just think it througha little bit as towhat they can be doing.And a lot of peopledo things individuallythat I admire a lot morethan what I'm doing just with money.I mean, they pour themselvesinto it every dayin terms of helping.My older sister does that.She spends every dayat age 87helping other people.I mean, she's giving upfar more than I give up.I mean, I'm giving up some money,but I'm not giving up time.So I've had two peoplecome 10,000 milesjust to talk to mefor an hour,an hour and a halfabout philanthropyand the giving pleasure.It's fascinating.And remote part of the world,I want to identifywhere they're from.But they, you know,if it strikes a chord,who knows where the ripples go.Thank you for coming.Thank you.
OtherThank you, Charlie.
OtherThank you, Bill.
Charlie RoseThank you for joining us.See you next time.For more about this programand early episodes,visit us online atpbs.org and charlierose.com.