Connect with us

Business

Bill Gates was right to defend USAID amid Elon Musk’s attacks—take it from someone who experienced its impact

Published

on



Butch Meily is president of the Philippine Disaster Resilience Foundation, IdeaSpace, and QBO Innovation. He is the author of the new memoir From Manila to Wall Street: An Immigrant’s Journey with America’s First Black Tycoon.

In 1961, U.S. President John F. Kennedy created a new federal agency, the United States International Agency for Development (USAID). Its purpose was “to extend assistance to countries recovering from disaster, trying to escape poverty, and engaging in democratic reforms.” Among the 100-plus countries USAID helped around the world over the next 64 years was my own, the Philippines.

Last week, USAID officially ceased operations. Only the day before, the distinguished British medical journal the Lancet published a study warning about the potential consequences now looming. The elimination of USAID, the study found, could contribute to 14 million additional deaths over the next five years. The researchers described the impact for some countries as being “similar in scale to a global pandemic or a major armed conflict,” based on “a conscious and avoidable policy choice.”

I was born in the Philippines, once a U.S. colony, shortly after World War II. But even from afar, I always felt a kinship with the United States. So in 1977, I decided to pursue my ambitions—and a master’s degree—in America. The day I swore the oath of allegiance at the federal courthouse in Manhattan and became an American citizen will always rank among the proudest of my life.

Back then, I had no idea of how much USAID was accomplishing in the Philippines, much less that I would be personally involved with it.

The battle over USAID

In February on Truth Social, President Donald Trump declared that USAID spending “is totally unexplainable…close it down.” He claimed the agency was run by “radical left lunatics.” Tesla CEO Elon Musk—appointed by Trump to head the newly minted Department of Government Efficiency and slash federal fraud, waste, and abuse—had previously called the agency, variously, “beyond repair,” “corrupt,” and “a criminal organization.” “Time for it to die,” Musk posted on X.

In short order, Microsoft cofounder and philanthropist Bill Gates intervened and met with President Trump at the White House to defend—and advocate support for—extended funding for USAID. Gates called USAID “the best” of all the development agencies around the world. In May, he accused Musk of “killing the world’s poorest children.” But by then the die was cast as Trump triumphantly characterized the budget and personnel cuts already inflicted on USAID as “devastating.”

Even so, other prominent opponents of the controversial cuts stepped into the breach. In a private videoconference beamed to USAID staffers worldwide in late June, Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, along with U2 singer Bono, delivered a heartfelt farewell to the agency. “Gutting USAID is a travesty,” Obama said, “and it’s a tragedy.” Bush asked the USAID staffers in attendance, “Is it in our national interests that 25 million people who would have died now live? I think it is, and so do you.”

USAID accomplishments

As I’ve learned since returning in 2000 to live in the Philippines, USAID has done, by any measure, an absolutely yeoman job. Food from American farmers fed hungry families and starving refugees. Its staff distributed drugs for malaria, HIV, and other infectious diseases that saved lives. It enabled communities to combat poverty and develop economically, in the process establishing new consumer markets for American goods.

In the 1960s with the country still recovering from the ravages of World War II, USAID helped establish national government agencies and educational institutions. Later, USAID focused on strengthening democratic institutions. 

In 2012, a major new USAID program to eradicate tuberculosis improved treatment success rates by 92%. 

Hitting home

In my own country, from 1995 to 2013 USAID trained 28,000 former combatants with skills and tools to farm land and otherwise earn a living, helping to reintegrate these civilians back into society, lifting the economy in a Southern Philippines still torn by war. 

Thanks to a hand from USAID, our maternal mortality rate over a 23-year period was cut almost in half, from 209 per 100,000 live births in 1993 to 114 per 100,000 live births in 2015. More than 1.5 million Filipinos benefitted from USAID support of sustainable management for coastal fisheries to stop overfishing and environmental degradation.

But that’s hardly all. USAID trained more than 19,000 Filipino teachers in English, math, and science. As a result, the percentage of students in sites assisted by USAID who met national benchmarks for reading fluency and comprehension almost quadrupled, from 20% in 2013 to 76% in 2016.

In the destructive wake of Typhoon Haiyan in 2013, one of the largest storms ever to make land, USAID rebuilt schools, health clinics, and water systems and helped survivors rehabilitate their stores and businesses. More recently, it embarked on programs that strengthened the economies of cities outside Manila to promote sustainable growth.

Today, the Philippine economy ranks as the world’s 32nd largest in GDP—and the ninth biggest in Asia, according to the International Monetary Fund. This year the World Bank said, “Its economic dynamism reflects increasing urbanization, a large and young population, and strong consumer demand, supported by a vibrant labor market and robust remittances, which have raised the incomes of the most vulnerable.” The case can be made that USAID’s funds and on-the-ground volunteerism contributed substantially to the Philippines’ current socioeconomic stature.

As head of a private-sector disaster management organization, I collaborated with USAID on numerous projects over the last 10 years. Together, we helped communities and municipalities prepare for calamities, enabled the Department of Energy to upgrade the power sector during the frequent storms, strengthened the resilience of key provinces, and guided the Office of Civil Defense in partnering with private companies to furnish relief to areas stricken by disaster.

I also had the opportunity to go shoulder to shoulder with USAID as the lead for two startup enablers. We joined forces in the STRIDE program that bolstered entrepreneurship and innovation.

‘From the American People’

The upshot is that USAID embodied for us the very best ideals of America, It created an aura of goodwill between our countries. More tangibly, it helped the most vulnerable of the vulnerable, all while building demand for American knowhow and products.

All of these programs abruptly ended this year, and almost everyone I knew at USAID packed up and headed home. Some 1,600 USAID employees, as the first step in a “reduction-in-force,” were placed on “administrative leave globally.”

Last month, MaryKay Carlson, U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines, formally brought down the curtain on this long-standing lifeline between our two countries. She hosted a farewell party at her residence with members of USAID’s local staff to celebrate the partnership. I attended what felt less like a divorce than a wake.

After the party and all of its speeches, someone handed me a bag filled with mementoes of USAID’s role in the Philippines—a pen, a mug, a calendar, a book that captured its many achievements, all inscribed with the USAID motto, “From the American People.” As I walked out into the humid tropical night, I clutched the bag with a tight grip feeling the utmost gratitude to America and all Americans.

Even in the face of this disappointment, as someone with a bilateral perspective whose life has straddled both countries, I’m still hopeful that the U.S. and the Philippines will remain on friendly terms—and more tangibly, that the U.S. State Department will resume USAID’s heroic crusade.

In an address to Congress about foreign aid, President Kennedy said, “We have not only obligations to fulfill, we have great opportunities to realize.” Months later, as he launched USAID, he echoed those words with a message we would do well to heed today. He said, “The people who are opposed to aid should realize that this is a very powerful source of strength for us…It permits us to exert influence for the maintenance of freedom…As we do not want to send American troops to many areas, we send you.”

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

SpaceX to offer insider shares at record-setting valuation

Published

on



SpaceX is preparing to sell insider shares in a transaction that would value Elon Musk’s rocket and satellite maker at a valuation higher than OpenAI’s record-setting $500 billion, people familiar with the matter said.

One of the people briefed on the deal said that the share price under discussion is higher than $400 apiece, which would value SpaceX at between $750 billion and $800 billion, though the details could change. 

The company’s latest tender offer was discussed by its board of directors on Thursday at SpaceX’s Starbase hub in Texas. If confirmed, it would make SpaceX once again the world’s most valuable closely held company, vaulting past the previous record of $500 billion that ChatGPT owner OpenAI set in October. Play Video

Preliminary scenarios included per-share prices that would have pushed SpaceX’s value at roughly $560 billion or higher, the people said. The details of the deal could change before it closes, a third person said. 

A representative for SpaceX didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. 

The latest figure would be a substantial increase from the $212 a share set in July, when the company raised money and sold shares at a valuation of $400 billion.

The Wall Street Journal and Financial Times, citing unnamed people familiar with the matter, earlier reported that a deal would value SpaceX at $800 billion.

News of SpaceX’s valuation sent shares of EchoStar Corp., a satellite TV and wireless company, up as much as 18%. Last month, Echostar had agreed to sell spectrum licenses to SpaceX for $2.6 billion, adding to an earlier agreement to sell about $17 billion in wireless spectrum to Musk’s company.

Subscribe Now: The Business of Space newsletter covers NASA, key industry events and trends.

The world’s most prolific rocket launcher, SpaceX dominates the space industry with its Falcon 9 rocket that launches satellites and people to orbit.

SpaceX is also the industry leader in providing internet services from low-Earth orbit through Starlink, a system of more than 9,000 satellites that is far ahead of competitors including Amazon.com Inc.’s Amazon Leo.

SpaceX executives have repeatedly floated the idea of spinning off SpaceX’s Starlink business into a separate, publicly traded company — a concept President Gwynne Shotwell first suggested in 2020. 

However, Musk cast doubt on the prospect publicly over the years and Chief Financial Officer Bret Johnsen said in 2024 that a Starlink IPO would be something that would take place more likely “in the years to come.”

The Information, citing people familiar with the discussions, separately reported on Friday that SpaceX has told investors and financial institution representatives that it is aiming for an initial public offering for the entire company in the second half of next year.

A so-called tender or secondary offering, through which employees and some early shareholders can sell shares, provides investors in closely held companies such as SpaceX a way to generate liquidity.

SpaceX is working to develop its new Starship vehicle, advertised as the most powerful rocket ever developed to loft huge numbers of Starlink satellites as well as carry cargo and people to moon and, eventually, Mars.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

U.S. consumers are so strained they put more than $1B on BNPL during Black Friday and Cyber Monday

Published

on



Financially strained and cautious customers leaned heavily on buy now, pay later (BNPL) services over the holiday weekend.

Cyber Monday alone generated $1.03 billion (a 4.2% increase YoY) in online BNPL sales with most transactions happening on mobile devices, per Adobe Analytics. Overall, consumers spent $14.25 billion online on Cyber Monday. To put that into perspective, BNPL made up for more than 7.2% of total online sales on that day.

As for Black Friday, eMarketer reported $747.5 million in online sales using BNPL services with platforms like PayPal finding a 23% uptick in BNPL transactions.

Likewise, digital financial services company Zip reported 1.6 million transactions throughout 280,000 of its locations over the Black Friday and Cyber Monday weekend. Millennials (51%) accounted for a chunk of the sizable BNPL purchases, followed by Gen Z, Gen X, and baby boomers, per Zip.

The Adobe data showed that people using BNPL were most likely to spend on categories such as electronics, apparel, toys, and furniture, which is consistent with previous years. This trend also tracks with Zip’s findings that shoppers were primarily investing in tech, electronics, and fashion when using its services.

And while some may be surprised that shoppers are taking on more debt via BNPL (in this economy?!), analysts had already projected a strong shopping weekend. A Deloitte survey forecast that consumers would spend about $650 million over the Black Friday–Cyber Monday stretch—a 15% jump from 2023.

“US retailers leaned heavily on discounts this holiday season to drive online demand,” Vivek Pandya, lead analyst at Adobe Digital Insights, said in a statement. “Competitive and persistent deals throughout Cyber Week pushed consumers to shop earlier, creating an environment where Black Friday now challenges the dominance of Cyber Monday.”

This report was originally published by Retail Brew.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

AI labs like Meta, Deepseek, and Xai earned worst grades possible on an existential safety index

Published

on



A recent report card from an AI safety watchdog isn’t one that tech companies will want to stick on the fridge.

The Future of Life Institute’s latest AI safety index found that major AI labs fell short on most measures of AI responsibility, with few letter grades rising above a C. The org graded eight companies across categories like safety frameworks, risk assessment, and current harms.

Perhaps most glaring was the “existential safety” line, where companies scored Ds and Fs across the board. While many of these companies are explicitly chasing superintelligence, they lack a plan for safely managing it, according to Max Tegmark, MIT professor and president of the Future of Life Institute.

“Reviewers found this kind of jarring,” Tegmark told us.

The reviewers in question were a panel of AI academics and governance experts who examined publicly available material as well as survey responses submitted by five of the eight companies.

Anthropic, OpenAI, and GoogleDeepMind took the top three spots with an overall grade of C+ or C. Then came, in order, Elon Musk’s Xai, Z.ai, Meta, DeepSeek, and Alibaba, all of which got Ds or a D-.

Tegmark blames a lack of regulation that has meant the cutthroat competition of the AI race trumps safety precautions. California recently passed the first law that requires frontier AI companies to disclose safety information around catastrophic risks, and New York is currently within spitting distance as well. Hopes for federal legislation are dim, however.

“Companies have an incentive, even if they have the best intentions, to always rush out new products before the competitor does, as opposed to necessarily putting in a lot of time to make it safe,” Tegmark said.

In lieu of government-mandated standards, Tegmark said the industry has begun to take the group’s regularly released safety indexes more seriously; four of the five American companies now respond to its survey (Meta is the only holdout.) And companies have made some improvements over time, Tegmark said, mentioning Google’s transparency around its whistleblower policy as an example.

But real-life harms reported around issues like teen suicides that chatbots allegedly encouraged, inappropriate interactions with minors, and major cyberattacks have also raised the stakes of the discussion, he said.

“[They] have really made a lot of people realize that this isn’t the future we’re talking about—it’s now,” Tegmark said.

The Future of Life Institute recently enlisted public figures as diverse as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, former Trump aide Steve Bannon, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, and rapper Will.i.am to sign a statement opposing work that could lead to superintelligence.

Tegmark said he would like to see something like “an FDA for AI where companies first have to convince experts that their models are safe before they can sell them.

“The AI industry is quite unique in that it’s the only industry in the US making powerful technology that’s less regulated than sandwiches—basically not regulated at all,” Tegmark said. “If someone says, ‘I want to open a new sandwich shop near Times Square,’ before you can sell the first sandwich, you need a health inspector to check your kitchen and make sure it’s not full of rats…If you instead say, ‘Oh no, I’m not going to sell any sandwiches. I’m just going to release superintelligence.’ OK! No need for any inspectors, no need to get any approvals for anything.”

“So the solution to this is very obvious,” Tegmark added. “You just stop this corporate welfare of giving AI companies exemptions that no other companies get.”

This report was originally published by Tech Brew.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.