Give it to someone who had demonstrated ability to turn money into positive charitable outcomes, in preference to giving it to the government or typical NGOs, who mostly have demonstrated ability to turn it into sinecures. Better yet, give it to many such someones in parallel, because portfolio theory exists.
Continue maximizing on my comparative advantage in wealth generation as opposed to being comparatively ineffective but personally involved with charity, for the purpose of impressing people in cocktail conversation. Charity is, like heart surgery for my children, something I value highly enough to leave to very expensive dedicated professionals.
This is a bit of a controversial topic among many people I know--not settled by any means--but portfolio theory doesn't really say what you think it does here. In particular, portfolio theory suggests diversification because it reduces variance, generally at the cost of some (small) amount of return. _Since your utility from money is concave_, variance reduction improves expected utility.
Your utility from lives saved in the third world is (or should be), I think, linear. (Perhaps even convex, though that's a much more complicated argument.) While if I were a doctor, the 100th life I saved would seem a lot less interesting than the first, I don't think it has any less moral impact. Conclusion: variance reduction has little to no value, and if you think charity X is (in expected value) any measurable amount more efficient at $goal than Y, you should reallocate all donations from Y to X up to the limit of what X can efficiently spend.
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/1997/0...
The diversification buys me reduced risk of concentrated failure, I would assume just the same in philanthropy. If I give 100% of my donation to one organization, and it turns out they "perform" worse than I expected, it may have been better to split my donation among multiple organizations all of whom I expect to be highly efficient but cannot necessarily predict. Particularly in cases of multi-millions or billions when, even split, the money will meet a minimum threshold to make a difference.
I imagine there is also an element of personal fulfillment, satisfaction, and enjoyment that philanthropists get from being personally involved with charity--if that encourages them to donate more than a person who chooses not to be personally involved, it might be of net benefit. When you factor in the PR value, personal network, and unique expertise/insight that enormously successful captains of industry may provide, their involvement may be more effective than you're implying. (Especially since I'm not sure personal involvement with charity really replaces "wealth generation" very often... it seems more likely to replace retirement or a golf hobby.) Of course, I have no concrete data to back that idea in any direction--if you do, I'd be very curious to see it.
[0]: http://www.guidedog.org/content.aspx?id=564#trainingcost
Tornado damaged your house? Order those parts again, disconnect the damaged ones, snap in the new stuff. Baby on the way? Disconnect an external wall, add a few more panels and you've another room, no need to move. Use recyclable materials (melt down one of the 'airplane graveyards' and use the steel and aluminum for a start).
The goals would be to reduce the waste involved in constructing houses as well as achieve economies of scale through mass production that would allow buying a home to be no more of a commitment than buying a car. No more 30 year mortgages, no more being 'house poor'.
Young and just starting out in life? Buy enough for just a kitchen, bath, and bedroom ... add more as you can afford it.
Open the standard for wall, floor, roof, etc... connections so vendors can offer 'after-market' parts for your home if you want something special or more individualized.
I will say that here in the South, we have a similar product which is located in "trailer parks". It is worth looking at the failures of the existing trailer parks when looking at ways to make cheaper housing.
Just for perspective, GM spends something like 7 billion USD a year on R&D. I'm not saying you can't make progress with a billion dollars on the problem, but a billion is not a gargantuan sum when it comes to things like cars. Tesla already spends a few hundred million per year on R&D for a much less ambitious problem.
Then I'd licence the two channels to "anyone" who wanted access at fairly inexpensive rates (e.g. free for development, few cents for production, small fines if you exceed the rate limit). Then I'd let people use this spectrum for more or less whatever they want.
Want me make an inter-car communications system? Want to make a "smart-home" system? Want to control your Christmas tree lights from a wireless switch? Licence my spectrum.
The current lack of freely usable spectrum is a huge bottleneck to lots of innovation. You often see WiFi get abused since it is the closest thing we have to a "use for anything" spectrum, BlueTooth and NFC both have too many inherent limitations.
Veganism is part of a solution to end animal abuse, but it's currently too hard of a cultural adjustment for people. We need a better, commercially viable solution.
Let me explain...
We discovered investing your money in social causes is incredibly difficult, so we're building out the Giving Graph to make it easier to be the Bill Gates of whatever your main social cause is. You shouldn't need to recreate the infrastructure of the Gates Foundation to be as effective a donor.
[disclosure - I'm the founder of Kyn]
Ultra efficient, lots of solar power and initially strong infrastructure, health care. I'd fail a time or two and might not be able to do everything at once, but i*d surely try. Living there would cost a portion of income, but included would be internet and housing and electricity and health care and things like that. Possibly healthy food if I can figure that out.
Yeah, definitely a dream :)
If you have billions of dollars, you can try funding one really big thing, which might fail - or you can fund a thousand smaller things, some of which will fail and some of which will succeed. The latter is usually better for the world.
2) Build a quora like website where anonymous government employees explain about various happenings in the govt and politicans minds. Eventually, I would make it a real time corruption alert machine.
Or flee from my country to a place with Amazon Prime.