Huge leaps in logic like "clinical trial failed" == "sponsor wants to kill people", and the passive tone, makes me think the author was on a tight deadline and a specific topic but doesnt fully believe what they're writing.
This is actually a great approach to evaluating articles like this. Remember, writing stories is a job too - shitty deadlines, writers block, pressure to come up with something, having to pitch your boss on why your idea is a good one.
You suddenly realize that nobody is reporting the news to educate people. They are doing it to: 1) get a paycheck, 2) sell add space, 3) get more clicks, etc.
Not saying all reporting is false. It’s just good to keep in mind what the incentives are.
Really. It feels the writer decided an overall point that we wants to portray, and then uses words to justify it. This is not journalism, this reads more like shilling.
his wealth is increasing because microsoft stock is increasing faster than he can give it away. but he’s given away over 50 billion so far. it actually takes a lot of work to give away that much money without it going to waste. but his will is public and you can see any remaining will be given away
99.99 of it isn’t going to his kids unlike what the poster said and you can actually openly track what happens to it when he dies
There are two things people want money for: pleasure or power.
In general, pleasure isn't that big of an issue. Go ahead buy all the nice cars, art, villas, etc.
The big danger is when money is converted into power. I think one of the big issues with all these billionaire foundations is that they are are vehicle for converting money into power.
Think of the early 90's when Gates was making all his money as Microsoft CEO. He had a lot of money, but (outside of computers) he had relatively little power (as the Justice Department demonstrated).
Now, through his foundation, Gates was able to turn that money into power. He has tremendous influence over policies that govern people who may never have even used Windows or Office. I am sure, he can pick up his cell phone and get in touch with dozens of presidents/prime ministers/etc immediately. He can tell elected (or not elected) leaders of countries exactly how they should be able to run their countries.
This is tremendous power, and I can see the danger of allowing a single person to amass so much power.
And foundations make it easy to hide that power in a velvet glove. The headline is that Bill Gates is giving all his money away. However, because of his foundation, he still retains much of the power of that money.
Can you please kindly tell us how it works? I’ve seen some pretty remarkable interactions between wealthy people and, say, for example, the US State Department.
oh how I wish I could... I agree there is an asymetry in influence of "the wealthy" to "legislation", compared to the influence of "the many", especially in the US.
yet it's not as simple as Bill calls Angie and then Angie makes a bill for bill.
some things that help "the many" are proportional representation (in contrast to fptp based systems) and popular vote, see Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands...
I wonder what it takes short of a war to get such dramatic improvements into an established democracy?
I did not arrive at same presumption after reading the parent comment. Just to be able to get in touch with world leaders is already too much power for a single man, even without the puppetry aspect.
He can influence campaigns and election results. He can open channels to most powerful people and have his words heard. If no leader bends to their will, it is still far more influence than what you and I have.
Politicians invest whole careers and lives to play the game of politics. They gain power but not much wiggle room, too much is at stake to keep them in positions. Rich people on the other hand can buy the ticket to sit at the table, and they can leave any time they get bored. Having that kind of power without inherent responsibility is dangerous.
> But Sanders has been far more forthright in his opposition to the super-wealthy, categorically stating, “billionaires should not exist.”
I have to laugh at this hateful hypocrite. Bernie Sanders is super-wealthy, and unimaginably privileged. It's funny, before he became a multi millionaire himself, his signature was to fight against "the millionaires and billionaires". As he approached the millionaire net worth figure, that quietly changed to "billionaires". He derided people who asked about that, and said they should, to paraphase, "just be successful" if they wanted to be wealthy like him.
Goes to show you it was never about principle or altruism, it is greed and divisiveness for the sake of power and wealth. Faux generosity at its finest.
The moral of the story is that all humans suffer the human condition. Believing in saints is one thing, believing that these secular-saints are everywhere, especially the ones who talk the most on twitter or get praised the most by global media corporations, is stupid. People should not get so much trust and admiration from the cheap words they say.
What a silly article. The reason Bezos/Gates “wealth” grows is because it’s invested as capital in industries which will provide solutions to all sorts of human problems. Anytime an article talks about the supposed paper billions someone is making they inevitably fail to point out how that wealth is actually being put to work. For some reason there’s this notion that billionaires just sit on their wealth like dragons hoarding gold.
But why should any single individual have control over all that capital? Why couldn't we decide collectively (democratically) where the money gets invested, just like we do in politics? That's the essence of socialist argument.
Another (more unpleasant) way of putting that is to ask “why can’t the majority just take desirable things from people they don’t like for itself?” The idea of private property is there in part to protect you from governments and large groups of people who want your stuff
This is often misunderstood about socialism. I am not against people owning stuff. The problem is, owning a factory (a company) is not owning just the physical assets, it's also owning the social structure (the workers and managers employed, their know-how, the customers..) that makes the factory work. That's what I see problematic, because it involves other people, and telling them what to do.
In other words, private ownership of capital is objectionable, and not private ownership.
If i make a breakthrough technology and make a million dollars, the more intelligent collective intelligence of society can make me invest it in dogecoin? On average, the general population is pretty dumb in my opinion. Leaving investment decisions to mob rule/ collectivism is even dumber.
In my mind, if you want to build a company, you have to invite people to it on equal terms. So from a certain size, I would argue you should only be allowed to create a worker cooperative (all employees as co-owners, one employee one vote) as a company structure.
> On average, the general population is pretty dumb in my opinion.
Well, in my opinion, "average person is dumb" is a chauvinism for nerds. Being dumb doesn't mean you shouldn't have a seat at the (decision-making) table, just like being black doesn't mean it.
Anyway, I get we will disagree, you don't like democracy, and that's fine. China is building a system like that, where the decisions are only made by party members, who are certified to be above-average among the citizenry. Maybe that would suit you better than democracy.
So, the janitor has as much say as Elon on which rocket architecture they should be pursuing? Which projects to pursue and what timelines they should be pursued on? Sounds like the Janitor is under-qualified to have an opinion in this matter.
>you don't like democracy
Yup, see the above example for why democracy is a dumb idea. That's why in the US we don't have a democracy, we have a democratic republic. I know I am not qualified to vote on every issue, that's why i elect representatives to make those decisions for me. It's their full time job and is also why America is one of the greatest nations because we don't have a system like China.
> Being dumb doesn't mean you shouldn't have a seat at the (decision-making) table
Yes - That's exactly what it means. If you are not qualified to answer basic questions on the subject matter you should defer to people who are more versed in the matter than you are. You should have no right to argue on technical matters you don't understand.
>China is building a system like that
No they're not. They are building a totalitarian dictatorship in the form of an oligarchy.
Not everyone is equal. That idea is easily falsifiable. Some people are inherently more intelligent, can contribute effectively (Sometimes having an inordinate impact than their peers)to design issues.
one question; Should the sales guy who's brought in $2M in sales this quarter be paid the same as the guy who brought in 50k? Should they both be on equal footing in being able to decide the sales funnel? Should they both be Co-Owners, with no difference between them even though one guy is obviously much better than the other?
>Anytime an article talks about the supposed paper billions someone is making they inevitably fail to point out how that wealth is actually being put to work. For some reason there’s this notion that billionaires just sit on their wealth like dragons hoarding gold.
Well, them "putting the wealth to work" is even worse. This means a single person gets to use their money to dictate policies, which is not of their business in a democratic society (much less in foreign countries they don't belong to).
policies shouldn’t be able to dictated by wealth in the first place or this wouldn’t be an issue.
one solution to this is campaign finance reform. another is to not make your government powerful enough to make policies like that because they will always be corrupted
but actually bill gates isn’t very involved at all in electoral politics and as far as i know doesn’t really donate
>but actually bill gates isn’t very involved at all in electoral politics and as far as i know doesn’t really donate
That's because electoral politics are a sham. He'll get his way with the one or the other candidate/party anyway, and his reach and policy influence is global...
Involvenment in policy (re agriculture, environment, Africa, vaccine, etc), sponsoring "think tanks" and symposiums, controlling policy through "charity", etc. is not a "market need".
Isn’t it though? Holding on to a stock, and receiving stock grants are not investments. The little money that was actually has been returned a millions of times over. That money is now just sitting there. I’d they were actively investing instead of just collecting rents, they’d be selling the stock and then giving it to other businesses, but that’s not what happens. It literally sits there for points. Even purchasing a superyacht and apocalypse bunker in New Zealand is more of an investment than simplying holding onto it for points on a Forbes list.
It’s hording because the amount of wealth is long past the point of diminishing returns. Do you really think that Bezos’s life is going to change at all if he actually had to give up half his wealth to his soon to be ex-wife? I don’t. And yet, the wealth provides the same market and political warping that all monopolies (a market failure) cause.
> He is also preoccupied with controlling Africa’s population through family planning, fearing a population boom
Those countries are modernizing rapidly, which is leading to rapid and massive increases in energy use and co2 emissions. I had a professor in a lecture once explain how dangerous and complicated a problem this was going to be in this century. Hand waving Gates for this is immature
Edit: the suggested fix is to educate women iirc. Educated empowered women have the freedom to choose lives that don’t involve having as many babies as possible, and an educated population is better able to deal with the technological and social challenges surrounding energy and climate
The idea that an outside to those sovereign countries should have any say on their population, especially a person whose country is the #1 (or #2 now that it has delegated manufacturing to China) polluter in the world, and absent from many global agreements, is beyond insulting and colonial-like...
“As such, he appears almost more interested in eliminating the people who are suffering than the source of the suffering itself.” - this conclusion is unjustified by the article and seems unfair
Too much money is like "The Ring", it slowly corrupts you, gives you a little bit of privilege here and there...
Gandalf: Don't... tempt me, Frodo! I dare not take it. Not even to keep it safe. Understand, Frodo, I would use this Ring from the desire to do good. But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine.
Bill Gates is like Gollum, he cannot let go of his wealth and power, so he has to invent charities to keep control of it. He is trapped in his world of privilege. That is the most generous interpretation.
I have much bigger admiration for Linus Torvalds, or Steve Wozniak, who could have possibly been wealthy but chose not to. (Or they were stupid not to take the Ring?)
Honestly, I don't see that much different from a hollywood actress or NHL player being paid in millions. Which might be seen as a moral issue but a different one, of equal renumeration for work.
But it's important to point out that main source of income for B.G. (or any capitalist, for that matter) is not a reward for work, but rather reward from ownership of capital, which is essentially a share of economic decisions. It's pretty unclear to me why the society should reward ownership and not just work.
A king, an absolute monarch, effectively owns the country, and his position is hereditary. A prime minister does not own the country, despite "being in charge", and it's not hereditary. People overwhelmingly prefer the latter system.
I don't see why business (economic production) should be any different.
I mostly admire Bill, but agree the hero worship is ridiculous.
The fact that he found a 1% tax on the wealth of the super-rich so objectionable while advocating for tax increases (that hit the middle-class and upper-middle-class much worse than 1%) revealed how he really feels about wealth inequality.
Besides, his wealth grows at 8% or so a year, thanks in part to the Federal Reserve’s policies, and he still thinks 1% is too high. His bottom line would still grow by billions a year, just slightly slower.
A lot of people seem to think that the image Bill Gates presents to the world is accurate, that he is just an awkward but nice man trying to make the world better.
Anyone who was around in the 80s and 90s knows this is a laughable farce. After his antitrust lawsuits, he obviously hired a large PR team and set out on a multi-year image rehabilitation plan. This has clearly been successful, considering how many regular people come out of the woodwork to attack any criticism of him. Most of these people, I think, were too young to remember Gates before his program of “donating” his money to organizations which he either owns or controls.
If he wanted to truly give away his wealth, he could do so. It isn’t that difficult. Instead, he’s basically just moving it around while playing world savior.
He uses his wealth to affect social policies in third-world countries. That is by definition anti-democratic. It’s corporate colonialism, plain and simple.
I don’t know, anything other than using your wealth to shape third-world countries to fit your own ideological agenda?
Hell, even redistributing his stocks and wealth to Microsoft employees would be less destructive.
It’s colonialism because it’s forcing Western values on to people that are too powerless to fight it. Accept our ideas of how society should be constructed, or else.
The Marshall Plan was absolutely used to reshape countries according to American desires. However, this was largely intra-Western, so the situation isn’t quite the same as in India or Africa.
> Anyone who was around in the 80s and 90s knows this is a laughable farce.
Since this was 30-40 years ago, why do you find it implausible that he outgrew his previous CEO persona? 30 years is far too long to pay someone for an image rehabilitation plan.
Someone with fuck you money at the level of Gates has zero motivation to patch his public image especially this long after he passed from the immediate public view. e could be a happily rich anonymous guy right now.
> If he wanted to truly give away his wealth, he could do so.
Did you look at this from your own perspective? How easy would you part with your wealth? Why do you imagine that a far richer person would be able to do so more easily? Once they're accustomed with a certain living level I think most people have problems scaling back.
I don’t fault Gates for being rich. I fault him for claiming to be a philanthropist that gives away his money (and revives adulation for it) while his net worth continues to rise.
And of course he is motivated to improve his image. He has serious global influence now with genuine geopolitical power.
I hold no special place for Bill Gates in my heart (if anything, I find him mildly annoying) but this article is nothing better than slander, at best. Sure, it does some sort of "follow the money" analysis, and then draws a variety of "links" between Bill Gates' entourage and other entities. But then it entices the reader to wink wink fill in the blank about what the motives are behind these relationships, while providing no evidence of wrong doing or ill intention.
In one case where I just happen to have done basic independent research, the author mentions Gates focus on family planning in Africa. The author suggests that this is some evil scheme to prevent a population boom, because $leave_it_to_the_reader_to_imagine_nefarious_purpose. In fact, this effort was motivated by research proving that the best way to improve survivability of children was to educate women.
The only sensible conclusion I could glance from this article is this: the author is of the opinion that billionaires shouldn't exist, because the author can't comprehend such a mind-blowingly large number.
The base premise of the article seems to be “rich people are evil because they are evil”. The low point to me was the bit about how, if Gates was for real, he wouldn’t be getting richer anymore.
Such articles also fail to explore what things look like without the philanthropy. Even if Gates is somewhat evil, is the net result positive? Could his work be replaced by other organisations? I think both are answered in favour of Gates.
Yeah it's quite sad. A lot of critisism in the article is valid, but why make it so personal then?
I share a lot of the critisism, but billionaires are not "sick in the head". They are playing by the rules that society gives them. They were exploiting them with luck and smarts to get where they are. This is not praise, but a counterargument to the sentiment. Society needs to set boundaries, instead of not doing it and then villifying those who take advantage of that.
But isn't villifying those who take advantage of lack of boundaries just an argument for the boundaries? I don't see how you could make that argument effectively without pointing out the transgressions.
After doing some looking behind the cover, my hunch is that "mintpressnews.com" is some sort of propaganda news platform. I guess I wasted a good 10min reading this article.
Sometimes I wish there was an overlay on website, giving a fact-check score e.g. "this website tends to be biased toward XYZ side of ABC issues".
Indeed. After mentioning they funded family planning, next line is " As such, he appears almost more interested in eliminating the people who are suffering than the source of the suffering itself."
Every point in this article just screams "I hate bill gates" and all the evidence for why he is evil comes as an afterthought.
Also, this article seems to be built around the fixed wealth fallacy. Bill Gates did not take all of this wealth out of the mouths of family's at dinner tables. He built and ran a company that helped usher in a new era of technological innovation. Also, he started a foundation where he has given away $50B and they bring up the $10m in media donations he's used for advertising/ PR/ Public relations. Atleast he's done something...
Much more than all the armchair philosophers here hating on him. Also, as far as billionaires go I truly believe he's one of the best. Atleast he does philathropy, not start 5 different companies, claim to be the chief engineer at all 5 of them, and actively participate in pump-n-dumps.
yeah somehow the guy trying to distribute mosquito nets and eradicate polio is the bad guy because he founded a company that brought computers into every home and radically improved the world and retained stock in that company
I agree the super rich bending governmental bodies to their wills is highly problematic. That isn't a billionaire problem though, it is a problem of weak anti-corruption laws in the presence of any wealth.
The biggest mistake I think the author makes is trying to classify Bill Gates (and other billionaires) as all saintly (supposedly by the press, etc.) or evil (the author's stance.)
>As former British Prime Minister Clement Attlee said, “Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim.” Bill Gates is not just some rich guy who is unsure about paying more tax: he’s a menace to society.
The assumption seems to be that the rich (or anyone?) cannot do any good with their own wealth unless it is given to governments. What an awful cynical ungrateful world view.
In comparison to the resources of large nation states, even the resources of the Gates foundation (which amount to a couple of billion a year) are tiny. Still, most western countries obviously could not care less. If you transferred the wealth of BG and all other tech billionaires to the governments of the countries they live in, they would waste it on the same stupid stuff they spend all their other resources on (inefficient defense spending, unwarranted gifts for the boomer generation, etc.).
So, yeah, I grateful for how BG spends his money. Larry Ellison spends his money on stupid yachts. I certainly see a difference there.
74 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 120 ms ] threadYou suddenly realize that nobody is reporting the news to educate people. They are doing it to: 1) get a paycheck, 2) sell add space, 3) get more clicks, etc.
Not saying all reporting is false. It’s just good to keep in mind what the incentives are.
99.99 of it isn’t going to his kids unlike what the poster said and you can actually openly track what happens to it when he dies
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/18/warren-buffett-buys-breakfas...
In general, pleasure isn't that big of an issue. Go ahead buy all the nice cars, art, villas, etc.
The big danger is when money is converted into power. I think one of the big issues with all these billionaire foundations is that they are are vehicle for converting money into power.
Think of the early 90's when Gates was making all his money as Microsoft CEO. He had a lot of money, but (outside of computers) he had relatively little power (as the Justice Department demonstrated).
Now, through his foundation, Gates was able to turn that money into power. He has tremendous influence over policies that govern people who may never have even used Windows or Office. I am sure, he can pick up his cell phone and get in touch with dozens of presidents/prime ministers/etc immediately. He can tell elected (or not elected) leaders of countries exactly how they should be able to run their countries.
This is tremendous power, and I can see the danger of allowing a single person to amass so much power.
And foundations make it easy to hide that power in a velvet glove. The headline is that Bill Gates is giving all his money away. However, because of his foundation, he still retains much of the power of that money.
this is not how that works.
yet it's not as simple as Bill calls Angie and then Angie makes a bill for bill.
some things that help "the many" are proportional representation (in contrast to fptp based systems) and popular vote, see Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands...
I wonder what it takes short of a war to get such dramatic improvements into an established democracy?
how else would you read that?
Politicians invest whole careers and lives to play the game of politics. They gain power but not much wiggle room, too much is at stake to keep them in positions. Rich people on the other hand can buy the ticket to sit at the table, and they can leave any time they get bored. Having that kind of power without inherent responsibility is dangerous.
I have to laugh at this hateful hypocrite. Bernie Sanders is super-wealthy, and unimaginably privileged. It's funny, before he became a multi millionaire himself, his signature was to fight against "the millionaires and billionaires". As he approached the millionaire net worth figure, that quietly changed to "billionaires". He derided people who asked about that, and said they should, to paraphase, "just be successful" if they wanted to be wealthy like him.
Goes to show you it was never about principle or altruism, it is greed and divisiveness for the sake of power and wealth. Faux generosity at its finest.
The moral of the story is that all humans suffer the human condition. Believing in saints is one thing, believing that these secular-saints are everywhere, especially the ones who talk the most on twitter or get praised the most by global media corporations, is stupid. People should not get so much trust and admiration from the cheap words they say.
Goes to show it's not altruistic
Literally nobody is under that illusion. People just think capital should be owned more evenly.
In other words, private ownership of capital is objectionable, and not private ownership.
If i make a breakthrough technology and make a million dollars, the more intelligent collective intelligence of society can make me invest it in dogecoin? On average, the general population is pretty dumb in my opinion. Leaving investment decisions to mob rule/ collectivism is even dumber.
Taxes and a democracy.
Or if you want an even more radical solution, taxes and literally a check to people.
>Leaving investment decisions to mob rule/ collectivism is even dumber.
I take it you’re not a fan of free markets, and instead throw in with command and control economies.
In my mind, if you want to build a company, you have to invite people to it on equal terms. So from a certain size, I would argue you should only be allowed to create a worker cooperative (all employees as co-owners, one employee one vote) as a company structure.
> On average, the general population is pretty dumb in my opinion.
Well, in my opinion, "average person is dumb" is a chauvinism for nerds. Being dumb doesn't mean you shouldn't have a seat at the (decision-making) table, just like being black doesn't mean it.
Anyway, I get we will disagree, you don't like democracy, and that's fine. China is building a system like that, where the decisions are only made by party members, who are certified to be above-average among the citizenry. Maybe that would suit you better than democracy.
So, the janitor has as much say as Elon on which rocket architecture they should be pursuing? Which projects to pursue and what timelines they should be pursued on? Sounds like the Janitor is under-qualified to have an opinion in this matter.
>you don't like democracy
Yup, see the above example for why democracy is a dumb idea. That's why in the US we don't have a democracy, we have a democratic republic. I know I am not qualified to vote on every issue, that's why i elect representatives to make those decisions for me. It's their full time job and is also why America is one of the greatest nations because we don't have a system like China.
> Being dumb doesn't mean you shouldn't have a seat at the (decision-making) table
Yes - That's exactly what it means. If you are not qualified to answer basic questions on the subject matter you should defer to people who are more versed in the matter than you are. You should have no right to argue on technical matters you don't understand.
>China is building a system like that
No they're not. They are building a totalitarian dictatorship in the form of an oligarchy.
Not everyone is equal. That idea is easily falsifiable. Some people are inherently more intelligent, can contribute effectively (Sometimes having an inordinate impact than their peers)to design issues.
one question; Should the sales guy who's brought in $2M in sales this quarter be paid the same as the guy who brought in 50k? Should they both be on equal footing in being able to decide the sales funnel? Should they both be Co-Owners, with no difference between them even though one guy is obviously much better than the other?
Well, them "putting the wealth to work" is even worse. This means a single person gets to use their money to dictate policies, which is not of their business in a democratic society (much less in foreign countries they don't belong to).
one solution to this is campaign finance reform. another is to not make your government powerful enough to make policies like that because they will always be corrupted
but actually bill gates isn’t very involved at all in electoral politics and as far as i know doesn’t really donate
That's because electoral politics are a sham. He'll get his way with the one or the other candidate/party anyway, and his reach and policy influence is global...
The latter is a problem, the former is not. They are not the same thing.
It’s hording because the amount of wealth is long past the point of diminishing returns. Do you really think that Bezos’s life is going to change at all if he actually had to give up half his wealth to his soon to be ex-wife? I don’t. And yet, the wealth provides the same market and political warping that all monopolies (a market failure) cause.
Those countries are modernizing rapidly, which is leading to rapid and massive increases in energy use and co2 emissions. I had a professor in a lecture once explain how dangerous and complicated a problem this was going to be in this century. Hand waving Gates for this is immature
Edit: the suggested fix is to educate women iirc. Educated empowered women have the freedom to choose lives that don’t involve having as many babies as possible, and an educated population is better able to deal with the technological and social challenges surrounding energy and climate
Regardless of which is true, surely this highlights the power of The Narrative in reporting.
It's from 2019 which scuppers the timing part.
“As such, he appears almost more interested in eliminating the people who are suffering than the source of the suffering itself.” - this conclusion is unjustified by the article and seems unfair
Gandalf: Don't... tempt me, Frodo! I dare not take it. Not even to keep it safe. Understand, Frodo, I would use this Ring from the desire to do good. But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine.
Bill Gates is like Gollum, he cannot let go of his wealth and power, so he has to invent charities to keep control of it. He is trapped in his world of privilege. That is the most generous interpretation.
I have much bigger admiration for Linus Torvalds, or Steve Wozniak, who could have possibly been wealthy but chose not to. (Or they were stupid not to take the Ring?)
But it's important to point out that main source of income for B.G. (or any capitalist, for that matter) is not a reward for work, but rather reward from ownership of capital, which is essentially a share of economic decisions. It's pretty unclear to me why the society should reward ownership and not just work.
A king, an absolute monarch, effectively owns the country, and his position is hereditary. A prime minister does not own the country, despite "being in charge", and it's not hereditary. People overwhelmingly prefer the latter system.
I don't see why business (economic production) should be any different.
The fact that he found a 1% tax on the wealth of the super-rich so objectionable while advocating for tax increases (that hit the middle-class and upper-middle-class much worse than 1%) revealed how he really feels about wealth inequality.
Besides, his wealth grows at 8% or so a year, thanks in part to the Federal Reserve’s policies, and he still thinks 1% is too high. His bottom line would still grow by billions a year, just slightly slower.
Anyone who was around in the 80s and 90s knows this is a laughable farce. After his antitrust lawsuits, he obviously hired a large PR team and set out on a multi-year image rehabilitation plan. This has clearly been successful, considering how many regular people come out of the woodwork to attack any criticism of him. Most of these people, I think, were too young to remember Gates before his program of “donating” his money to organizations which he either owns or controls.
If he wanted to truly give away his wealth, he could do so. It isn’t that difficult. Instead, he’s basically just moving it around while playing world savior.
I’m not mentally committed to him being a cuddly awkward bear, I just don’t think anything in the article supports him being an evil schemer.
Also let’s not exaggerate with “colonialism”, that is where purpose is overtly exploitation. Is that the case here? Was the Marshall fund colonialism?
Hell, even redistributing his stocks and wealth to Microsoft employees would be less destructive.
It’s colonialism because it’s forcing Western values on to people that are too powerless to fight it. Accept our ideas of how society should be constructed, or else.
The Marshall Plan was absolutely used to reshape countries according to American desires. However, this was largely intra-Western, so the situation isn’t quite the same as in India or Africa.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0Yxhtl793c
He matched funding with what Rotary international raised, they've been at it for 35 years and Mr Gates gets the glory!
https://rotary.org/en/our-causes/ending-polio
They did the hard part of standing in the streets collecting money, running events. When the Gates foundation had all the money outright!
Since this was 30-40 years ago, why do you find it implausible that he outgrew his previous CEO persona? 30 years is far too long to pay someone for an image rehabilitation plan.
Someone with fuck you money at the level of Gates has zero motivation to patch his public image especially this long after he passed from the immediate public view. e could be a happily rich anonymous guy right now.
> If he wanted to truly give away his wealth, he could do so.
Did you look at this from your own perspective? How easy would you part with your wealth? Why do you imagine that a far richer person would be able to do so more easily? Once they're accustomed with a certain living level I think most people have problems scaling back.
I don’t fault Gates for being rich. I fault him for claiming to be a philanthropist that gives away his money (and revives adulation for it) while his net worth continues to rise.
And of course he is motivated to improve his image. He has serious global influence now with genuine geopolitical power.
In one case where I just happen to have done basic independent research, the author mentions Gates focus on family planning in Africa. The author suggests that this is some evil scheme to prevent a population boom, because $leave_it_to_the_reader_to_imagine_nefarious_purpose. In fact, this effort was motivated by research proving that the best way to improve survivability of children was to educate women.
The only sensible conclusion I could glance from this article is this: the author is of the opinion that billionaires shouldn't exist, because the author can't comprehend such a mind-blowingly large number.
Such articles also fail to explore what things look like without the philanthropy. Even if Gates is somewhat evil, is the net result positive? Could his work be replaced by other organisations? I think both are answered in favour of Gates.
I share a lot of the critisism, but billionaires are not "sick in the head". They are playing by the rules that society gives them. They were exploiting them with luck and smarts to get where they are. This is not praise, but a counterargument to the sentiment. Society needs to set boundaries, instead of not doing it and then villifying those who take advantage of that.
Sometimes I wish there was an overlay on website, giving a fact-check score e.g. "this website tends to be biased toward XYZ side of ABC issues".
I know a hatchet when I see one.
Also, this article seems to be built around the fixed wealth fallacy. Bill Gates did not take all of this wealth out of the mouths of family's at dinner tables. He built and ran a company that helped usher in a new era of technological innovation. Also, he started a foundation where he has given away $50B and they bring up the $10m in media donations he's used for advertising/ PR/ Public relations. Atleast he's done something...
Much more than all the armchair philosophers here hating on him. Also, as far as billionaires go I truly believe he's one of the best. Atleast he does philathropy, not start 5 different companies, claim to be the chief engineer at all 5 of them, and actively participate in pump-n-dumps.
I agree the super rich bending governmental bodies to their wills is highly problematic. That isn't a billionaire problem though, it is a problem of weak anti-corruption laws in the presence of any wealth.
The biggest mistake I think the author makes is trying to classify Bill Gates (and other billionaires) as all saintly (supposedly by the press, etc.) or evil (the author's stance.)
>As former British Prime Minister Clement Attlee said, “Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim.” Bill Gates is not just some rich guy who is unsure about paying more tax: he’s a menace to society.
The assumption seems to be that the rich (or anyone?) cannot do any good with their own wealth unless it is given to governments. What an awful cynical ungrateful world view.
So, yeah, I grateful for how BG spends his money. Larry Ellison spends his money on stupid yachts. I certainly see a difference there.