Bill Gates Calls for a 'Kinder Capitalism' 601
Strudelkugel writes "The Wall Street Journal reports that Microsoft's Chairman Bill Gates is going to call for a revision of capitalism. He will argue that the economics that drive much of the world should use market forces to address the needs of poor countries, which he feels are currently being ignored. 'We have to find a way to make the aspects of capitalism that serve wealthier people serve poorer people as well,' Mr. Gates will say in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. 'Key to Mr. Gates's plan will be for businesses to dedicate their top people to poor issues — an approach he feels is more powerful than traditional corporate donations and volunteer work. Governments should set policies and disburse funds to create financial incentives for businesses to improve the lives of the poor, he plans to say. Mr. Gates's argument for the potential profitability of serving the poor is certain to raise skepticism, and some people may point out that poverty became a priority for Mr. Gates only after he'd earned billions building up Microsoft. But Mr. Gates is emphatic that he's not calling for a fundamental change in how capitalism works.'"
Great News... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bwaa? (Score:2, Insightful)
Reality Translation (Score:3, Insightful)
"We have to find a way to make the aspects of capitalism that serve wealthier people let us continue to rip off poorer people,' Mr. Gates will say in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. 'Key to Mr. Gates's plan will be for businesses to dedicate their top people to locking in the poor an approach he feels is more powerful when tied into traditional corporate donations and volunteer work. Governments should set policies and disburse funds to create financial incentives so that businesses can profit when they "improve" the lives of the poor, rather than giving money to the poor, he plans to say "The poor would just waste it on non-essentials like food and medicine.". Mr. Gates's argument for the potential profitability of serving the poor via government pork-barrelling and corporate tie-ins is certain to raise skepticism, and some people may point out that tapping the poverty-ridden became a priority for Mr. Gates only after he'd earned billions building up Microsoft. But Mr. Gates is emphatic that he's not calling for a fundamental change in how capitalism works - as long as he continues to get his.'"
Really Bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
Note to Bill, its been tried at least twice in the past 100 years and they were called communism and socialism. The only change for the poor in those systems is there is more of them.
To paraphrase Churchill: "It has been said that capitalism is the worst form of economy except all the others that have been tried."
OK Bill (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Eliminate Copyrights and Patents (Score:3, Insightful)
I can rationalize with Bill a bit.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bwaa? (Score:5, Insightful)
Classic examples are food aid which has all but killed the local farm industry in many African countries along with dumping unused clothing and shoes which has done the same to the local textile and shoe industries. We drive a local tradesman onto the street and make him forever dependant on foreign aid every time one of us gives a piece of clothing to one of those "collectors" which leave a leaflet and a bag every week.
While at it, Billy the Robber is as guilty of killing indiginous industries as anyone. He has made everything in his power to kill local competition everywhere he stepped. We live in a world where there is one or two indiginous word processing products left as final hold-outs in the losing battle against MSOffice. Navision has been doing the same to indiginous accounting packages and so on.
Same problem, different name. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with solving poverty is that it costs money; investing money in things that will give no return is bad business. Unless we are willing to sacrifice things will never change. Even then it will be hard because there will not be an overnight change. It will take time and energy.
We CAN make poverty history. We just have to be willing to pay the price and suffer for no other reason than it is the right thing to do.
Venture Philanthropy (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a scam to insert themselves into the revenue stream and suck at the public teat.
This is a bit off-topic, but I'm going to reproduce something my mother (who is a teacher) wrote in respect to the similarly-phrased venture philanthropy plans in education. Sorry that it is long, but since educationally venture philanthropy is very much part of the Gates' foundations agenda, it's relevant in entirety. I did the html formatting, but the content is my Mom's [xkcd.com]:
I think I know what he wants (Score:4, Insightful)
We had a story about it just a little while ago "MS ties charity to the use of Windows". I have absolutly no doubt that Bill Gates would LOVE to help the poor, with "free" MS software.
No not because he is an evil self-serving asshole. Lets be brutally honest here, MS software is the best in the world, and Bill Gates is the living proof of it. If MS software isn't the best in the world, why does everyone use it making Bill Gates one of the richest man on earth?
Because lets undestand this very clearly, compared to all the other very rich men on earth, Bill Gates got that way by basically selling a SINGLE product, later expanding that to a massive TWO. (Okay not exactly, but compare this to other giant companies like IBM, HP or the japanese giants and MS product catalog seems awfully thin).
I think their is something very subtle corrupt about PRIVATE donations, when even a Morning Musume sketch knows it, you have to wonder why any sane society allows it.
In a sketch some childeren have an argument, one is rich, the others aren't. Rich kid complains to parents, parents talk to the schoolteacher and threathen to cut their donations.
A more classic example is religious charity, you can have our cash, but you got to listen to our sermon and if your religion ain't right, well we might not even give you anything at all.
I think charity should firmly be in the hands of a goverment, they are not the best but at least they can be voted out. If I want to donate a million dollars I shouldn't really be able to attach any restrictions to it. If you allow that you essentially allow the rich to dictate the live of the poor. Schools only get Bill Gates money if the schools only windows, can this even be called charity anymore? What next, schools that don't expell kids who pirate MS windows will get no funding?
No, I think Bill Gates is the last person I want in control of society, not just because he is ammoral business man, but because he also had that amorallity work for him all his life. Do you want a human being telling the poor how to life who has never ever been poor? Who with his monthly income condems countless others to poverty.
This has to do with the concept of average income. If the average income is 1000 dollars and one person make 10.000 then 9 people earn nothing at all
If he is truly that worried about society, the answer is simple, PAY MORE TAXES. MS has made it an art to find way to dodge paying taxes over its gigantic earnings. But that offcourse won't happen, wether tax money is wasted or not is not the issue, Bill Gates has little to say on how taxes are spend, why it might even go to the NSA on projects to improve Linux. Schools could decide themselves what software to use. The end of the world!
There are some fans of Bill Gates who point out his charity work, but frankly for a man that is that rich, it is pathetic and a lot of it can be traced back to ways of forcing the use of windows.
Also there is this to consider, if I make 1000 dollars and donate 100, that is a huge amount. If I make a million dollars and donate 100.000. The amount is far greater but the impact on me is far smaller. If I have billions, then I could donate 95% of my wealth and still life the life of the filthy rich. Gates don't donate 95% of his wealth, not even 10 percent. Important thing to consider.
More controll by business over our society, yeah thanks DO NOT WANT!
Moral credibility (Score:4, Insightful)
Intent--Alternate reality translation (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think we should discriminate based on who said it, but what was being said. All of us can see the irony here, but how many of us are willing to see the point? I guess this is a good turn of events, A rich businessman focusing on (helping) the poor. This is like a strong statement of intent, and I sincerely hope to see some form of action plan from Microsoft towards it( well, I know this is not gonna happen , but still...). Somebody, please take the lead.
Re:Eliminate Copyrights and Patents (Score:3, Insightful)
these days its the smaller gene- or bio-labs that come up with new ways to kill the most common threat to out bodies, not big pharma.
Try a real free market (Score:4, Insightful)
As for aiding the poor
And my fav current topic, the patronizing smugdiots who want to send food (which destroys their only chance at self-sufficiency and export income) to the third world instead of OLPC laptops (which saves them money compared to physical distribution of outdated textbooks in foreign languages). Or want to shove Windows on more expensive less capable laptops at them to lock them into a foreign monopoly instead of free source from which they can learn.
Hell of a way to keep 'em down on the non-farm. See what you can do about that, Bill.
Bill's not all bad (Score:2, Insightful)
So no, I'm not saying that MS has the greatest practices in the world in regards to monopoly, and their software mostly sucks, but at the same point don't act like Bill is an evil money-hording pirate.
Gates should act like a real "Robber Baron" (Score:5, Insightful)
The great robber barons - Carnegie, Rockefeller, and really, a lot more, all invested rather heavily in some basic infrastructure that continues to improve the USA to this day. All of the great robber barons ploughed their vast fortunes into libraries, universities, hospitals and other enterprises and essentially created, ironically, all of today's "liberal" institutions. While its admirable that he pours a lot of money in fighting HIV in Africa, if he actually built universities, vocational schools, or even just invested in existing ones, ultimately, the world would be much better served. Do you want humanity to genuinely improve? Good. Go set your school of choice up with an endowment so that they can buy a new supercomputer every couple of years.
While you are it, maybe these billionaires ought to do what Henry Ford did and pay their workers wages far above what everyone else was getting paid at the time. You know, maybe create a real middle class again!
Re:Eliminate Copyrights and Patents (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bollocks (Score:3, Insightful)
It has lots to do with, for instance, perversion of the markets by the protectionists of the developed world who subsidise their agrobusiness interests and thus artificially depress the market price for the very cash crops that would allow third world economies to sustain themselves.
It has a lot to do with the ultimate market Big Lie that is GATT - structured to allow parasitical 'service' companies from the developed nations profit from the loans given to developing nations by their friends in the World Bank and IMF.
It has a lot to do with Invisible Property laws and treaties that restrict the ability of developing countries to use knowledge for their own benefit without paying over the odds to some shyster patent troll or well padded pharmaceutical executive.
A free market system would benefit the developing world hugely - but there are too many vested interests in the developed world that would suffer in such a market, so it isn't likely to happen.
Re:Really Bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Really Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
What capitalism can't be improved? Capitalism like in the US, in Russia, in Saudi Arabia, in Congo? What sort of improvements work or don't work and why? I think it is more important to ask and answer those sorts of questions than offer up a sweeping defense of capitalism.
I also suspect that most people would agree that public ownership of the means of production in some industries (fire department, basic scientific research, health care, etc..) may not be such a bad idea after all.
Longer time horizon is the cure (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of what is criticised is nothing more than actions which yield short-term gains at the expense of long term profitability. The long term is ignored because the level of change in modern society tempts people into believing their current actions have no predictable consequences. But they do. Helping the poor, or taking care of your workers (as Henry Ford did) has a long-term payoff.
More gibberish (Score:5, Insightful)
The notion that the rich are not concerned enough for the poor is laughable. It is laughable because the rich are very concerned for the poor. Just not in the poor's interest. This is false political spectrum allowed in the US - conservatives or Republicans or whatever speak of a free market (whatever the phrase "free market" means - I don't see how a market selling potatos in the USSR for rubles is any difference than a market in the US selling potatos for dollars - the difference was always in production, not exchange). Speak of how opening restrictions on capitalism will help everyone, or some even say it doesn't matter, because people do not have an obligation to one another. Then there is liberalism and the Democrats - the problem is the rich do not care enough about the poor.
Both are nonsense and are really two sides of the same coin. Just take a look at China today to see the purpose of the poor. With a 20% growth rate per year it is quite open what happens - the "market" heats up, profits go down as workers make and demand more (even in repressive labor conditions reminiscent of the early days of the western industrialization). So what happens? The state, controlled by Deng-Xiaoping-following "capitalist roaders" as they used to be called, begins laying off workers, and enclosure and the like happens in the farms out west, creating a flood of new workers, lower wages and higher profits. This has been happening in rural Mexico because of NAFTA (and other similar recent trade agreements), which is why the US's neighbor to the south for so many centuries suddenly has so many undocumented types from rural Mexico flooding over the border.
The point is is that unlike in other economic systems - slave systems, the former eastern socialist systems, feudal systems - poverty is a necessity for capitalism. If it did not exist, workers would demand all of the surplus they create at their companies, and their would be no dividend checks going out. A practical truth, the framework (but not the details) of which were spelled out by Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Say, Malthus and all of the founders of economics. But this framework was tossed in the garbage can in the late 19th century, and Smith, Ricardo and all of the early economists realization of value being created by labor was tossed in the garbage and some new nonsense was brought in. Without unemployment, poverty, longer and longer hours and that sort of thing, Gates would have no fortune. His fortune is on the backs of his overworked, often H1B'd staff, but the poor and unemployed are an essential component and necessity to keep those profits. This view is one which is rarely expressed nowadays, yet, usually the less it is heard of, the more true it is.
Re:Bwaa? (Score:3, Insightful)
You know what's really annoying? (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is, stop bitching about things like "He's only donating because he's rich" or "He made the donee use MS software in exchange". Donations are gifts, they aren't mandatory if you're rich or poor. Either way, these organizations are receiving these gifts and thats all that really matters. You don't have to praise him for it, nobody is asking you to do that, but you shouldn't bitch about it either. Just be thankful these organizations have more money than they did before (assuming these organizations are worthwhile).
And seriously, why is it such a big deal that in exchange for a donation, he is asking an organization to use their software (I'm assuming he is donating that as well, or donations > cost to switch to MS software)? It is, in a sense, paying someone to use your software. It speaks a little bit for your software but in the end, the have (arguably) useable software and more money than they had before. Do these organizations complain about things like this? Certainly not as much as slashdotters apparently. In the end, "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth".
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great News... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Eliminate Copyrights and Patents (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Eliminate Copyrights and Patents (Score:3, Insightful)
Not Fully Seperate (Score:3, Insightful)
True that now that Bill is separating himself out from MS, he has less influence, but you cannot suddenly isolate responsibility from him just like that. Besides, how much of his new-found generousity is "in kind", favouring one company's products?
Although, in order to keep people's eye on the ball, my comment was somewhat simplistic, yours is even more so. Legal fictions are not reality, and Bill still has a lot of influence.
Re:Great News... (Score:2, Insightful)
One of the greatest destroyers of capitalism speaks out on how to make a better capitalism? All this demonstrates is how so many people get starry eyed when a rich man speaks. If his company competed in the capitalistic world (not the monopolistic) and his company played above the board (do I really need to say anything here?), I would listen. If he wanted to talk about how better to crush other markets and chain people to product usage, I would listen. If he wanted to talk about how to violate anti-monopoly laws and make a profit, I would listen. If he wanted to talk about producing problematic software and make a killing, I would listen. But, on this not a chance. He does not have the resume in my opinion.
InnerWeb
Re:Great News... (Score:4, Insightful)
Some point in the last few years, Bill Gates seems to have figured out he's roughly into the last third of his life, looked in the mirror, and didn't see anything there. It's clear he's decided to do something about that, and good on him for it.
That being said, he's got a lot to explain as he touts his newfound (and very worthy) repudiation of hoarding. Kinder capitalism? Why don't you show us how it's done, Bill? If anyone's in a position to do it, you are. Show us.
That is touching on the key... (Score:3, Insightful)
Right off the bat, if we made the fines against corporations large enough to cause serious losses, CEOs would be required under the current system to stop committing crimes.
Re:I can rationalize with Bill a bit.. (Score:1, Insightful)
My theory: When people get older, they think about their life and their impact on the world at large, not just in their profession. Bill Gates is helping those less fortunate to boost his ego. Good, bad, or indifferent, that is his motive. Regardless, the outcome of philanthropy will be good.
Re:Great News... (Score:2, Insightful)
Asking the current rich and huge companies to voluntarily give back some of their money is great and all, but the fact that they have huge globs of money to burn shows that the free market is not as free and fair as it should be. The capitalists make sure that employees are not getting paid what their market rate should be, they make sure competing products are eliminated, they buy up or sue the competition. Screwing over your employees and customers to gain enormous profits cannot be forgiven by giving some scraps to random poor countries and people. This has been the philosophy of Gates for a while, close your eyes to how you make your money, but give some of it away to feel kind and generous.
Re:Great News... (Score:2, Insightful)
What did Bill Gates achieve?
1) He never took home an outrageous salary like many of his CEO counterparts. For example many private equity CEO's take home billions and give nothing.
2) He built a company and from the get go gave each employee the chance to get options and shares. This created an incredible amount of wealth for his employees.
3) He built a market for third parties. Microsoft is and remains as powerful as they are because people can make money on it. How about Apple? How big is the third party market there? Apple has (in the early days you actually had to get a token) kept very tight control on who can develop on the Apple box. And third parties have to be "blessed" and pay homage to the alter of Steve Jobs.
4) He brought down the price of software. Before Microsoft people were charging a fortune for software. Sure Microsoft plays games, but all for profit corporations do. For example ever look at the price list of say Oracle, IBM or many other vendors? Sun used to charge outrageous fees.
Yes Microsoft plays hard ball. They are a tough competitor and not to be underestimated. But when all is said and done Microsoft and Bill Gates will not look like the villain that many like to portray.
Re:actually (Score:3, Insightful)
And why didn't he talk about the future society? Because his method forbids it. If one believes (and this is just a belief, no matter how much one says it's a "science") that History unfolds in a dialectical pattern, then any attempt at guessing what comes two or three "steps" from now is in vain.
That's also the reason why even nowadays you cannot get an answer to this question from any leftist. All they "know" is that they must practice the "antithesis" of what currently exist (the "thesis"), that at some point both will be overcome by a "synthesis", which in turn will become a new "thesis" with its own "antithesis", to be overcome by a new "synthesis", and so on and so forth, until the "a new world is possible", whatever it is, comes to happen, and then there will be bliss everywhere for all of eternity.
Anyone who is a cynical and isn't a leftist can see that the Marxist "scientific" understanding of History is hardly more than a secular version of the belief in the monotheistic Heaven. You take what for Christians is "located in Eternity" and place it "in the Future", all the while identifying yourself as the chosen one whose destiny is helping it to happen. And since it's an undetermined future, thus something you can never know whether was or wasn't already reached, and if not, what's the distance between "now" and "then", what specifically still needs to be done, this results in that anything you wish can be put in that void.
That's why the typical communist will always say that a "communist society" never existed. Because the society he himself thinks should exist (the one he right now is thinking about, because tomorrow he might change his mind on some detail), that one isn't equal to any which actually existed, even when its founders called themselves communists. The ideal society of his dreams is always, by definition, "in the future". Always.
As such, he is always justified both in the acts he takes that he believes will bring "the future" to fruition, as well as in his criticism of other marxists whose acts don't (right now) fit nicely with his (own, personal) model.
Anything goes, literally.
Re:Same problem, different name. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the government's role should be to protect people from being screwed, but NOT to make sure that everyone is "equal".
Personally, I think socialism and communism are wonderful ideals that have never been proven to be compatible with human nature and human society and are likely never to be. For example, no one would disagree with the statement "The world would be a better place if there were no violence", but there is no way the world would achieve that without fundamentally altering human nature. Likewise, saying that if all wealth was distributed more equally we would eliminate poverty and prevent rich people from controlling the world through the power of their money is a great ideal as well. What actually happens in real world attempts to do this? People cheat. Some people see now difference between working hard and not working at all, so they leech off the system. The only way to enforce this equality is by government control, but the government is composed of people who now have control of production and distribution, so the power base and all of the same (and worse) abuses are present. People with the talent and drive to excel are repressed. From my reading of history every attempt at establishment of societies based on these principles, from a commune of a few dozen people to the U.S.S.R. and China have failed and failed in ways that, in hindsight, are perfectly obvious based on human nature.
I also can't figure out why the open source, anti-corporation, "information should be free", crowd (98%+ of Slashdot readers) advocate so many ideas that would result in top heavy, bureaucratically-bloated, hierarchical government agencies. Sure, everyone should have access to health care. Do we trust the U.S. government to provide a cost efficient, dynamic, scientifically aware program and agency to control it? I don't.
The dangers and abuses of capitalism are obvious, but it's like the old saw about Democracy: capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all of the rest of them. People are competitive, they want and need to see rewards for their efforts. If one person or group does something better and/or cheaper than another, they are more successful. Prices are driven by supply and demand and no matter how much we would like to, they can't be controlled by government fiat. Government control of a single-side of the equation, supply or demand, is even worse. Property rights are essential for any system of modern banking. You can also attack the banking system as well, but overall it works and money economies are not zero sum, but closed economies and barter economies are zero sum (or less).
For example, why would a company, a bank, or a government loan you money (or borrow money from you in stocks or bonds) if there were no interest or dividends? Even if they did, how would any risks be mitigated without collateral? The most common collateral is property, so if you don't have legal property rights, you don't have any collateral. But interest rates are so unfair, they should be capped to prevent abuse. Fine, cap them. Then what happens when the risks exceed the expected return? No entity in their right mind would lend any money, so you have stagnation. Or, if they are able, people would go outside the legal systems to borrow money and these illegal (or external) money lenders would compete how? Capitalistic market forces. Check out your history books - the same pattern of mistakes and corrections have appeared many times. This is one reason why when I heard someone praise Hugo Chavez, I pretty much tune out anything else they have to say.
Capitalism is not fundamentally incompatible with ending poverty. As the parent poster (and others) have pointed out, a capitalist entity wants to grow its markets and poor and dying people make bad customers, but affluent, healthy, intelligent people make great customers. Over the years, altruism has also become a marketable asset and many people are more or less willing to buy products fro
Re:Eliminate Copyrights and Patents (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd go so far as to say that it's common knowledge that 'Big Pharma' doesn't want to give you a cure - just something for the symptoms. Curing a problems makes is go away, reducing the symptoms of an incurable disease is money in the bank. Sycophants.
Yeah... I for one won't mind seeing 'Big Pharma' in bankruptcy right next to the **AA.
No, the cure to the next plague will come from an independently funded research group or non-profit. The plague will probably come from Monsanto [monsanto.com].
Gates is right, we need to figure out a way for capitalism to inspire humans to help humans, and the planet in general. Capitlism makes use of our natural greed to create productivity and it's been a wonderful invention - but now it's time to upgrade. Capitalism Vista? Oh, wait - I said "upgrade".
On a side note: ever notice how even the most ruthless people seem to become 'nicer' when they start getting older and start to see the 'big picture'? I guess it'll even happen to little Billy Gates... speaking of sycophants.
Not At All (Score:5, Insightful)
The key problem with capitalism is that the government does interfere with the markets - you get big corporations (aka microsoft) pressuring the government to give them special breaks and abilities. Government subsidies are NOT a part of capitalism - they run counter to the nature of free markets.
The idea that capitalism encourages greed is akin to saying that having fire departments encourages people to start fires. People will be greedy no matter what social system they live in - captialism is simply designed to alleviate that condition as much as possible.
Re:I think I know what he wants (Score:2, Insightful)
Not to be harsh here, but that is the dumbest idea I've heard in a long time. Even without considering the logistic nightmare and the large portion of a donation would be lost due to government overhead. I totally disagree with you on a fundamental level.
If it is my money, why shouldn't I distribute it in the way that I, not some elected official + government bureaucracy wants. Because I am helping in a way that I think is best and not how you think is best? And I don't think that my intended charity should have to wade through the shit to maybe get a piece of what I donated. If I donate it to a specific charity, I can see exactly where the money, MY money, is going. And maybe I don't think the government bureaucracy is distributing funds the right way.
If I am religious (I'm not), why the hell should it be required that my donation be able to be used for something contrary to my faith and vice versa? In fact, there would be no more religious contributions due to the separation of church and state. Fine, I don't donate to churches, but my parents do and I think that any arrogant fuck who criticizes them because they do is closed minded and ignorant.
If my charity money is required to go to the government, I am essentially voluntarily taxing myself. Having the charity in the hands of the government is a sure way to cut down on individual charitable contributions. That being said, they should restrict the hell out of corporate charity...
Re:Great News... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Great News... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which was taken from other parts of the economy and, in the case of anticompetetive practices, from other peoples employees.
He built a market for third parties.
On third parties you mean. Within the Microsoft sphere you can make exactly as much money as Microsoft lets you; get too popular and they cut off your airsupply. The lucky companies got bought, but most were simply killed off.
How about Apple?
Apple is hardly a posterboy for a competetive market either.
He brought down the price of software. Before Microsoft people were charging a fortune for software
Hardly. Software for similar class computers was often cheaper in those days; Amiga, Atari and other low end home computers had a thriving ecosystem of inexpensive software producers. Microsofts ride on IBM into the business world more likely extended higher prices for longer than they'd have survived without MS. And probably held back software development several years.
Oracle, IBM or many other vendors?
The computing industry is full of expensive crapware. Neither Apple, Sun, IBM or Oracle have a clean history. Nor are they poster boys for free market capitalism. Some seem to have learned a lesson, while some are hardly shining examples today, even compared with Microsoft (Apple, Oracle).
Microsoft and Bill Gates will not look like the villain that many like to portray.
Yes they will. While many others are as bad or worse, only Microsoft has had the sheer prevalence to hold back progress and damage the field of computing that much.
Mainly it's the flawed concept of intellectual monopoly law that's been the weapon in their hand, but the decision to use it against the free market as they have was theirs.
Re:I think I know what he wants (Score:2, Insightful)
You miss a number of things. For example, much of Bill Gates wealth is NOT cash... it is tied up in things like shares of microsoft, which continue earning him money and PROVIDE for the Philanthropy he is doing. So yeah I can spend 95% of my 56 billion WORTH (53.2 billion) and live off the rest for the rest of my life or lets make it 99%... whatever. But that money is now only used to sustain ME, the deed is done.
Now if you take say 26 billion(the amount Gates has donated over the last 6-7 years and he has donated more and more each year) and leave a large amount unspent(Gates Foundation, Microsoft Shares, other stocks, investments, etc) oh wow... I can easily donate 5-10 billion to charity EVERY YEAR for 50 years and serve NEW problems/causes that arrise, not get wasted on 50 million dollar artwork and bridges to nowhere by the government and be done with it.
What you don't realize is many of the problems you want fixed, the government already HAD the money to fix them, but they spent it on other things to line political pockets and give themselves more power and influence.
Lastly by not spending it all at once, Bill Gates foundation can maintain accountability for the money. If I give an institution 1 million dollars this year, and I see that it is being well spent, I can give them 2 or 5 million next year. So when you see him donate what you think is a "small" amount to a charity, keep in mind that sometimes it is part of an annual donation.
Oh, and after all this, I am NOT a huge Bill Gates fan. Some of it was legitimately earned, some of it not in my opinion. But I AM encouraged by his charity work now with that money combined with Warren Buffet.
Oh, and about your example of "religious charity", what you need to understand is that religions that operate that way(specifically christian ones) are total BS. That is not a biblical view of charity at all, at the church I went to we regularly gave food vouchers to the local grocery store for people who came and asked. (The church is located in one of the poorest ghetto areas as well) Those people almost NEVER came to a church service, nor were they ever asked to. They were never asked their religious background, they were hungry and they were fed. And do you know the funny thing is? The store manager would sometimes not even charge us for the food vouchers so he could help many people he felt needed it. Our charity inspired even more charity. We sometimes even helped people with rent or power bills. It met the NEEDS of the community. Thats the way it is SUPPOSED to work, no strings.
Just because you experienced one thing, doesn't mean its always that way or that you give up on it.
Re:actually (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, you are thinking of Hegel [wikipedia.org]. Marx's idea of history was a constant struggle between the poor and the rich elite. There's no reason to bring in Christianity. Is this personally how you feel comparing yourself to "lefty Marxists?" Perhaps it is wishful thinking, but it has nothing more in common with Christianity than any (secular | atheistic | monotheistic | polytheistic) idea of Utopia.
That's why the typical communist will always say that a "communist society" never existed.
There really have been no communist societies. People have tried (often as a deception), but there has never been a true communist society. None of the supposed communist nations have ever gotten past the point of having a dictator ruling the country - one of the key parts of communism is rule by the masses. (And believe me, I'm not so naive as to accept the whole of communism. I'm fairly socialist, but not a Marxist.)
This sort of left vs. right crap is blinding you to even a basic understanding of what you're talking about. Go beyond right vs left and look at the actual issues and theories being discussed. And I'm not saying this because you are anti-Marxist or anti-"lefty" or whatever. You simply do not understand the subject you are talking about.
Don't speak on shit unless you know the deal, son.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Income != Salary (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny he got so rich then. Actually, we weren't born yesterday - the salary of these guys is hardly relevant. Income != Salary. Most of the income of company owners is in profits taken and share values.
2) He built a company and from the get go gave each employee the chance to get options and shares.
What has the income of these qualified professional people got to do with "The Poor"
3) He built a market for third parties.
He did not build it, it arose. The policy of an open PC with open APIs was IBM's (to which MS was originally contracted). Not even IBM invented that approach anyway, it already existed with CP/M for example. MS has till now kicked any third party in the head if it became too much of a rival (eg Netscape, Novell, even IBM in the software field).
4) He brought down the price of software. Before Microsoft people were charging a fortune for software.
Oracle, IBM, Sun ?
Sorry, they've blown it. They are on record as law-breaking monopolists who lean on governments, contemptuously disregard the orders of the European Government, play dirty tricks that exploit their near monopoly, and brazenly corrupt the processes of the International Standards Organisation in their own favour. Just as a few examples.
Re:Not At All (Score:1, Insightful)
"Without government intervention, the best way to make a ton of money is to do your damndest to help your fellow man by building a company that produces desired goods at dirt cheap prices."
Oh, that's incredible naive.
Some thoughts:
Why would I avoid government intervention, if that is in my best interests? Can I buy some legislators? Can I fund several candidates to key government positions? Can I bribe someone to pass legislation that hurts my opponents? Can I hire some previous official to gain access to privileged government information? Or better, can *I* get elected, so I can protect my familiy/group/clan best interests?
I think, that in fact, some of the best ways of making money is to associate with the government.
Although it's an interesting question: What is the best way to make a ton of money?
Case in point: Carlos Slim.
Second, you seem to think that the cheapest price translates into highest profits. I won't even comment on that. But, even if it where so, the central problem is:higher profits doesn't have anything to do with society's best interests.