5 ms·

People will say: don't look a gift horse in the mouth. But that's exactly the trap we have fallen into: A very few obtain most of the wealth, many of them fund

People will say: don't look a gift horse in the mouth. But that's exactly the trap we have fallen into: A very few obtain most of the wealth, many of them fund an anti-tax and anti-government agenda; as government shrinks, the power of these people relatively increases; and so the public has to depend on oligarchs rather than on a democratic government including for national issues like energy and climate change. Then the oligarchs say: Look how generous we are; how you depend on us; who dares complain? And governments and people have to focus their efforts on pleasing them on all matters so as not to lose precious funding they control (instead of the legislature). It's anti-democratic and, to use a provacative but applicable term, un-American. National issues should be decided democratically, not by a few oligarchs. We were founded on the rejection of an aristocracy. It may be unfair to Gates and to this fund but unfortunately, even with the best of intentions, he is part of the problem.

eloff 11y ago
Yes, I think this is really unfair. In no way is Gates a part of the problem, the country would be in much better shape if there were more like him. He innovated, created tens (hundreds?) of thousands of jobs, and one of the biggest companies on the planet. To top it all off, he puts the majority of his personal wealth in a foundation that he and his wife run to the benefit of humanity in general. It has been my dream since I was a kid to do the same (on a much smaller scale, likely). I wish there were thousands more like Gates and Buffet.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > In no way is Gates a part of the problem ... But he is, by amassing and using power that should be democratic, whether or not that was his intent. Doing good things with that power only makes one an "enlightened oligarch". Though to be fair to him, I don't know what he should do - at least lobby for higher taxes for the super-wealthy, and economic policies that don't result in such conncentration of power - Bill Gates of all people can't claim to be a helpess, innocent bystander. I'll add that his power, even well-intentioned, can distort things for the worse. For example, there was (maybe is) a problem in some African nations where foreign AIDS (and/or malaria or TB) funding was so much greater than local health care funding that they hired away all the talent and net more people were dying from a lack of basic health services. In fairness, there is a middle ground. Realistically money always will provide some power, some people will have more than others they have a right to use their money as they choose, and it's great if they use it to help others. However, when that concentration of money becomes so great that it undermines democracy, then it's gone too far. > He innovated, created tens (hundreds?) of thousands of jobs, and one of the biggest companies on the planet. ... A side point but let's not whitewash Microsoft's history, which wasn't all bad, but wasn't unicorns and rainbows either.
  - eloff 11y ago
    You have a strangely socialistic way of looking at the world. I can't say I agree with any of your points.
    - hackuser 11y ago
      > socialistic Just characterizing someone's statement and then disagreeing with your characterization is an internal debate for you. If you have a respose to something I specifically said, that's valuable. Also, it's sad that democracy is now seen as such a liberal idea that people call it socialism (though it's not that at all).
      - eloff 11y ago
        Democracy is not some magic solution. It's often described as the best of a lot of bad options. It can only be as intelligent and effective as a mob of of its average citizenry - which if you look at democracies in the third-world and developing world where your average person is uneducated - doesn't lead to good results. The best form of government has often been described as a benevolent dictatorship. This is closer to the form of governance of corporations and open-source projects. The problem is, there's no easy way to guarantee the benevolent part. I see no problem with people like Bill Gates having amassed power, money, and influence, because he can use it far more effectively than a mob of your average citizens would - the average citizen being a lot less educated and less intelligent than Bill Gates. Now, among the wealthy and powerful you also get types like the Koch brothers, who use their power for dubious ends - that's inevitable in a capitalist system. There's no way to prevent that aside from very strict socialism - which has the same economic problems seen in any communist country past or present. So for better or worse, I think we have to accept the influence of the wealthy.
        hackuser 11y ago
        > Now, among the wealthy and powerful you also get types like the Koch brothers, who use their power for dubious ends - that's inevitable in a capitalist system. It's not. Don't accept the status quo as inevitable. Money wasn't always so enormously concentrated in a few hands, and the disparity wasn't always so great. It's worse now in the U.S. than in modern history, and worse than on other Western nations. It's now in an extreme state. The current rules of the economy, the tax rates, etc. that yield this situation are not inevitable or somehow natural. They aren't the result of capitalism or the free market. They are simply the product of politics that favor one group (a group that now has enormous power over government) over others. > There's no way to prevent that aside from very strict socialism I disagree. They can have their money, and we can separate money from politics. If we take money out of elections then money loses a great amount of influence. If we decide and fund public issues democratically, as our nation fundementally believes, everyone gets a vote in deciding things for their community. For example, I was reading that because government is so under-funded a park in a New York was being funded by someone wealthy. Now who decides where that park should go and what it should look like? Instead of being decided democratically by everyone in the community, it's dictated by the oligarch. That's not democracy. > Democracy is not some magic solution. It's often described as the best of a lot of bad options. I agree, but it's clearly the most effective; almost all the nations that lead in their citizen's welfare, from health to education to safety to civil rights to economic issues, are democracies. Also, there is very importat moral component - nobody has a right to tell me what to do, and if we have to come to an agreemet, we should vote on it with everyone getting an equal say. > if you look at democracies in the third-world and developing world where your average person is uneducated - doesn't lead to good results. I disagree that the results are necessarily worse than they would be under other forms of government. Also, we're talking about the United States and not a developing country. > The best form of government has often been described as a benevolent dictatorship. Hmmm ... I haven't heard that from anyone but the dictators who want people to think they are benevolent. If they are so effective and benevolent, why not hold an election? No doubt everyone will vote for them. > I see no problem with people like Bill Gates having amassed power, money, and influence, because he can use it far more effectively than a mob of your average citizens would - the average citizen being a lot less educated and less intelligent than Bill Gates. Let's assume Gates is more intelligent than the average (almost certainly true) and is purely benevolent (certainly not true, and remember the corrupting influence of power). He still can't do better because he can't possibly understand the interests and needs of millions of people; nobody has that capacity. That, along with the lack of true benevolence, is one place where central planning fails and where free markets and democracy succeed. The people who don't have a seat at the table are the ones who get their interests trampled on because either nobody cares, or people think of course, the other person's priorities really aren't as important as their own.

eloff 11y ago

Yes, I think this is really unfair. In no way is Gates a part of the problem, the country would be in much better shape if there were more like him. He innovated, created tens (hundreds?) of thousands of jobs, and one of the biggest companies on the planet. To top it all off, he puts the majority of his personal wealth in a foundation that he and his wife run to the benefit of humanity in general. It has been my dream since I was a kid to do the same (on a much smaller scale, likely). I wish there were thousands more like Gates and Buffet.

hackuser 11y ago
> In no way is Gates a part of the problem ... But he is, by amassing and using power that should be democratic, whether or not that was his intent. Doing good things with that power only makes one an "enlightened oligarch". Though to be fair to him, I don't know what he should do - at least lobby for higher taxes for the super-wealthy, and economic policies that don't result in such conncentration of power - Bill Gates of all people can't claim to be a helpess, innocent bystander. I'll add that his power, even well-intentioned, can distort things for the worse. For example, there was (maybe is) a problem in some African nations where foreign AIDS (and/or malaria or TB) funding was so much greater than local health care funding that they hired away all the talent and net more people were dying from a lack of basic health services. In fairness, there is a middle ground. Realistically money always will provide some power, some people will have more than others they have a right to use their money as they choose, and it's great if they use it to help others. However, when that concentration of money becomes so great that it undermines democracy, then it's gone too far. > He innovated, created tens (hundreds?) of thousands of jobs, and one of the biggest companies on the planet. ... A side point but let's not whitewash Microsoft's history, which wasn't all bad, but wasn't unicorns and rainbows either.
- eloff 11y ago
  You have a strangely socialistic way of looking at the world. I can't say I agree with any of your points.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    > socialistic Just characterizing someone's statement and then disagreeing with your characterization is an internal debate for you. If you have a respose to something I specifically said, that's valuable. Also, it's sad that democracy is now seen as such a liberal idea that people call it socialism (though it's not that at all).
    - eloff 11y ago
      Democracy is not some magic solution. It's often described as the best of a lot of bad options. It can only be as intelligent and effective as a mob of of its average citizenry - which if you look at democracies in the third-world and developing world where your average person is uneducated - doesn't lead to good results. The best form of government has often been described as a benevolent dictatorship. This is closer to the form of governance of corporations and open-source projects. The problem is, there's no easy way to guarantee the benevolent part. I see no problem with people like Bill Gates having amassed power, money, and influence, because he can use it far more effectively than a mob of your average citizens would - the average citizen being a lot less educated and less intelligent than Bill Gates. Now, among the wealthy and powerful you also get types like the Koch brothers, who use their power for dubious ends - that's inevitable in a capitalist system. There's no way to prevent that aside from very strict socialism - which has the same economic problems seen in any communist country past or present. So for better or worse, I think we have to accept the influence of the wealthy.
      - hackuser 11y ago
        > Now, among the wealthy and powerful you also get types like the Koch brothers, who use their power for dubious ends - that's inevitable in a capitalist system. It's not. Don't accept the status quo as inevitable. Money wasn't always so enormously concentrated in a few hands, and the disparity wasn't always so great. It's worse now in the U.S. than in modern history, and worse than on other Western nations. It's now in an extreme state. The current rules of the economy, the tax rates, etc. that yield this situation are not inevitable or somehow natural. They aren't the result of capitalism or the free market. They are simply the product of politics that favor one group (a group that now has enormous power over government) over others. > There's no way to prevent that aside from very strict socialism I disagree. They can have their money, and we can separate money from politics. If we take money out of elections then money loses a great amount of influence. If we decide and fund public issues democratically, as our nation fundementally believes, everyone gets a vote in deciding things for their community. For example, I was reading that because government is so under-funded a park in a New York was being funded by someone wealthy. Now who decides where that park should go and what it should look like? Instead of being decided democratically by everyone in the community, it's dictated by the oligarch. That's not democracy. > Democracy is not some magic solution. It's often described as the best of a lot of bad options. I agree, but it's clearly the most effective; almost all the nations that lead in their citizen's welfare, from health to education to safety to civil rights to economic issues, are democracies. Also, there is very importat moral component - nobody has a right to tell me what to do, and if we have to come to an agreemet, we should vote on it with everyone getting an equal say. > if you look at democracies in the third-world and developing world where your average person is uneducated - doesn't lead to good results. I disagree that the results are necessarily worse than they would be under other forms of government. Also, we're talking about the United States and not a developing country. > The best form of government has often been described as a benevolent dictatorship. Hmmm ... I haven't heard that from anyone but the dictators who want people to think they are benevolent. If they are so effective and benevolent, why not hold an election? No doubt everyone will vote for them. > I see no problem with people like Bill Gates having amassed power, money, and influence, because he can use it far more effectively than a mob of your average citizens would - the average citizen being a lot less educated and less intelligent than Bill Gates. Let's assume Gates is more intelligent than the average (almost certainly true) and is purely benevolent (certainly not true, and remember the corrupting influence of power). He still can't do better because he can't possibly understand the interests and needs of millions of people; nobody has that capacity. That, along with the lack of true benevolence, is one place where central planning fails and where free markets and democracy succeed. The people who don't have a seat at the table are the ones who get their interests trampled on because either nobody cares, or people think of course, the other person's priorities really aren't as important as their own.