4 ms·

Certainly Gates & Zuckerberg are trying to bring about what they see as a positive vision for the world. Their track record is to provide a product (Windows, Fa

Certainly Gates & Zuckerberg are trying to bring about what they see as a positive vision for the world. Their track record is to provide a product (Windows, Facebook) that's "good enough", and creates a network effect that keeps more worthy competitors out of the market for a long time ("worse is better"). That's their idea of bringing good into the world. It's a mistake to think that because a country is underdeveloped, there's little opportunity for return on investment. Actually that's where there's the most opportunity. The first investment doesn't have to pay off - just put a stake in the ground. Do you think China is also building infrastructure in Africa for philanthropic reasons?

morgante 10y ago
> Do you think China is also building infrastructure in Africa for philanthropic reasons? No, but China is not generally giving away billions of dollars without getting anything in return. Gates at least has been consistently doing that. Like I said, there's nothing I can say to convince you that they're not secretly evil capitalists hell-bent on making money from poor people around the world. All I can say is that it seems rather unlikely that they would go to so much trouble to hide their intent if that were the case. There are plenty of billionaires who exploit humanity without bothering to sign philanthropy pledges.
- unescape 10y ago
  Large-scale philanthropy is not incompatible with a lust for power. I'm sure most people who try to effect wide-ranging change think of themselves as quite magnanimous - say, any third world dictator or 19th century robber baron. The effects of their "charity" may not be quite what the recipients were hoping for when they signed up.
  - morgante 10y ago
    Perhaps, but that's an entirely different argument from your original one (that Gates and Zuckerberg are trying to sell African schoolchildren a substandard product at inflated prices).
    - unescape 10y ago
      I suspect the G&Z agenda is to set up a sustainable model of investment in Africa by western countries. They don't want BIA to lose money because that would scare off investment partners who are more loss-averse. They believe in the long term, the most important thing is for people in democratic countries to engage with Africa and bring it about to their way of life. The collateral damage is that children may not be getting a great education; it may or may not be better than what they would have got otherwise, but it's breaking the old model of cyclic dependency on foreign aid.

morgante 10y ago

> Do you think China is also building infrastructure in Africa for philanthropic reasons? No, but China is not generally giving away billions of dollars without getting anything in return. Gates at least has been consistently doing that. Like I said, there's nothing I can say to convince you that they're not secretly evil capitalists hell-bent on making money from poor people around the world. All I can say is that it seems rather unlikely that they would go to so much trouble to hide their intent if that were the case. There are plenty of billionaires who exploit humanity without bothering to sign philanthropy pledges.

unescape 10y ago
Large-scale philanthropy is not incompatible with a lust for power. I'm sure most people who try to effect wide-ranging change think of themselves as quite magnanimous - say, any third world dictator or 19th century robber baron. The effects of their "charity" may not be quite what the recipients were hoping for when they signed up.
- morgante 10y ago
  Perhaps, but that's an entirely different argument from your original one (that Gates and Zuckerberg are trying to sell African schoolchildren a substandard product at inflated prices).
  - unescape 10y ago
    I suspect the G&Z agenda is to set up a sustainable model of investment in Africa by western countries. They don't want BIA to lose money because that would scare off investment partners who are more loss-averse. They believe in the long term, the most important thing is for people in democratic countries to engage with Africa and bring it about to their way of life. The collateral damage is that children may not be getting a great education; it may or may not be better than what they would have got otherwise, but it's breaking the old model of cyclic dependency on foreign aid.