4 ms·

So, you are fine with another billionaire exerting that power to another end? Don't you think these changes to the structure of society and culture should be s

So, you are fine with another billionaire exerting that power to another end? Don't you think these changes to the structure of society and culture should be subject to democratic oversight? Did people vote with their wallets and agreed to this, when they bought a PC in the 90s?

Tenoke 6y ago
>Don't you think these changes to the structure of society and culture should be subject to democratic oversight? There's still some oversight, he can't literally do quite anything he wishes. At any rate, from looking at the performance of those with democratic oversight (governments), I think having both is overall better than just one. Sometimes governments are much too slow and waste hundreds of times more to achieve less, while in practice being plagued by similar concerns (what if the wrong government official uses the money in a bad way?).
- monopoledance 6y ago
  > There's still some oversight, he can't literally do quite anything he wishes. He can. Just not directly. That's why I linked the million vs billion illustration. He has such a huge amount of life changing money, he simply can buy his influence and manifest his will. Here an American billionaire influences a British research institution to make a decision according to his worldview, a decision in existential crisis to humanity. If you align with his worldview, you may like the result, but I really can't understand how you can be willingly ignorant about the dynamics at hand and how much power these billionaires have over everyone's life. Much more, Gates didn't become rich for making the better product, but for clever business strategies and ruthless monopolizing a market for the longest time. His success is exactly failure of the free market naiveté. Nobody should be that rich. (And yes, no single government official should be trusted with deciding how to spend tax money either. Everything needs to be transparent and actionable to the voted policies.)
  - tzs 6y ago
    > Here an American billionaire influences a British research institution to make a decision according to his worldview, a decision in existential crisis to humanity. I doubt that Oxford would have changed their position if Larry Ellison had called to suggest it. Gates suggesting it gets taken seriously not because he has a lot of money, but because he's spent the last couple of decades heavily involved in global health, much of that concentrating on less developed countries and on vaccination (which fits right in with what Oxford wants for their vaccine), and has developed a good reputation for knowing the field.
    - monopoledance 6y ago
      > Gates suggesting it gets taken seriously not because he has a lot of money, but because he's spent the last couple of decades heavily involved in global health Which is only possible, because he has a lot of money. That's fallacious reasoning. > “[Bill] Gates has staked out this outsized role in the vaccine world,” Love said. “He has an ideological belief that the intellectual property system is a wonderful mechanism that is necessary for innovation and prosperity.” Ideological belief. Many people have a different take on this, but they tend to not get the power in a capitalistic system, so you won't get the possible alternative story told. Gate's success is a self-fulfilling prophecy and hardly evidence to justify the means. My point is he is shaping the world to his liking, his ideology. No single human should have that power.

Tenoke 6y ago

>Don't you think these changes to the structure of society and culture should be subject to democratic oversight? There's still some oversight, he can't literally do quite anything he wishes. At any rate, from looking at the performance of those with democratic oversight (governments), I think having both is overall better than just one. Sometimes governments are much too slow and waste hundreds of times more to achieve less, while in practice being plagued by similar concerns (what if the wrong government official uses the money in a bad way?).

monopoledance 6y ago
> There's still some oversight, he can't literally do quite anything he wishes. He can. Just not directly. That's why I linked the million vs billion illustration. He has such a huge amount of life changing money, he simply can buy his influence and manifest his will. Here an American billionaire influences a British research institution to make a decision according to his worldview, a decision in existential crisis to humanity. If you align with his worldview, you may like the result, but I really can't understand how you can be willingly ignorant about the dynamics at hand and how much power these billionaires have over everyone's life. Much more, Gates didn't become rich for making the better product, but for clever business strategies and ruthless monopolizing a market for the longest time. His success is exactly failure of the free market naiveté. Nobody should be that rich. (And yes, no single government official should be trusted with deciding how to spend tax money either. Everything needs to be transparent and actionable to the voted policies.)
- tzs 6y ago
  > Here an American billionaire influences a British research institution to make a decision according to his worldview, a decision in existential crisis to humanity. I doubt that Oxford would have changed their position if Larry Ellison had called to suggest it. Gates suggesting it gets taken seriously not because he has a lot of money, but because he's spent the last couple of decades heavily involved in global health, much of that concentrating on less developed countries and on vaccination (which fits right in with what Oxford wants for their vaccine), and has developed a good reputation for knowing the field.
  - monopoledance 6y ago
    > Gates suggesting it gets taken seriously not because he has a lot of money, but because he's spent the last couple of decades heavily involved in global health Which is only possible, because he has a lot of money. That's fallacious reasoning. > “[Bill] Gates has staked out this outsized role in the vaccine world,” Love said. “He has an ideological belief that the intellectual property system is a wonderful mechanism that is necessary for innovation and prosperity.” Ideological belief. Many people have a different take on this, but they tend to not get the power in a capitalistic system, so you won't get the possible alternative story told. Gate's success is a self-fulfilling prophecy and hardly evidence to justify the means. My point is he is shaping the world to his liking, his ideology. No single human should have that power.