3 ms·

> He has no training in pedagogy, epidemiology, sanitation, or really anything else relevant to the missions of his organization I'm confused by this statement

> He has no training in pedagogy, epidemiology, sanitation, or really anything else relevant to the missions of his organization I'm confused by this statement. It only counts as training if you did it around age 20? Or what makes you think that someone who is spending this much time, effort and money on a given topic would not arrange for appropriate (or rather, excellent) training on it? Or is this something you conclude by starting from the assertion that Bill Gates must be a bad guy?

xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago
If you were to choose someone to lead one of the world's largest charities, would you choose to hire some random guy and train him from scratch or would you choose an expert in public health? If you were to take some random bozo off the street and put them in charge of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, they would learn a lot about medicine and sanitation and education and so forth. It would also be obviously stupid. Yet that's pretty much the way the current system. Our society hands control over massive amounts of resources to rich people because they made money doing entirely unrelated things. It's even worse here. William Henry Gates III is rich because of his malicious and illegal actions as the head of Microsoft. He is worse than a random bozo; he's been selected to be powerful because of his bad behavior. Maybe you think Gates's tenure at Microsoft wasn't completely destructive. I disagree, but whatever. Substitute in your favorite brain-dead celebrity or "job creator". The problem is the same: we hand over control of our institutions to morons because they have money.