10 ms·

Strange that even he still thinks of money as nothing more than a means to buy things. Maybe that's because he really only ever ran the one company, and so neve

Strange that even he still thinks of money as nothing more than a means to buy things. Maybe that's because he really only ever ran the one company, and so never really became personally acquainted with its other uses. Certainly though among his fiscal peers though? So that's strange... Wealth is inextricably tied to power. Everyone knows this, or has heard it, but I guess many often don't reason about what it means? Gates seems to be saying that there isn't a big difference between being worth 60 million and being worth 60 billion, because hamburgers taste the same, after all. That's all well and good if wealth is all about buying things, which it basically is for about 99,999 out of 100,000 people at least, but for that one person it definitely isn't. Someone worth 60 billion is at least 1000x more powerful and has 1000x greater impact in how he goes about wielding his power than the person worth 60 million. He is in many respects equivalent to 1000 people worth 60 million each, doing their thing, and perhaps more so since he can more easily strive toward a purpose or calling in a way that 1000 people couldn't, with committees and whatever else. So he's completely wrong about that (although he's the billionaire and I'm certainly not, so perhaps I should just defer to his judgment :-) Which sort of brings up the other thing he said, which is that absolute poverty relative to historical values is decreasing, especially in the developing world at the moment, and that there are a few very rich and well-connected individuals isn't such a problem, to the extent that they don't corrupt the political system. But of course they do corrupt the political system. The entire problem with massively unequal distribution of wealth isn't that you get to live in a nice house on the water while for whatever reason someone else has to live in a one-room flat. It is decidedly not about jealousy and envy. This is what critics of the OWS movement do not seem to understand. We're trying to have a democracy, so have all the wealth that you want, but if your wealth begins to subvert that democracy, well then we have to do something about that. I'm sure he gets this based on things he's said in other talks, and he's an honest enough guy I think (now, anyway), so maybe he just wanted to avoid making a complicated, and currently rather politically charged, point.

leak 15y ago
I'm not sure the kind of power you're referring to is the same kind of power that say, the Pope has. Gates with his billions has massive amounts of power in business and maybe local politics but he is nowhere near the level as say the Pope, who is by definition poor. All the money (and power associated with it) cannot end world hunger. Ever. So I understand what Gates is saying when he's referring to the hamburger. He probably doesn't have the kind of power you are imagining he has and that 1000x doesn't really mean anything. All you can do with money is acquire more money in different forms. You're not changing the world with money. I never comment on here so be gentle please. :)
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  I'm a bit loathe to give this response as I come here to get away from politics, but look at how Koch Industries and the like subverted the tea party movement, and the effect that that's had on congress. That's the kind of power money buys: the power to take a small, libertarian grass-roots organization and turn it into a nation-wide astroturfed phenomenon, getting dozens of congressmen elected in the process and having a huge impact on government policy. $60m doesn't buy you that kind of power, but $10b does. This is what the parent was saying, and what Gates doesn't think about because he clearly never tried to use his money to exert that kind of power (the courts might have been nicer to him if he had). The tech industry in general seems reluctant to use its vast wealth to exert that kind of power. If they had spent half the money they did in the patent wars on lobbyists, we likely wouldn't have the e-parasite act and its similarly harmful brethren. That's just not how we think, however, and so much smaller industries end up exerting a huge amount of power.
mynameishere 15y ago
The circumstances of Gates' birth prevented him from deploying his money in a manner similar to (for instance) Soros rather than blowing it on malaria lollipops.

leak 15y ago

I'm not sure the kind of power you're referring to is the same kind of power that say, the Pope has. Gates with his billions has massive amounts of power in business and maybe local politics but he is nowhere near the level as say the Pope, who is by definition poor. All the money (and power associated with it) cannot end world hunger. Ever. So I understand what Gates is saying when he's referring to the hamburger. He probably doesn't have the kind of power you are imagining he has and that 1000x doesn't really mean anything. All you can do with money is acquire more money in different forms. You're not changing the world with money. I never comment on here so be gentle please. :)

redthrowaway 15y ago
I'm a bit loathe to give this response as I come here to get away from politics, but look at how Koch Industries and the like subverted the tea party movement, and the effect that that's had on congress. That's the kind of power money buys: the power to take a small, libertarian grass-roots organization and turn it into a nation-wide astroturfed phenomenon, getting dozens of congressmen elected in the process and having a huge impact on government policy. $60m doesn't buy you that kind of power, but $10b does. This is what the parent was saying, and what Gates doesn't think about because he clearly never tried to use his money to exert that kind of power (the courts might have been nicer to him if he had). The tech industry in general seems reluctant to use its vast wealth to exert that kind of power. If they had spent half the money they did in the patent wars on lobbyists, we likely wouldn't have the e-parasite act and its similarly harmful brethren. That's just not how we think, however, and so much smaller industries end up exerting a huge amount of power.

mynameishere 15y ago

The circumstances of Gates' birth prevented him from deploying his money in a manner similar to (for instance) Soros rather than blowing it on malaria lollipops.