3 ms·
I think both Gates and Carnegie should by evaluated by how they made their fortune, not how they spent it. They were both ruthlessly aggressive, yet also made
by 6ren 15y ago
I think both Gates and Carnegie should by evaluated by how they made their fortune, not how they spent it.
They were both ruthlessly aggressive, yet also made their product affordable to more people. By the very act of creating a monopoly, Gates created a huge marketplace for applications that attracted investment - better in that sense that a fragmented market place. He didn't abuse it by charging monopoly rates (quite the opposite).
Is a beneficial end through nasty means a net positive? Probably... overall..., but I hesitate - and the fact that both felt compelled to give the money away suggests that they weren't entirely comfortable with how they made it. And it seems most people weren't either.
BTW: video of Gate's response http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYQxLhlUtr0&t=6m50s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYQxLhlUtr0&t=6m50s (6:50)
- dereg 15y agoLets take your evaluation one step further. If you evaluate evaluate Gates and Carnegie through that lens, then governments are invariably more nasty than the sum of the world's past "monopolies". Do you agree with this? On another note, Gates' effect on the tech industry is merely your opinion; the effect of his philanthropic efforts is fact.
- 6ren 15y agoNot my opinion; just going by commentators. I personally think it's hard to judge, and was trying to illustrate that it's not simply black and white. Can you unpack your question and add some illustrative examples please? In what way are governments nasty, compared with previous governments?
- ramblerman 15y agoThe conclusion that them "giving their money away, at the end of their life" is correlated to them "not being comfortable with how they made it" is idiotic. Gates still leaves his family more than enough to live a comfortable happy life. Whatever his motivation, is purely speculative.