6 ms·

While what he's doing is obviously good, I am uneasy with the whole idea that one man accumulates so much wealth in the first place, and then decides as an unel

While what he's doing is obviously good, I am uneasy with the whole idea that one man accumulates so much wealth in the first place, and then decides as an unelected individual what's best for a country. Having said that, I'm not sure i have a particularly good answer to this conundrum.

jisaacstone 13y ago
Neither being elected nor success in business necessarily qualifies someone to decide what it best for a country. And I don't consider one worse than the other, each will be biased in a different way.
- russgray 13y ago
  Out of interest, what does qualify someone to decide what is best for a country?
GauntletWizard 13y ago
I'm fairly uncomfortable that one elected individual with a fairly small majority and a rapidly declining approval rating can decide what is best for a country. Consolidation of power is the problem; not the method by which it is acquired.
- lmm 13y ago
  And yet a committee of hundreds is if anything worse (I'd certainly trust any one of my representatives individually over the full house), and some decisions really do need to be made at the national level.
kiba 13y ago
Who care if he represents nobody if he do good for humanity? There are lot of people in this world that represent a people and they're rotten. Think about the representatives that you elect to represent your district. By default, they only represent the interest of your district, but not for the greater good of everyone. Otherwise, they get booted out of office for failure to do their job. Bill Gate can afford to care about poor people, because he doesn't have to answer to anyone. It's not his job to care for India versus the United States. It's not his job to hate China. It's not his job to ensure 25 years in technological advantages against America's enemies.
znowi 13y ago
You think philanthropy is an evil conspiracy of the wealthy? :)
sharkweek 13y ago
It took me a while to understand this thinking but deep down I end up agreeing -- this "billionaire with a heart of gold" is far too familiar to the old thought of "I hope the king is just." We far too often end up with billionaires using their money to fund an art museum or ballet for rich people in the name of charity (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_...). Living in Seattle, I have several friends who work for the BMGF and there is no doubt they are doing amazing things in the world, but the cynic in me still struggles with the idea that a private citizen is deciding how and where to help. Not like I particularly trust the state to handle these decisions either though, so I am normally left scratching my head and just trying to appreciate the good that Gates is ultimately doing.
- harichinnan 13y ago
  I think India needs the exact opposite of Bill Gates. We need more people who could industrialize India fast, employ masses of people and take us on par with China,Japan or Korea. India's political parties are left leaning and try to create Europe styled social safety nets. We need more libertarians and rich lobbyists and more copies of Ayn Rand to change the anti - laissez faire policies we have. It's still easy to start a Delaware C corp over internet from India than to register for a local corporation in most states.
- MartinCron 13y ago
  We far too often end up with billionaires using their money to fund an art museum or ballet for billionaires in the name of charity You seem to imply that there's something wrong with funding art museums or ballet... The world needs beauty in it, and if people choose to support the arts in a way from which we all benefit, that's great.
  - sharkweek 13y ago
    I completely agree that we need beauty -- I love the concept of funding the arts, but there have to be priorities and we should not rely on the rich to make decisions like this in the name of charity. I quoted it lower in the thread, but I LOVE the poem by Gil Scott-Heron "Whitey on the moon" -- "A rat done bit my sister Nell, with Whitey on the moon"
skaevola 13y ago
People voluntarily gave their wealth to him.
- rjbond3rd 13y ago
  Do you mean people who bought MS software, or other billionaires like Warren Buffet who gave money to the Gates Foundation?
- lmm 13y ago
  He was able to acquire wealth because he was able to take risks that most people wouldn't, because of his wealthy background. And if you trace back far enough, most old-money families acquired their wealth through violence (or at least the patronage of a ruler who acquired their wealth by force).
dmethvin 13y ago
As if elected officials have the best interests of the poor in mind? I suppose they do, but only to the extent that they need those votes. Whether the goal of the Gates Foundation is simply to redeem the image of Microsoft's founder or not, it's doing great things for the downtrodden of the world. Perhaps that's what people like Nobel and Carnegie had in mind as well, cleaning up their PR image. But that's the cynic's view. If you listen to Bill Gates speak, he honestly sounds like someone who believes what he is saying and backs it up with money. As a rich man he certainly has other options. He can give a hearty "fuck you" or even a dismissive "I don't care" to the world and take his money to do whatever he wants. You know, like Larry Ellison or dozens of other people who've made their fortunes off the public.
statictype 13y ago
Having said that, I'm not sure i have a particularly good answer to this conundrum. Well, let us know if you do. The speculative opinions of message board nerds is as important as someone who became wealthy and is putting his money where his mouth is.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

jisaacstone 13y ago

Neither being elected nor success in business necessarily qualifies someone to decide what it best for a country. And I don't consider one worse than the other, each will be biased in a different way.

russgray 13y ago
Out of interest, what does qualify someone to decide what is best for a country?

GauntletWizard 13y ago

I'm fairly uncomfortable that one elected individual with a fairly small majority and a rapidly declining approval rating can decide what is best for a country. Consolidation of power is the problem; not the method by which it is acquired.

lmm 13y ago
And yet a committee of hundreds is if anything worse (I'd certainly trust any one of my representatives individually over the full house), and some decisions really do need to be made at the national level.

kiba 13y ago

Who care if he represents nobody if he do good for humanity? There are lot of people in this world that represent a people and they're rotten. Think about the representatives that you elect to represent your district. By default, they only represent the interest of your district, but not for the greater good of everyone. Otherwise, they get booted out of office for failure to do their job. Bill Gate can afford to care about poor people, because he doesn't have to answer to anyone. It's not his job to care for India versus the United States. It's not his job to hate China. It's not his job to ensure 25 years in technological advantages against America's enemies.

znowi 13y ago

You think philanthropy is an evil conspiracy of the wealthy? :)

sharkweek 13y ago

It took me a while to understand this thinking but deep down I end up agreeing -- this "billionaire with a heart of gold" is far too familiar to the old thought of "I hope the king is just." We far too often end up with billionaires using their money to fund an art museum or ballet for rich people in the name of charity (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_...). Living in Seattle, I have several friends who work for the BMGF and there is no doubt they are doing amazing things in the world, but the cynic in me still struggles with the idea that a private citizen is deciding how and where to help. Not like I particularly trust the state to handle these decisions either though, so I am normally left scratching my head and just trying to appreciate the good that Gates is ultimately doing.

harichinnan 13y ago
I think India needs the exact opposite of Bill Gates. We need more people who could industrialize India fast, employ masses of people and take us on par with China,Japan or Korea. India's political parties are left leaning and try to create Europe styled social safety nets. We need more libertarians and rich lobbyists and more copies of Ayn Rand to change the anti - laissez faire policies we have. It's still easy to start a Delaware C corp over internet from India than to register for a local corporation in most states.
MartinCron 13y ago
We far too often end up with billionaires using their money to fund an art museum or ballet for billionaires in the name of charity You seem to imply that there's something wrong with funding art museums or ballet... The world needs beauty in it, and if people choose to support the arts in a way from which we all benefit, that's great.
- sharkweek 13y ago
  I completely agree that we need beauty -- I love the concept of funding the arts, but there have to be priorities and we should not rely on the rich to make decisions like this in the name of charity. I quoted it lower in the thread, but I LOVE the poem by Gil Scott-Heron "Whitey on the moon" -- "A rat done bit my sister Nell, with Whitey on the moon"

skaevola 13y ago

People voluntarily gave their wealth to him.

rjbond3rd 13y ago
Do you mean people who bought MS software, or other billionaires like Warren Buffet who gave money to the Gates Foundation?
lmm 13y ago
He was able to acquire wealth because he was able to take risks that most people wouldn't, because of his wealthy background. And if you trace back far enough, most old-money families acquired their wealth through violence (or at least the patronage of a ruler who acquired their wealth by force).

dmethvin 13y ago

As if elected officials have the best interests of the poor in mind? I suppose they do, but only to the extent that they need those votes. Whether the goal of the Gates Foundation is simply to redeem the image of Microsoft's founder or not, it's doing great things for the downtrodden of the world. Perhaps that's what people like Nobel and Carnegie had in mind as well, cleaning up their PR image. But that's the cynic's view. If you listen to Bill Gates speak, he honestly sounds like someone who believes what he is saying and backs it up with money. As a rich man he certainly has other options. He can give a hearty "fuck you" or even a dismissive "I don't care" to the world and take his money to do whatever he wants. You know, like Larry Ellison or dozens of other people who've made their fortunes off the public.

statictype 13y ago

Having said that, I'm not sure i have a particularly good answer to this conundrum. Well, let us know if you do. The speculative opinions of message board nerds is as important as someone who became wealthy and is putting his money where his mouth is.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]