7 ms·

Bill Gates urges fellow rich to share their wealth

32 points by swombat 17y ago

zouhair 17y ago
Sounds like the charities of the last king of France and it's followers. People don't need charity, most of those are rich because of huge help of people's money and people's hard work. </mini_rant>
- Silentio 17y ago
  Slavoj Zizek's thinking on violence is worth quoting here: "The two faces of Bill Gates parallel the two faces of Soros. The cruel businessman destroys or buys out competitors, aims at virtual monopoly, employs all the tricks of the trade to achieve his goals. Meanwhile, the greatest philanthropist in the history of mankind quaintly asks: 'What does it serve to have computers, if people do not have enough to eat and are dying of dysentery?' In liberal communist ethics, the ruthless pursuit of profit is counteracted by charity. Charity is the humanitarian mask hiding the face of economic exploitation. In a superego blackmail of gigantic proportions, the developed countries "help" the underdeveloped with aid, credits, and so on, and thereby avoid the key issue, namely their complicity in and co-responsibility for the miserable situation of the underdeveloped" (Violence 22). Gates "give away your wealth, billionaires. It's fun!" rhetoric focuses only on subjective violence - violence, as Zizek writes, "which is enacted by social agents, evil individuals, disciplined repressive apparatuses," etc. The "do-this-now-its-fun" call distracts attention away from the systematic violence nestled at the root of capitalism. Zizek writes, and I think he's right, that Gates call for a friendlier robber baron "signals a sad predicament of ours: today's capitalism cannot reproduce itself on its own. It needs extra-economic charity to sustain the cycle of social reproduction" (24). That is not to say that Gates money will not do some good. I imagine it will do and has done. However, I do think it is a distraction from the real issue, which is the massive global economic exploitation necessary to produce Gates's wealth in the first place.
  - swombat 17y ago
    That's a thoroughly unfair assessment. It assumes that all wealth is ill-gotten, and that is utterly baseless. Microsoft created and distributed an operating system that brought affordable computing to the masses. They generated enormous wealth for all of mankind, and they did so mostly playing by the rules that were set down for how commerce should be conducted. Certainly, they did some things outside of those rules, and for those they should be and have been punished. But on the whole, the world is still a better place with Microsoft than it would have been without. Taking Warren Buffet or Soros next, capitalism functions well because there are fiendishly clever people like those trying to figure out where to best allocate their capital to maximise their returns. This fundamental principle allows us to move wealth to wherever it's needed, whatever is the next big thing that humanity should be working on. Without them, we would be worse off too, since capital would be badly allocated - for example, to building countless overpriced houses rather than other things. What you suggest here is dangerous, because there is a grain of truth in it. Yes, there have been centuries of everyone exploiting everyone else. But pointing that out is useless, because it doesn't help make the situation better. And ascribing that blame to a few individuals, particularly those who started from nothing and built tremendous wealth through their hard work, is completely unfair and unwarranted. If you have some practical suggestions, rather than pointless muck-stirring, please do share them instead of quoting conspiracy theorists.
    - Silentio 17y ago
      The idea that the wealthy started from nothing and ascribing their wealth to the "hard work" of building from nothing is romantic, but ultimately it's a fantasy. No doubt much individual hard work goes into building a fortune, but the fortune itself owes much more to the labor of thousands, if not millions, of workers, right down to the janitor who sweeps the floor, than it does to the individual who had the next big idea. Labor certainly has more to do with wealth than capital itself. Inequality is embedded in capitalism. When the invisible hand moves capital from one place to another, it does not only give, it takes away. For someone like Bill Gates to give as he does, he has to have taken away (you might prefer "created") in the first place. It may be muck-stirring, but I am less interested in saving the world than I am in understanding the ideological assumptions implicit in, for instance, Gates's actions, and the systems that allow those actions to take place. To leave the muck unstirred, to forget it exists, is to live in a world that does nothing but support conventional wisdom, excludes alternatives, and limits debate. The useful question is not, "is this True or not," but rather, "what would it mean if it were true." Finally, if Zizek is a conspiracy theorist, was Hegel, was Marx?
- jmatt 17y ago
  The society as a whole can benefit from this kind of philanthropy long after it happens. For instance I directly benefited as a kid from a Carnegie library[1]. Meanwhile Andrew Carnegie is considered a robber baron[2] worse than Gates in most respects. Yet, I'm still grateful for the library. Gates is already wealthy, so at this point I'd rather see him use it for philanthropy rather than create another Rockefeller family trust. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_library http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_library [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist) EDIT: Added links.
  - zouhair 17y ago
    I didn't say philanthropy is bad, I say that one can survive with $100,000,000 (number pulled out of my arse) and anything more than that should be taxed to make a better life for the majority. And with with this kind of money you can still be a philanthropist.
    - jmatt 17y ago
      You can't do this sort of philanthropy with 1/500th of the money. The difference between government doing it and a philanthropist is efficiency. There are no beaurocracies or regulations when it's your money and your charity. Meanwhile if the government was going to do the same thing it would be bogged down in politics and bureaucracy. As for increasing taxes on the super rich - as far as I know Gates and Buffet both support the idea. They also support a serious estate tax for the super rich (aka death tax). And they cite the reasons you cite. The wealth came from the society as a whole and thus should go back to them. That is one reason they've put so much of their net worth in Gates' foundation. [These aren't my personal beliefs about taxes or the death tax...] I think it would be a very hard argument to say that the money Carnegie or Gates is using could some how be used better by most governments and definitely not by the US government. The Gates foundation even has a lifespan on it. It will cease to exist 50 years after Bill and Melinda die[1]. That is commendable in my opinion. It guarantees it doesn't become a Ford Foundation (etc.) and it ensures the money is spent on the generation that created the fortune. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#Lifespan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundati...
marcocampos 17y ago
Hey buddy, how about starting this by selling your software cheaper?
- nopassrecover 17y ago
  Many problems with this, beginning with: 1) He doesn't set the price 2) If people didn't make money there wouldn't be rich people to be asked by Bill Gates to donate. 3) How would this help those in need of charity
lutorm 17y ago
How about not bitching about higher corporate taxes then? If you think of government as a charity that does stuff like welfare and education, maybe he should have a sit-down with Ballmer re the story from a couple of days ago.
- barry-cotter 17y ago
  Because the contribution of medicine to lifespan and quality is dwarfed by cheap, easy and well understood tech like sanitation. Because education of similar quality can be delivered for half the cost (D.C. voucher programme cost a quarter) Because if you were aiming to help the most people possible with your money you sure as hell wouldn't be spending your money in any of the members of the OECD, never mind the USA.
- bokonist 17y ago
  The government is not a charity. The programs that have the outward appearance of charity in reality operate for the benefit of the employees.
  - lutorm 17y ago
    Can you provide some proof of that last statement? I highly doubt that's the case. (And even if it was true, how do you know that's not true of the charities, too?)
    - dantheman 17y ago
      If a charity is deemed unsuccessful people will stop funding it and it will go out of business.
      - dschobel 17y ago
        And perversely, if a government program under-performs it get more resources such that it's gotten to the point where some of the worst performing schools in America spend the most money per student. Hopefully Arne Duncan will extend the precedent he set in Chicago by closing schools which consistently under-perform.
vyrotek 17y ago
Attn: Rich People - I am willing to accept your wealth. Please contact me ASAP.
viggity 17y ago
I'm cool with Gates urging, I'm not cool with the government forcing
- rgr 17y ago
  I'm cool with both.
- xiaoma 17y ago
  "I'm not cool with the government forcing" Then it's not really "sharing", is it?

32 points by swombat 17y ago

Sounds like the charities of the last king of France and it's followers. People don't need charity, most of those are rich because of huge help of people's money and people's hard work. </mini_rant>

Silentio 17y ago
Slavoj Zizek's thinking on violence is worth quoting here: "The two faces of Bill Gates parallel the two faces of Soros. The cruel businessman destroys or buys out competitors, aims at virtual monopoly, employs all the tricks of the trade to achieve his goals. Meanwhile, the greatest philanthropist in the history of mankind quaintly asks: 'What does it serve to have computers, if people do not have enough to eat and are dying of dysentery?' In liberal communist ethics, the ruthless pursuit of profit is counteracted by charity. Charity is the humanitarian mask hiding the face of economic exploitation. In a superego blackmail of gigantic proportions, the developed countries "help" the underdeveloped with aid, credits, and so on, and thereby avoid the key issue, namely their complicity in and co-responsibility for the miserable situation of the underdeveloped" (Violence 22). Gates "give away your wealth, billionaires. It's fun!" rhetoric focuses only on subjective violence - violence, as Zizek writes, "which is enacted by social agents, evil individuals, disciplined repressive apparatuses," etc. The "do-this-now-its-fun" call distracts attention away from the systematic violence nestled at the root of capitalism. Zizek writes, and I think he's right, that Gates call for a friendlier robber baron "signals a sad predicament of ours: today's capitalism cannot reproduce itself on its own. It needs extra-economic charity to sustain the cycle of social reproduction" (24). That is not to say that Gates money will not do some good. I imagine it will do and has done. However, I do think it is a distraction from the real issue, which is the massive global economic exploitation necessary to produce Gates's wealth in the first place.
- swombat 17y ago
  That's a thoroughly unfair assessment. It assumes that all wealth is ill-gotten, and that is utterly baseless. Microsoft created and distributed an operating system that brought affordable computing to the masses. They generated enormous wealth for all of mankind, and they did so mostly playing by the rules that were set down for how commerce should be conducted. Certainly, they did some things outside of those rules, and for those they should be and have been punished. But on the whole, the world is still a better place with Microsoft than it would have been without. Taking Warren Buffet or Soros next, capitalism functions well because there are fiendishly clever people like those trying to figure out where to best allocate their capital to maximise their returns. This fundamental principle allows us to move wealth to wherever it's needed, whatever is the next big thing that humanity should be working on. Without them, we would be worse off too, since capital would be badly allocated - for example, to building countless overpriced houses rather than other things. What you suggest here is dangerous, because there is a grain of truth in it. Yes, there have been centuries of everyone exploiting everyone else. But pointing that out is useless, because it doesn't help make the situation better. And ascribing that blame to a few individuals, particularly those who started from nothing and built tremendous wealth through their hard work, is completely unfair and unwarranted. If you have some practical suggestions, rather than pointless muck-stirring, please do share them instead of quoting conspiracy theorists.
  - Silentio 17y ago
    The idea that the wealthy started from nothing and ascribing their wealth to the "hard work" of building from nothing is romantic, but ultimately it's a fantasy. No doubt much individual hard work goes into building a fortune, but the fortune itself owes much more to the labor of thousands, if not millions, of workers, right down to the janitor who sweeps the floor, than it does to the individual who had the next big idea. Labor certainly has more to do with wealth than capital itself. Inequality is embedded in capitalism. When the invisible hand moves capital from one place to another, it does not only give, it takes away. For someone like Bill Gates to give as he does, he has to have taken away (you might prefer "created") in the first place. It may be muck-stirring, but I am less interested in saving the world than I am in understanding the ideological assumptions implicit in, for instance, Gates's actions, and the systems that allow those actions to take place. To leave the muck unstirred, to forget it exists, is to live in a world that does nothing but support conventional wisdom, excludes alternatives, and limits debate. The useful question is not, "is this True or not," but rather, "what would it mean if it were true." Finally, if Zizek is a conspiracy theorist, was Hegel, was Marx?
jmatt 17y ago
The society as a whole can benefit from this kind of philanthropy long after it happens. For instance I directly benefited as a kid from a Carnegie library[1]. Meanwhile Andrew Carnegie is considered a robber baron[2] worse than Gates in most respects. Yet, I'm still grateful for the library. Gates is already wealthy, so at this point I'd rather see him use it for philanthropy rather than create another Rockefeller family trust. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_library http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_library [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist) EDIT: Added links.
- zouhair 17y ago
  I didn't say philanthropy is bad, I say that one can survive with $100,000,000 (number pulled out of my arse) and anything more than that should be taxed to make a better life for the majority. And with with this kind of money you can still be a philanthropist.
  - jmatt 17y ago
    You can't do this sort of philanthropy with 1/500th of the money. The difference between government doing it and a philanthropist is efficiency. There are no beaurocracies or regulations when it's your money and your charity. Meanwhile if the government was going to do the same thing it would be bogged down in politics and bureaucracy. As for increasing taxes on the super rich - as far as I know Gates and Buffet both support the idea. They also support a serious estate tax for the super rich (aka death tax). And they cite the reasons you cite. The wealth came from the society as a whole and thus should go back to them. That is one reason they've put so much of their net worth in Gates' foundation. [These aren't my personal beliefs about taxes or the death tax...] I think it would be a very hard argument to say that the money Carnegie or Gates is using could some how be used better by most governments and definitely not by the US government. The Gates foundation even has a lifespan on it. It will cease to exist 50 years after Bill and Melinda die[1]. That is commendable in my opinion. It guarantees it doesn't become a Ford Foundation (etc.) and it ensures the money is spent on the generation that created the fortune. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#Lifespan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundati...

marcocampos 17y ago

Hey buddy, how about starting this by selling your software cheaper?

nopassrecover 17y ago
Many problems with this, beginning with: 1) He doesn't set the price 2) If people didn't make money there wouldn't be rich people to be asked by Bill Gates to donate. 3) How would this help those in need of charity

lutorm 17y ago

How about not bitching about higher corporate taxes then? If you think of government as a charity that does stuff like welfare and education, maybe he should have a sit-down with Ballmer re the story from a couple of days ago.

barry-cotter 17y ago
Because the contribution of medicine to lifespan and quality is dwarfed by cheap, easy and well understood tech like sanitation. Because education of similar quality can be delivered for half the cost (D.C. voucher programme cost a quarter) Because if you were aiming to help the most people possible with your money you sure as hell wouldn't be spending your money in any of the members of the OECD, never mind the USA.
bokonist 17y ago
The government is not a charity. The programs that have the outward appearance of charity in reality operate for the benefit of the employees.
- lutorm 17y ago
  Can you provide some proof of that last statement? I highly doubt that's the case. (And even if it was true, how do you know that's not true of the charities, too?)
  - dantheman 17y ago
    If a charity is deemed unsuccessful people will stop funding it and it will go out of business.
    - dschobel 17y ago
      And perversely, if a government program under-performs it get more resources such that it's gotten to the point where some of the worst performing schools in America spend the most money per student. Hopefully Arne Duncan will extend the precedent he set in Chicago by closing schools which consistently under-perform.

vyrotek 17y ago

Attn: Rich People - I am willing to accept your wealth. Please contact me ASAP.

viggity 17y ago

I'm cool with Gates urging, I'm not cool with the government forcing

rgr 17y ago
I'm cool with both.
xiaoma 17y ago
"I'm not cool with the government forcing" Then it's not really "sharing", is it?