Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates Calls for a 'Kinder Capitalism'
Strudelkugel writes "The Wall Street Journal reports that Microsoft's Chairman Bill Gates is going to call for a revision of capitalism. He will argue that the economics that drive much of the world should use market forces to address the needs of poor countries, which he feels are currently being ignored. 'We have to find a way to make the aspects of capitalism that serve wealthier people serve poorer people as well,' Mr. Gates will say in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. 'Key to Mr. Gates's plan will be for businesses to dedicate their top people to poor issues — an approach he feels is more powerful than traditional corporate donations and volunteer work. Governments should set policies and disburse funds to create financial incentives for businesses to improve the lives of the poor, he plans to say. Mr. Gates's argument for the potential profitability of serving the poor is certain to raise skepticism, and some people may point out that poverty became a priority for Mr. Gates only after he'd earned billions building up Microsoft. But Mr. Gates is emphatic that he's not calling for a fundamental change in how capitalism works.'"
Is Microsoft going to stop looking for new ways to be anticompetitive, now?
Wikileaks, no DNS
The imposition of markets is at the very root of so many of the ills facing impoverished countries. I can't help but see the same tortured reasoning that I see in Homer Simpson's classic explanation that beer is "the cause of -- and solution to -- all of life's problems."
The Fight for Student Power on Campus: www.forstudentpower.org.
"We have to find a way to make the aspects of capitalism that serve wealthier people let us continue to rip off poorer people,' Mr. Gates will say in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. 'Key to Mr. Gates's plan will be for businesses to dedicate their top people to locking in the poor an approach he feels is more powerful when tied into traditional corporate donations and volunteer work. Governments should set policies and disburse funds to create financial incentives so that businesses can profit when they "improve" the lives of the poor, rather than giving money to the poor, he plans to say "The poor would just waste it on non-essentials like food and medicine.". Mr. Gates's argument for the potential profitability of serving the poor via government pork-barrelling and corporate tie-ins is certain to raise skepticism, and some people may point out that tapping the poverty-ridden became a priority for Mr. Gates only after he'd earned billions building up Microsoft. But Mr. Gates is emphatic that he's not calling for a fundamental change in how capitalism works - as long as he continues to get his.'"
Note to Bill, its been tried at least twice in the past 100 years and they were called communism and socialism. The only change for the poor in those systems is there is more of them.
To paraphrase Churchill: "It has been said that capitalism is the worst form of economy except all the others that have been tried."
Thats funny. I remember how Gates screwed over everyone he could when he was in charge of Microsoft. Can anyone imagine Steve Ballmer giving a shit about helping poor people? Microsoft don't even care about individual customers if they're not a corporate entity.
That'd work great until the next infection comes and wipes us all out, since all of our big pharma companies stopped developing drugs.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
as TFS states, people are critical of Gates because he has waited until he has all this money to speak up. I'm going to take an optimistic approach and say that perhaps he has waited until he has money to push this because nobody listens to poor people. If your neighbor came out and said the same thing that Gates is I doubt it would be on /. Gates is in a position where he can actually effect changes. I say if he wants to help the poor, more power to him as long as he doesn't turn a blind eye to Microsoft.
http://greenobyl.com/ please.... think of the children!!
Capitalism suffers from the same problem as Communism and Anarchy. In order for it to work, people need to not be jerks.
The problem with solving poverty is that it costs money; investing money in things that will give no return is bad business. Unless we are willing to sacrifice things will never change. Even then it will be hard because there will not be an overnight change. It will take time and energy.
We CAN make poverty history. We just have to be willing to pay the price and suffer for no other reason than it is the right thing to do.
It's a scam to insert themselves into the revenue stream and suck at the public teat.
This is a bit off-topic, but I'm going to reproduce something my mother (who is a teacher) wrote in respect to the similarly-phrased venture philanthropy plans in education. Sorry that it is long, but since educationally venture philanthropy is very much part of the Gates' foundations agenda, it's relevant in entirety. I did the html formatting, but the content is my Mom's:
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
We had a story about it just a little while ago "MS ties charity to the use of Windows". I have absolutly no doubt that Bill Gates would LOVE to help the poor, with "free" MS software.
No not because he is an evil self-serving asshole. Lets be brutally honest here, MS software is the best in the world, and Bill Gates is the living proof of it. If MS software isn't the best in the world, why does everyone use it making Bill Gates one of the richest man on earth?
Because lets undestand this very clearly, compared to all the other very rich men on earth, Bill Gates got that way by basically selling a SINGLE product, later expanding that to a massive TWO. (Okay not exactly, but compare this to other giant companies like IBM, HP or the japanese giants and MS product catalog seems awfully thin).
I think their is something very subtle corrupt about PRIVATE donations, when even a Morning Musume sketch knows it, you have to wonder why any sane society allows it.
In a sketch some childeren have an argument, one is rich, the others aren't. Rich kid complains to parents, parents talk to the schoolteacher and threathen to cut their donations.
A more classic example is religious charity, you can have our cash, but you got to listen to our sermon and if your religion ain't right, well we might not even give you anything at all.
I think charity should firmly be in the hands of a goverment, they are not the best but at least they can be voted out. If I want to donate a million dollars I shouldn't really be able to attach any restrictions to it. If you allow that you essentially allow the rich to dictate the live of the poor. Schools only get Bill Gates money if the schools only windows, can this even be called charity anymore? What next, schools that don't expell kids who pirate MS windows will get no funding?
No, I think Bill Gates is the last person I want in control of society, not just because he is ammoral business man, but because he also had that amorallity work for him all his life. Do you want a human being telling the poor how to life who has never ever been poor? Who with his monthly income condems countless others to poverty.
This has to do with the concept of average income. If the average income is 1000 dollars and one person make 10.000 then 9 people earn nothing at all
If he is truly that worried about society, the answer is simple, PAY MORE TAXES. MS has made it an art to find way to dodge paying taxes over its gigantic earnings. But that offcourse won't happen, wether tax money is wasted or not is not the issue, Bill Gates has little to say on how taxes are spend, why it might even go to the NSA on projects to improve Linux. Schools could decide themselves what software to use. The end of the world!
There are some fans of Bill Gates who point out his charity work, but frankly for a man that is that rich, it is pathetic and a lot of it can be traced back to ways of forcing the use of windows.
Also there is this to consider, if I make 1000 dollars and donate 100, that is a huge amount. If I make a million dollars and donate 100.000. The amount is far greater but the impact on me is far smaller. If I have billions, then I could donate 95% of my wealth and still life the life of the filthy rich. Gates don't donate 95% of his wealth, not even 10 percent. Important thing to consider.
More controll by business over our society, yeah thanks DO NOT WANT!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
His statements would have more credibility if he dedicated Microsoft to cease illegal, anti-competitive behavior. You know, a kinder, gentler capitalism.
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
-- Pablo Picasso
Fundamentally, there is no difference between what Grameen bank does in Bangladesh and what the sup prime mortgage industry in US does, sell to poor. The key difference is that of intent, Grameen is genuinely interested in helping the poor, but the moneylenders in US are trying to make money. Note that Grameen is not in for charity, but not in for money either. I guess this is what Bill Gates was referring to, when he said "Kinder Capitalism".
I don't think we should discriminate based on who said it, but what was being said. All of us can see the irony here, but how many of us are willing to see the point? I guess this is a good turn of events, A rich businessman focusing on (helping) the poor. This is like a strong statement of intent, and I sincerely hope to see some form of action plan from Microsoft towards it( well, I know this is not gonna happen , but still...). Somebody, please take the lead.
http://monkeynesianeconomics.blogspot.com/
err, they already have. or at least for the most likely epidemic sources.
these days its the smaller gene- or bio-labs that come up with new ways to kill the most common threat to out bodies, not big pharma.
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
The only problem with capitalism is that monopolies (hi, Bill!) distort Adam Smith's free market.
... food aid clobbers the only useful sector of third world economies, and agricultural tariffs prevent them from getting any realistic prices for what's left. The third world is left with no way to better themselves. They end up dependent on handouts from rich countries.
As for aiding the poor
And my fav current topic, the patronizing smugdiots who want to send food (which destroys their only chance at self-sufficiency and export income) to the third world instead of OLPC laptops (which saves them money compared to physical distribution of outdated textbooks in foreign languages). Or want to shove Windows on more expensive less capable laptops at them to lock them into a foreign monopoly instead of free source from which they can learn.
Hell of a way to keep 'em down on the non-farm. See what you can do about that, Bill.
Infuriate left and right
Does no one else realize how much money he has given away? I'm not saying that his company's practices are right by any means, but don't act like he simply makes boatloads of cash and then hordes it all. He has many mutli-billion dollar donations under his belt, and while you may say "but he has so much to spare", it's his money. If he wanted, he could keep it. That's what's great about America, you can do what you want with your money.
So no, I'm not saying that MS has the greatest practices in the world in regards to monopoly, and their software mostly sucks, but at the same point don't act like Bill is an evil money-hording pirate.
:(){
Gates, and humanity, would be better served if he acted like the real "Robber Baron" of American history.
The great robber barons - Carnegie, Rockefeller, and really, a lot more, all invested rather heavily in some basic infrastructure that continues to improve the USA to this day. All of the great robber barons ploughed their vast fortunes into libraries, universities, hospitals and other enterprises and essentially created, ironically, all of today's "liberal" institutions. While its admirable that he pours a lot of money in fighting HIV in Africa, if he actually built universities, vocational schools, or even just invested in existing ones, ultimately, the world would be much better served. Do you want humanity to genuinely improve? Good. Go set your school of choice up with an endowment so that they can buy a new supercomputer every couple of years.
While you are it, maybe these billionaires ought to do what Henry Ford did and pay their workers wages far above what everyone else was getting paid at the time. You know, maybe create a real middle class again!
This is my sig.
Even if that were true (and I doubt that it is), doesn't it bother you that the motivation of the people developing drugs is only to make themselves rich? I'd rather have a researcher at a non-profit or a university developing my drugs. That way, the only concern she has is my health, not meeting the bottom line of a corporate ledger book. If Enron, Worldcom, et al. have taught us anything, it's that corporations will do anything in the name of their bottom line. I'm not saying that the public sector is without corruption or things that are done wrong, but there is less of a motivation to cut corners when the only benchmark of your success is accomplishing your goal.
IAALS.
It has lots to do with, for instance, perversion of the markets by the protectionists of the developed world who subsidise their agrobusiness interests and thus artificially depress the market price for the very cash crops that would allow third world economies to sustain themselves.
It has a lot to do with the ultimate market Big Lie that is GATT - structured to allow parasitical 'service' companies from the developed nations profit from the loans given to developing nations by their friends in the World Bank and IMF.
It has a lot to do with Invisible Property laws and treaties that restrict the ability of developing countries to use knowledge for their own benefit without paying over the odds to some shyster patent troll or well padded pharmaceutical executive.
A free market system would benefit the developing world hugely - but there are too many vested interests in the developed world that would suffer in such a market, so it isn't likely to happen.
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
Most of what is criticised is nothing more than actions which yield short-term gains at the expense of long term profitability. The long term is ignored because the level of change in modern society tempts people into believing their current actions have no predictable consequences. But they do. Helping the poor, or taking care of your workers (as Henry Ford did) has a long-term payoff.
The notion that the rich are not concerned enough for the poor is laughable. It is laughable because the rich are very concerned for the poor. Just not in the poor's interest. This is false political spectrum allowed in the US - conservatives or Republicans or whatever speak of a free market (whatever the phrase "free market" means - I don't see how a market selling potatos in the USSR for rubles is any difference than a market in the US selling potatos for dollars - the difference was always in production, not exchange). Speak of how opening restrictions on capitalism will help everyone, or some even say it doesn't matter, because people do not have an obligation to one another. Then there is liberalism and the Democrats - the problem is the rich do not care enough about the poor.
Both are nonsense and are really two sides of the same coin. Just take a look at China today to see the purpose of the poor. With a 20% growth rate per year it is quite open what happens - the "market" heats up, profits go down as workers make and demand more (even in repressive labor conditions reminiscent of the early days of the western industrialization). So what happens? The state, controlled by Deng-Xiaoping-following "capitalist roaders" as they used to be called, begins laying off workers, and enclosure and the like happens in the farms out west, creating a flood of new workers, lower wages and higher profits. This has been happening in rural Mexico because of NAFTA (and other similar recent trade agreements), which is why the US's neighbor to the south for so many centuries suddenly has so many undocumented types from rural Mexico flooding over the border.
The point is is that unlike in other economic systems - slave systems, the former eastern socialist systems, feudal systems - poverty is a necessity for capitalism. If it did not exist, workers would demand all of the surplus they create at their companies, and their would be no dividend checks going out. A practical truth, the framework (but not the details) of which were spelled out by Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Say, Malthus and all of the founders of economics. But this framework was tossed in the garbage can in the late 19th century, and Smith, Ricardo and all of the early economists realization of value being created by labor was tossed in the garbage and some new nonsense was brought in. Without unemployment, poverty, longer and longer hours and that sort of thing, Gates would have no fortune. His fortune is on the backs of his overworked, often H1B'd staff, but the poor and unemployed are an essential component and necessity to keep those profits. This view is one which is rarely expressed nowadays, yet, usually the less it is heard of, the more true it is.
When everyone criticizes Bill Gates for whatever reason, while he's donating money. WHO CARES?! He's donating money, stop bitching about what he's done in the past. It's not drug money, its not illegally obtained cash, its profit. However he obtained it, screwing others over, whatever, is pointless to rant about. Sure, I feel for his victims, but sorry, you got screwed, perhaps you should have done something differently. Even so, I'm not going to argue for or against Bill Gates for whatever he's done, I don't care if you know about Company X that got screwed over for reason Y.
The point is, stop bitching about things like "He's only donating because he's rich" or "He made the donee use MS software in exchange". Donations are gifts, they aren't mandatory if you're rich or poor. Either way, these organizations are receiving these gifts and thats all that really matters. You don't have to praise him for it, nobody is asking you to do that, but you shouldn't bitch about it either. Just be thankful these organizations have more money than they did before (assuming these organizations are worthwhile).
And seriously, why is it such a big deal that in exchange for a donation, he is asking an organization to use their software (I'm assuming he is donating that as well, or donations > cost to switch to MS software)? It is, in a sense, paying someone to use your software. It speaks a little bit for your software but in the end, the have (arguably) useable software and more money than they had before. Do these organizations complain about things like this? Certainly not as much as slashdotters apparently. In the end, "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth".
To see that things have gotten so bad in the world that all I see here is cynicism and trolling. Yes, it is true a lot of us do not like Microsoft, for whatever reason (I find myself ambivalent but there you go). Yes Bill is worth billions. No, we won't change the world overnight, but for fucks sake, what has he got to gain from this? One of the most rich men in the world, he could quite easily say 'fuck it' put his feet up and do NOTHING - I don't think guilt is the real issue here. The fact that he is saying something, not to mention the amount of money his and his wifes' foundation has given away over the years (billions of dollars) surely accounts for something. If he has been clever enough to create the leviathan that is Microsoft, he might, just might, have some influence that could help us all change the shithole we are currently living in to something with some hope. But for fuck's sake lets not shoot the guy down in flames for it until we can prove he is in it to feather his own nest After almost 9 years on /. I'm getting pretty fucking sick of the attitudes round here - too many fucking smart arses and not enough people willing to think about anything more than how much free software they deserve or how they'll never pay for music because its not worth it* . but I feel pretty strongly about this. (* seriously - someone on here today valued it at 4 cents a track. If it is that bad, donate your ears to someone who could use them buddy). Bunch of moaning fucking ingrates. Set mod to troll.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
hmm, why am i left thinking big pharma == record companies?
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
True that now that Bill is separating himself out from MS, he has less influence, but you cannot suddenly isolate responsibility from him just like that. Besides, how much of his new-found generousity is "in kind", favouring one company's products?
Although, in order to keep people's eye on the ball, my comment was somewhat simplistic, yours is even more so. Legal fictions are not reality, and Bill still has a lot of influence.
Wikileaks, no DNS
You have touched on the key to a kinder capitalism. I know you didn't say it, but the whole, "responsibility to the shareholders at any cost" idea is part of the problem. The biggest problem is that people and the courts have determined that "responsible to the shareholders" means "make as much money as possible", and means only that. There is no reason that it could not mean "will not use your money to rape the poor", or "will not use your money to commit crimes". Of course, perhaps, the law needs to be changed so that we don't have an entity with the rights of a human, yet no morals what so ever.
Right off the bat, if we made the fines against corporations large enough to cause serious losses, CEOs would be required under the current system to stop committing crimes.
And why didn't he talk about the future society? Because his method forbids it. If one believes (and this is just a belief, no matter how much one says it's a "science") that History unfolds in a dialectical pattern, then any attempt at guessing what comes two or three "steps" from now is in vain.
That's also the reason why even nowadays you cannot get an answer to this question from any leftist. All they "know" is that they must practice the "antithesis" of what currently exist (the "thesis"), that at some point both will be overcome by a "synthesis", which in turn will become a new "thesis" with its own "antithesis", to be overcome by a new "synthesis", and so on and so forth, until the "a new world is possible", whatever it is, comes to happen, and then there will be bliss everywhere for all of eternity.
Anyone who is a cynical and isn't a leftist can see that the Marxist "scientific" understanding of History is hardly more than a secular version of the belief in the monotheistic Heaven. You take what for Christians is "located in Eternity" and place it "in the Future", all the while identifying yourself as the chosen one whose destiny is helping it to happen. And since it's an undetermined future, thus something you can never know whether was or wasn't already reached, and if not, what's the distance between "now" and "then", what specifically still needs to be done, this results in that anything you wish can be put in that void.
That's why the typical communist will always say that a "communist society" never existed. Because the society he himself thinks should exist (the one he right now is thinking about, because tomorrow he might change his mind on some detail), that one isn't equal to any which actually existed, even when its founders called themselves communists. The ideal society of his dreams is always, by definition, "in the future". Always.
As such, he is always justified both in the acts he takes that he believes will bring "the future" to fruition, as well as in his criticism of other marxists whose acts don't (right now) fit nicely with his (own, personal) model.
Anything goes, literally.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
I'd go so far as to say that it's common knowledge that 'Big Pharma' doesn't want to give you a cure - just something for the symptoms. Curing a problems makes is go away, reducing the symptoms of an incurable disease is money in the bank. Sycophants.
Yeah... I for one won't mind seeing 'Big Pharma' in bankruptcy right next to the **AA.
No, the cure to the next plague will come from an independently funded research group or non-profit. The plague will probably come from Monsanto.
Gates is right, we need to figure out a way for capitalism to inspire humans to help humans, and the planet in general. Capitlism makes use of our natural greed to create productivity and it's been a wonderful invention - but now it's time to upgrade. Capitalism Vista? Oh, wait - I said "upgrade".
On a side note: ever notice how even the most ruthless people seem to become 'nicer' when they start getting older and start to see the 'big picture'? I guess it'll even happen to little Billy Gates... speaking of sycophants.
- I voted for Nintendo and against Bush
Communism and Anarchy would only work if people were not jerks - you're right about that. Capitalism works because it's based upon the assumption that people will be jerks. The point of a market economy is to try to make it so that even selfish jerks are forced into helping other people. Without government intervention, the best way to make a ton of money is to do your damndest to help your fellow man by building a company that produces desired goods at dirt cheap prices.
The key problem with capitalism is that the government does interfere with the markets - you get big corporations (aka microsoft) pressuring the government to give them special breaks and abilities. Government subsidies are NOT a part of capitalism - they run counter to the nature of free markets.
The idea that capitalism encourages greed is akin to saying that having fire departments encourages people to start fires. People will be greedy no matter what social system they live in - captialism is simply designed to alleviate that condition as much as possible.
My blog
Anyone who is a cynical and isn't a leftist can see that the Marxist "scientific" understanding of History is hardly more than a secular version of the belief in the monotheistic Heaven
Actually, you are thinking of Hegel. Marx's idea of history was a constant struggle between the poor and the rich elite. There's no reason to bring in Christianity. Is this personally how you feel comparing yourself to "lefty Marxists?" Perhaps it is wishful thinking, but it has nothing more in common with Christianity than any (secular | atheistic | monotheistic | polytheistic) idea of Utopia.
That's why the typical communist will always say that a "communist society" never existed.
There really have been no communist societies. People have tried (often as a deception), but there has never been a true communist society. None of the supposed communist nations have ever gotten past the point of having a dictator ruling the country - one of the key parts of communism is rule by the masses. (And believe me, I'm not so naive as to accept the whole of communism. I'm fairly socialist, but not a Marxist.)
This sort of left vs. right crap is blinding you to even a basic understanding of what you're talking about. Go beyond right vs left and look at the actual issues and theories being discussed. And I'm not saying this because you are anti-Marxist or anti-"lefty" or whatever. You simply do not understand the subject you are talking about.
Don't speak on shit unless you know the deal, son.
1) He never took home an outrageous salary like many of his CEO counterparts.
... For example ever look at the price list of say Oracle, IBM or many other vendors? Sun used to charge outrageous fees.
.. You are comparing MS with professional software. MS's professional software costs a lot too. I happen to have a 1990 catalogue for CP/M software (I keep these things to debunk people like you). 19 GBP (~$25?) for Locoscript word processor, 28 GBP for Masterfile databas; I leave you to adjust for subsequent inflation but it's about a factor of three here in UK.
... when all is said and done Microsoft and Bill Gates will not look like the villain that many like to portray
Funny he got so rich then. Actually, we weren't born yesterday - the salary of these guys is hardly relevant. Income != Salary. Most of the income of company owners is in profits taken and share values.
2) He built a company and from the get go gave each employee the chance to get options and shares.
What has the income of these qualified professional people got to do with "The Poor"
3) He built a market for third parties.
He did not build it, it arose. The policy of an open PC with open APIs was IBM's (to which MS was originally contracted). Not even IBM invented that approach anyway, it already existed with CP/M for example. MS has till now kicked any third party in the head if it became too much of a rival (eg Netscape, Novell, even IBM in the software field).
4) He brought down the price of software. Before Microsoft people were charging a fortune for software.
Oracle, IBM, Sun ?
Sorry, they've blown it. They are on record as law-breaking monopolists who lean on governments, contemptuously disregard the orders of the European Government, play dirty tricks that exploit their near monopoly, and brazenly corrupt the processes of the International Standards Organisation in their own favour. Just as a few examples.