Has Bill Gates contributed to humanity in proportion to his monetary net worth? And does it matter?

[Koxinga]

From another ongoing thread:

Originally Posted by Untoward_Parable

You think . . . Bill Gate's existence increased the value of humanity by [his] net worth?

Wikipedia tells me that Bill Gates has a net worth of around $61 billion. Two questions:

(1) Has his net contribution to humanity been in proportion to that?

And (2) does the answer to question "1" govern in any way the question of whether Bill Gates "deserves" his money (if you'd care to explain how you define "deserve").

My answers are (1) probably so, even outside of his charity work, and (2) not really. I can't imagine a world without easily accessible computers, and even if Bill Gates's vision has fallen short in a number of ways, it seems pretty clear to me that he kicked in the door leading to the world we live in now. And (2) as long as investors were not misled and willing to reward him in this way, and as long as people were willing to buy his products without coercion, then how on earth can you say he doesn't deserve every nickel he's got? The same would be true if he earned his money in real estate or (gasp) managing a hedge fund. As long as there's an even playing field and a reasonable level of transparency, investors may feel they are better off paying someone a large salary than not.

[denquixote]

With people moving to other countries in order to eliminate their obligation to pay taxes and Romney running for President on the "I will not disclose" platform, oh wait I forgot they changed it to the "We've given all you people need to know" platform, we should be doubly grateful to people like Bill Gates who understand the meaning of the word "humanity" and their obligation to it. You may disagree with the proportion of his contribution or the direction of it, but you cannot deny the existence or magnitude of it.

[Koxinga]

Originally Posted by denquixote

With people moving to other countries in order to eliminate their obligation to pay taxes

Who, pray tell, is able to do this? Certainly not anyone who is a citizen of the United States.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Koxinga

Who, pray tell, is able to do this? Certainly not anyone who is a citizen of the United States.

He's talking about the co-founder of Facebook who gave up his American citizenship.

[Untoward_Parable]

Bill gates did not invent computers or even the type of software that made his company powerful. Other people would have done similar things, maybe even better things. (probably, without his monopolistic practices programming is likely to have moved faster) It was historically inevitable without him.

Most rich people do tons of charity, it's often a form of money laundering and certainly a form of image promotion. IE a business tactic. If ur gonna get all weepy about the guy who has plenty to give giving some...

[Untoward_Parable]

Do you even comprehend how much 61 billion is?

[Whambulance]

Originally Posted by Untoward_Parable

Do you even comprehend how much 61 billion is?

Well countries are like closed systems and I think its nice to have some of the innovators and wealth creators on our own team once in a while. When Gates is gone his heirs, their offspring, successful and unsuccessful business ventures, divorces and whatnot will dissolve that wealth right back into the common pool within a few generations.

There are many other countries paying into the Gates product and at the very least its nice to be on the home team.

[Untoward_Parable]

Originally Posted by Whambulance

Well countries are like closed systems and I think its nice to have some of the innovators and wealth creators on our own team once in a while. When Gates is gone his heirs, their offspring, successful and unsuccessful business ventures, divorces and whatnot will dissolve that wealth right back into the common pool within a few generations.

There are many other countries paying into the Gates product and at the very least its nice to be on the home team.

Wealth is self sustaining without serious moron factors. You don't understand this?

[Koxinga]

Here's a question for you, Untoward. Where do you think Bill Gates keeps his wealth? Are you imagining a big swimming pool full of gold coins, à la Scrooge McDuck?

[Blackberry]

I've heard that Bill Gates was willing the majority of his wealth to charity, and only a relatively small amount of it to his kids. Does anyone know if that's true?

[amarone]

Originally Posted by Blackberry

I've heard that Bill Gates was willing the majority of his wealth to charity, and only a relatively small amount of it to his kids. Does anyone know if that's true?

It's true. Warren Buffett is doing likewise.

[Jonathan Chance]

I've certainly heard him say that. Warren Buffet, too.

[Koxinga]

But Steve Jobs, it's speculated . . . not so much. Did this stance make Steve less deserving of his $7 billion?

[Blackberry]

Originally Posted by Koxinga

But Steve Jobs, it's speculated . . . not so much. Did this stance make Steve less deserving of his $7 billion?

I don't know if "deserving" is the right word, but it does make him sound like an excuse-making dick.

It sounds like Bill Gates's kids are not being raised to be spoiled little assholes. I'm sure they're still getting plenty of money, but I think it's awesome of him to not give them a completely insane amount. Even aside from the fact that there are so many worthy causes that could use his money, I think it sends a much better message to his kids.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Koxinga

Here's a question for you, Untoward. Where do you think Bill Gates keeps his wealth? Are you imagining a big swimming pool full of gold coins, à la Scrooge McDuck?

That's not as funny as it sounds, in these days of trillions of uninvested capital. I don't know where Bill Gates per se has his money, but there's not as much investment going on these days amongst the wealthy as proponents of trickle-down theory would have you believe.

[denquixote]

Originally Posted by Koxinga

Who, pray tell, is able to do this? Certainly not anyone who is a citizen of the United States.

People have been doing it for years. John Templeton, the founder of the mutual fund group did it in 1968, dying in Bermuda a few years ago. But the number of people doing it now has tripled between 2008 and 2009. There is supposedly a waiting list at the London American Embassy to get the process started. Most who do it are dual citizens, but the Facebook guy, Eduardo Saverin, left Brazil to become an American citizen with his family and has renounced his newly aquired citizenship to live in Singapore I believe. Estimates of his tax savings are in the $600million range. Naturally he does not admit that this is his reason for renouncing his citizenship but you do the math.
In November Denise Rich, nee Eisenberg, the ex-wife of financier Marc Rich renounced her citizenship. She also has Austrian nationality and is married to an Austrian. She is one of 430 appearing on a list of people renouncing and green card holders failing to renew for that last quarter of 2011.

[denquixote]

I think, btw, that it would only be citizens of the U.S. who could renounce their U.S. citizenship

[Koxinga]

Originally Posted by denquixote

People have been doing it for years. John Templeton, the founder of the mutual fund group did it in 1968, dying in Bermuda a few years ago. But the number of people doing it now has tripled between 2008 and 2009. There is supposedly a waiting list at the London American Embassy to get the process started. Most who do it are dual citizens, but the Facebook guy, Eduardo Saverin, left Brazil to become an American citizen with his family and has renounced his newly aquired citizenship to live in Singapore I believe. Estimates of his tax savings are in the $600million range. Naturally he does not admit that this is his reason for renouncing his citizenship but you do the math.
In November Denise Rich, nee Eisenberg, the ex-wife of financier Marc Rich renounced her citizenship. She also has Austrian nationality and is married to an Austrian. She is one of 430 appearing on a list of people renouncing and green card holders failing to renew for that last quarter of 2011.

You said "people moving to other countries in order to eliminate their obligation to pay taxes." Moving to another country is not equivalent to renouncing citizenship, and it doesn't do anything to mitigate one's tax payment and reporting obligations--in practice, quite the opposite.

[DMC]

Originally Posted by Koxinga

(1) Has his net contribution to humanity been in proportion to that?

I think "the giving pledge" campaign alone has that covered.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

That's not as funny as it sounds, in these days of trillions of uninvested capital. I don't know where Bill Gates per se has his money, but there's not as much investment going on these days amongst the wealthy as proponents of trickle-down theory would have you believe.

A lot of his money is still in Microsoft stock, some $14bn in recent reports. After that I think a lot of it is tied up in a private investment company that he set up basically to manage his vast wealth (and a lot of his overall wealth is pledged to the Gates Foundation when he dies, and lots of it has gone into that directly during his lifetime as well.)

[Sage Rat]

The general public felt that Windows, Visual Studio, and Office were worth X% of all money they earned, in competition with spending that money on food, shelter, medical care, charity, or other potential destinations.

Of the percentage of the general public who owned shares in Microsoft, they felt that his contribution to company was worth Y% of the income of the company.

By definition of the free market, Bill Gates received precisely the amount of money that he did, during his active days, as humanity valued his contribution to humanity to be.

Remember that modern Economics was founded in Philosophy.

[Rand Rover]

1. I don't care whether any particular person thinks that any other particular person "deserves" something they have. It's just not that interesting a topic to me, and absolutely nothing else in the world depends on it.

2. Unless anyone has evidence that Bill Gates forced people to buy his products, then he absolutely contributed to society exactly in proportion to his net worth. People would rather have his products than the money they gave him for it.

[astro]

Originally Posted by Koxinga

But Steve Jobs, it's speculated . . . not so much. Did this stance make Steve less deserving of his $7 billion?

Jobs was a true visionary whose position in the pantheon of technological progress will IMO far outshine Gates contributions over time. Having said this Jobs was by all indications something of a self centered shit and not a partially nice person.

Morality and "deserving" the wealth you have acquired are not all that directly related. What you do with that wealth after accumulating it is a different question re judging your overall moral posture.

[Stratocaster]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

2. Unless anyone has evidence that Bill Gates forced people to buy his products, then he absolutely contributed to society exactly in proportion to his net worth. People would rather have his products than the money they gave him for it.

This is what I was going to post. Unless he stole his money, by definition his contribution to society is exactly equal to what his monetary net worth is. How could it be otherwise?

[humblebumble]

How do you define value of humanity?

[denquixote]

Originally Posted by Koxinga

You said "people moving to other countries in order to eliminate their obligation to pay taxes." Moving to another country is not equivalent to renouncing citizenship, and it doesn't do anything to mitigate one's tax payment and reporting obligations--in practice, quite the opposite.

Sorry you are quite right; I did not write what I thought i wrote. My apologies.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Untoward_Parable

Bill gates did not invent computers or even the type of software that made his company powerful.

Nope, he didn't. Jobs and the Woz didn't invent computers either. So what?

Other people would have done similar things, maybe even better things.

They didn't, however, by and large. This is a ridiculous statement...people COULD have invented flying ponies and a chicken in every blender, but they didn't do that either. Gates DID found a company, however, and one that has dominated the software and operating systems markets for decades now. Sure, other people COULD have done the same...but they didn't, which is why he's a billionaire and those other people mostly aren't.

It was historically inevitable without him.

Sure it was. If only you'd been given a company and stuff, you'd be just where Gates is today, amiright? Gods, what a load.

Most rich people do tons of charity, it's often a form of money laundering and certainly a form of image promotion. IE a business tactic. If ur gonna get all weepy about the guy who has plenty to give giving some...

I could care less what he gives or doesn't give. It's HIS money to do with as he pleases. If he wanted to pile it all up and fuck hookers on top of it, well, that would be his business, as long as he pays his taxes in accordance with the law. Which he does.

-XT

[Koxinga]

It's the future, the year twenty-friggin-twelve. Where's my chicken in a blender?

[boomerwang]

Homer voice/ Mmmm, chicken smoothie *loud drooling* /Homer

[septimus]

The question is ambiguous for several reasons. But I do want to correct one common misconception:

Originally Posted by Sage Rat

The general public felt that Windows, Visual Studio, and Office were worth X% of all money they earned, in competition with spending that money on food, shelter, medical care, charity, or other potential destinations.

Had someone obtained a monopoly on oxygen, and raised its price from zero to $1000 per person per year, those paying (i.e. all living persons) would consider that money well spent.
I'm frequently accused of confusing metaphors or reductio ad absurdems, but I'm in a hurry. If you don't grasp the point, sorry.

In alternative universes, there would have been more competition in computer software, and open source standards might have eventually won. Would this be a better or worse universe than the Microsoft universe? I don't know. Neither do you.

The facile thinking that the price charged for Windows is optimal for society,or that the destruction of competitors like WordPerfect was the proper outcome due to "theorems" of Adam Smith is absurd. About all we can say is that those parroting such nonsense usually know nothing about Microsoft's business practices.

That said, Gates' competitors may be no less greedy and ruthless than Gates, just not as smart. And of course, in hindsight, one sees his charitable giving and forgives a lot.

[Stratocaster]

Originally Posted by humblebumble

How do you define value of humanity?

Why should anyone need to? Don't let your double entry accounting get illogical here. If you want to measure his net worth in dollars, you can't measure the offset in terms of "did he achieve nirvana, or cure cancer, or feed the poor" because the two have nothing to do with each other. The offset to the money he's made is the contributions he made in amassing it--the product he has provided. By definition, unless people were coerced into buying his product he has provided exactly the value he has received, in terms of the metric the OP provided (dollars!).

If we want to ask if he's used his wealth well, for noble purposes, we can, but that's a different question, and one you could ask if he found his $61B in a coffee can on the side of the road. (Big coffee can, I know...)

[Koxinga]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

That's not as funny as it sounds, in these days of trillions of uninvested capital. I don't know where Bill Gates per se has his money, but there's not as much investment going on these days amongst the wealthy as proponents of trickle-down theory would have you believe.

Hm. Where do you think this "uninvested capital" is parked? Really big coffee cans? Or is it out there providing liquidity to the banking system and facilitating bank lending?

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Stratocaster

By definition, unless people were coerced into buying his product he has provided exactly the value he has received, in terms of the metric the OP provided (dollars!).

Did Bernie Madoff create exactly as much value as he received? How about Pablo Escobar? I hope you have enough imagination to understand that these are reasonable disproofs-by-counterexample without impugning Mr. Gates.

And if you do pin your claim on the word "coerced" I will be very surprised. Yes, people were definitely "coerced" into buying Windows, etc. Even Microsoft's strongest supporters will admit that, unless their ignorance is huge.

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by septimus

Had someone obtained a monopoly on oxygen, and raised its price from zero to $1000 per person per year, those paying (i.e. all living persons) would consider that money well spent.
I'm frequently accused of confusing metaphors or reductio ad absurdems, but I'm in a hurry. If you don't grasp the point, sorry.

In alternative universes, there would have been more competition in computer software, and open source standards might have eventually won. Would this be a better or worse universe than the Microsoft universe? I don't know. Neither do you.

The facile thinking that the price charged for Windows is optimal for society,or that the destruction of competitors like WordPerfect was the proper outcome due to "theorems" of Adam Smith is absurd. About all we can say is that those parroting such nonsense usually know nothing about Microsoft's business practices.

That said, Gates' competitors may be no less greedy and ruthless than Gates, just not as smart. And of course, in hindsight, one sees his charitable giving and forgives a lot.

Mac - Lost because it cost even more.

Microsoft was convicted of monopoly for Internet Explorer, not for their OS, because they never had a monopoly on OSs. And of course, their internet browser was free, and their competitors' browsers were all free, so they had a monopoly on...free shit.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Sage Rat

Mac - Lost because it cost even more.

Microsoft was convicted of monopoly for Internet Explorer, not for their OS, because they never had a monopoly on OSs. And of course, their internet browser was free, and their competitors' browsers were all free, so they had a monopoly on...free shit.

Apple stockholders may be less certain that "Mac lost" -- but it's beside the point. There'd be other competitors in the "alternate universe."

And do you need cites that computer manufacturers bundled Windows and that even today many users who want to run only Linux have difficulty getting the computer of their choice without paying for a Windows OS they don't want?

... And this is all besides the basic point. Even if Windows were exactly as indispensable as oxygen, to claim its pricing was exactly correct is odd. Even Adam Smith argued athat government should prevent monopolies, though I realize that the modern Dog-eat-Dog school does not.

[barath_s]

Originally Posted by Sage Rat

Microsoft was convicted of monopoly for Internet Explorer, not for their OS, because they never had a monopoly on OSs. .

Afraid not.

"Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86 based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly."

Microsoft was convicted of abusing that monopoly in OS to illegally help out IE. a monopoly itself is not illegal. They were not on trial for establishing that monopoly through illegal or coercive practices

[Stratocaster]

Originally Posted by septimus

Did Bernie Madoff create exactly as much value as he received? How about Pablo Escobar? I hope you have enough imagination to understand that these are reasonable disproofs-by-counterexample without impugning Mr. Gates.

And if you do pin your claim on the word "coerced" I will be very surprised. Yes, people were definitely "coerced" into buying Windows, etc. Even Microsoft's strongest supporters will admit that, unless their ignorance is huge.

I'll concede the point that to the extent Gates used unfair practices, the value he received exceeded the value provided. The larger point stands, though, which is that size of Gates' fortune has no bearing on whether he provided adequate value (excepting to the extent your point is accurate), which is what I think the OP was asking. The greatest tycoon and the smallest mom-and-pop stores share the same value proposition in a fair market--they get what people think they're worth.

[RaftPeople]

Originally Posted by XT

They didn't, however, by and large. This is a ridiculous statement...people COULD have invented flying ponies and a chicken in every blender, but they didn't do that either. Gates DID found a company, however, and one that has dominated the software and operating systems markets for decades now. Sure, other people COULD have done the same...but they didn't, which is why he's a billionaire and those other people mostly aren't.

I could be wrong, but I think the poster you quoted may not have been referring to the fact that Bill Gates made billions but rather the impression some outside the computer industry have that he led the industry from a technical perspective as opposed to what is really his claim to fame which is that he was a damn good business man, better than his competitors.

[JohnT]

There's absolutely no question in my mind that the positive economic impact of people using MS products has vastly exceeded the $50-60 billion that Mr. Gates is currently worth. The majority of us have used MS products in our careers at one point or the other, many are still using Excel, Outlook, Access, SQL (personally, I cannot imagine my career without MS products), and programming for a MS environment today.

Comparisons of Bill Gates to Pablo Escobar and Bernie Madoff reek of ignorance and can be safely ignored.

Ballmer, otoh, is fair game.

So the answer is "Yes" and "Yes, IMHO".

[RaftPeople]

Originally Posted by JohnT

There's absolutely no question in my mind that the positive economic impact of people using MS products has vastly exceeded the $50-60 billion that Mr. Gates is currently worth. The majority of us have used MS products in our careers at one point or the other, many are still using Excel, Outlook, Access, SQL (personally, I cannot imagine my career without MS products), and programming for a MS environment today.

I disagree.

I would say there is a valid argument that a dominant OS/platform reduces re-training, file conversion, interoperability, etc.

At the same time there is a cost everywhere that MS products are inferior to the competition, or when there are no competitors so MS is not forced to advance their products.

All of the problems with IE alone over the last 15 years probably offsets half of that money (I know, I know, that just a ridiculous hyperbole point, but seriously ,it's a large sum of money).

[Fiddle Peghead]

Originally Posted by Untoward_Parable

Do you even comprehend how much 61 billion is?

It's been estimated that it would take $30 billion a year to end world hunger. In that context, $61 billion is very much at all.