If that happens, I think Steve Job might be considering politics too.
What will be the dynamics of Microsoft in the country then? Can people still sue Microsoft for being a monopoly? Heck, will Bill be elected in the first place, considering how the popularity he has, say, among academics and open-source users?
They tried the “of course a successful CEO can run a nation” approach with Ross Perot back in the 1990’s. Didn’t work. His ideas were superficial and his compromise skills were nil; in terms of actual political talent and dedication, he sucked.
I’m not saying that Gates necessarily lacks the requisite skills for governance at the national level, just that his track record in that department’s a total blank and we don’t even know if he has any knowledge of or interest in government.
CEO experience may be good training for a position as a benevolent dictator, but I’ve seen no evidence that it necessarily confers any useful qualifications for being president of a democracy.
Gates is better off doing what he’s already doing. He’s got the resources to accomplish a lot on his own, and he doesn’t have to justify things to the public or politicians. On a personal level, I’ve got no desire to see him as President.
He has spent a lifetime in courts fighting monopoly charges. He is not clean.
His idea of education is wrong. We do not need more education but less. The high skilled jobs are moving abroad because it is cheaper. The Indians have created Engineering and tech schools too take the work we are shippoing there. Why educate students to not get jobs?
Until we fix our treaties to make wages and working conditions more level abroad the work will go.But think of the great profits we create.
Actually your ideas are completely wrong. Americans will need to be MORE educated, not less as low level manufacturing and call center jobs are outsourced. An educated workforce drives the innovation necessary to create jobs.
As for the OP, Bill Gates is suffering from what is commonly referred to as “Great Man’s Syndrome”. Basically it’s people who have achieved a high degree of success in one area thinking that success will translate to everything they do. Michael Jordan playing anything except for basketball is a prime example.
Running a company does not make you a great national leader. The GDP of the US is around $12 trillion, several orders of magnitude larger than the $286.66 billion market cap of Microsoft.
From what I have heard of Bill Gate’s management style, I don’t think he would probably be very good as a president (though still probably better than what we have.) But I wouldn’t say that because he or Perot aren’t quite what we would be looking for in a government role, means that CEO wouldn’t be a reasonable jump off point into government. It certainly makes more sense than ex-military, actors, and doctors…
Engineering,design.,programmers,xray reading,manufacturing these are the jobs leaving. Entire industrues have left. They get engineers for 10 k .The dropping of wages worldwide will eliminate the good jobs not the cheap ones.Management will get hit too. If we don’t equalize the outsourcing we are screwed.Government work is moving. Any book keeping and record keeping is on its way. Taxes are being done abroad. Whats safe.
To this point, Gates has been a far more successful philanthropist than Jordan was a baseball player or basketball executive. It depends on the results of Gates’ AIDS initiatives and the smoothness of Adam Morrison’s transition to the pros, respectively.
IMO, Gates has the ruthlessness for the job, but I’m not convinced he has the foresight needed. The guy failed to predict the rise of the internet, fer Primus’ sake…
Kimstu said they tried the “of course a successful CEO can run a nation”. Bush certainly doesn’t qualify. Cheney is closer, but still nowhere near the powerhouse CEO level occupied by Perot and Gates.