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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
[QUOTE=Untoward_Parable]
Bill gates did not invent computers or even the type of software that made his company powerful.
[/QUOTE]
Nope, he didn’t. Jobs and the Woz didn’t invent computers either. So what?
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.
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.
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.
The question is ambiguous for several reasons. But I do want to correct one common misconception:
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.
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…)
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?
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.
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.
“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
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.
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.
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.
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).
If only you’d been given a company and stuff, you’d be just where Gates is today, amiright? Gods, what a load.