By building his new house, Bill Gates has employed thousands of builders, architects, engineers, landscapers, artists, masons, plumbers, electricians, and so on who would otherwise not have a job. He has purchased steel and wood and concrete and dirt and flowers and all sorts of other raw materials from hundreds of corporations who otherwise would not have him as a customer. And through doing all of this, he has prevented those people from starving. Every time you buy a product or a service you are helping someone keep their job, and by extension you are creating wealth. Rich people do this on a far grander scale, and create far more wealth.
Bill Gates did not give “a few million” to charity. He gave 24 billion, and for all you know, he may give a few billion more any day now.
Paying another person’s (or nation’s) debt does not create wealth. It will not magically cause food to appear on every Chinese person’s table. People are starving in China for a variety of complex economical reasons, many having to do with their corrupt and barbaric government. If you want to create wealth in China, you’ll have to convince them to move faster towards freer markets so that capitalists can invest and turn China’s raw materials into valuable products. You’ll have to teach them how to manage a proper modern economy with corporations and banks and money supplies.
So employing tens of thousands of people through his companies and giving them a steady paycheck and some of the best benefits in the whole country is not selfless? I think a MSFT employee or someone who helped build his new house would disagree with you.
no, you did not answer my question. You agreed with my statement (that some Mexicans are very impoverished), but that’s about it.
My question(s) ONCE again, as you seem to have comprehension problems:
Simply not going to Mexico isn’t good enough, per your assesment of Gates.
I want to know specifically how much of your disposable income you are giving to impoverished people.
And yes, I realize that there are poorer people in China. In fact, I also realize that some people in Africa have it way worse. So, your point is…?
The reason I specifically used Mexico is because I am very familiar with their culture (being a part of it myself). May I aslo point out that I take issue with your statement “people work for nothing because they know no better”.
I am sorry that I have to completely disagree. They do know better but given the market, have little choice.
Also, while I realize that you are speaking in a ‘general you’, I do not appreciate the following implication:
“…these people get taken advantage of on a daily basis because people like me and you want to “GO TO MEXICO!” or want to buy a fake Rolex”.
One last thing, please recognize the use of a single period. Thanks!
"she could easily get lost forever down there if you know what I mean… Mexican men at every stop asking to be your “tour guide” or if you need something to “smoke”.
Obviously, I do not know what you mean.
What exactly are you trying to say of Mexican men?
Hmm, I don’t think he has a alot of money per se, he does have a lot of stock however, something around 1B shares. That’s just money on paper. I don’t know how much he has in the bank or even how much his salary is, which I think I read once is around $400,000 per year???
Maybe they should limit how much stock people can have? Naw.
Easy to say when you can simply blink stuff into existance by snapping your giant fingers.
Are you sure? Because a lot of what you’re saying doesn’t make economic sense. You haven’t given any credible reasons Gates shouls use his money to wipe out other people’s debt other than he happens to have more money. He could pay for the entire bannana production of whereever. Does that mean he should?
I can’ t believe you work in a real job market and ask the question.
1st - He makes the money. By that, I mean the money didn’t exist before he created it. He has litterally grown the economy through his efforts. Also, the economy of a free market is not finite. You can make as much as you want without taking away from someone else.
2nd - China is a communist country. Because of their Marxist wealth redistribution system, they don’t have anyone useful to tax from. Nobody wants to work twice as hard for a few more pennies. And who in China is starving? Everything sold in Walmart comes from China. N. Korea maybe.
3rd - Bill Gates will feed more people worldwide than any government venture from the United States. He takes his charities seriously. He applies business practices to problems and demands results from his money. Watch the interview with Bill Moyers. His views on world hunger are quite astute.
4th - his ability to earn money has created more REAL jobs than any other corporation.
5th - he is not leaving the bulk of his wealth to his offspring.
6th - his taxes pay your way in life. If you had to pay your share you would be living in a tent.
If you want to make more money, then do it.
I heard two economists arguing this point a few years ago. One guy quoted the old saying that “you can’t help the poor by becoming one of them” and went on to point out that if you confiscated all of Gates money it would be enough for an impoverished African country(can’t recall which) to live like Americans for one month. To keep Gates wealth in perspective with regard to national finances President Bush has approved the US going 7.2 trillion dollars in debt. Gates’ dough is just chicken feed.
I don’t mind that Bill Gates is richer than Creole.
I do mind that he apparently built his fortune using illegal, immoral, devious, and anti-competitive means.
And I reallydo mind that John Ashcroft’s Justice Department took their predecessor’s slam-dunk case against Microsoft and flushed it down the crapper. I guess being rich as Creole means you can buy any government office you want…
Main Entry: Croe·sus
Pronunciation: 'krE-s&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Croesus, king of Lydia, famed for his wealth
Date: 1650
: a very rich man
Although I willingly agree with you about Microsoft, I’m not aware of any vast accumulations of wealth in the bayou.
In reply to the request for a cite on my previous post. Some simple facts.
The first IBM computer came with a multi-volume instruction manual and required line commands to operate.
The first Mac (not Apple’s first computer, I know) had one slim volume as its manual and could be operated without reading it.
Even Bill Gates has gotten The Blue Screen of Death[sup]™[/sup] from his crappy software. Older versions of M/S office were pure garbage. Some patches to his products contained between 50-75% code overhead. By not rewriting the application and instead, merely patching it, it caused computers to run more slowly and less reliably. This has robbed people of CPU time, electrical power and personal productivity. Through monopolistic practices, M/S nearly guaranteed that copies of their software must be owned by everyone. Please note that M/S software did not become at all usable until they mimiced the Mac GUI almost completely.
Intel clung to an extremely outdated chip architecture long after it had exhausted its usefulness. Some of this outdated configuration has persisted even into the Pentium era. Had Intel done its homework, CPUs could have been running faster and more power effeciently long ago.
All three of these elements combined to hog tie computing by shackling it to less than optimum software and hardware designs. A principal motivation was stagnant innovation and reluctance to abandon outmoded system structures. I’m sure others will dispute this. I’ve lived in Silicon Valley for decades and even worked for Intel at one point. Around these parts, this stuff is pretty common knowledge.
All that and a bag of chips. However, MS has been a unifying force in common architecture. Not sure if I’m saying it right but it is a godsend that everything works with everything. I can still remember choosing stand alone software based on the printer it supported. Actually, I remember the original IBM display writer that used those huge floppy disks. The whole thing connected to a 300 baud modem that used a phone in a cradle.
