arsenicazure said:
alephnull said:
arsenicazure said:
justinian said:
There is nothing wrong with the OP. MS fanboys get their hackles up the minute anything negative is said about MS. Blind love.
MS deserves to be where there are. There won't be there forever as all Empires eventually fall and sooner than most think. MS could be on skidrow faster than you may believe.
In the meantime they carry on as any company in that position would. Power corrupts.
As for charities I believe they can do more. A man with $1,000 to his name that gives $500 to charity is in my books a bigger man than one who gives $2billion out of $20billion. |
You do realise that bill gates does more for charity that all those rich middle eastern sheikhs, presidents, governments and organisations right? Being worth 50 billion doesnt mean u have 50 billion cash in hand a lot of that money is stocks in hand/assets etc.. not LIQUIDITY.
I really cant question his philantrophic side, no matter how much i despise his business arrogance. How much does steve jobs give to charity every year?
|
Governments account for the vast majority financially of the things people would probably classify as charity. Those sheikhs provide the funding to build a lot of mosques and the citizens of many of those countries (not to be confused with the people who work there) are provided with nice fat stipends just for being born (and if it makes them less critical of the regimes so be it).
Much like the guilded age robber barons, Gate's and Buffet's charities are politically necessary. Their public images affect their financial risk, influence, and power significantly. As astute political players, both with carefully crafted images, I'm sure they are not oblivious of this fact.
|
|
I would like to emphasize again that my critique of charity organizations is independent of Bill Gates and that to my knowledge he does more than most. Also, I'd like to point out that I do not view Gates and MS as interchangeable. Bill Gates the man, seems to me to have moved into another phase of his life. And the likely truth is that if someone like Steve Jobs was the richest man in the world, he would probably not be engaging in such acts. Though this is more a consequence of Jobs's arrogance and lack of thoughtfulness.
However, not to belabor the point, but Microsoft's risks from here on are mostly on the down side, and he was smart to declare victory and leave on a high note. Now he is playing the grander power game of international/national influence and any reader of the economist (which he is) new as far back as the early 00's that the global economic imbalances building up had the potential to destabilize the international system when they eventually became unwound. In such an environment, the richest man (or the second richest and "world's greatest investor") in the world cannot risk being seen as the poster child for excess in the midst of a depression. At least not if that man wishes to retain that wealth. And as the political pendulum swings the other way an image of altruism if he has any ambitions wielding political influence.
That he does take his charity work seriously should be of no surprise. If Gates did not take his charity work at least semi-seriously, and was not seen to be taking it seriously, the whole thing would have the potential blow up in his face. What percentage of the population do you think actually take the staged charity photo-ops many celebrities engage in positively?
Now please don't mistake this as me suggesting a vast, elaborate conspiracy on his part or that he purely motivated by power games. No doubt he thought (lately I've read that he has expressed disappointment with the effectiveness of his schemes) he could solve many serious problems engaging in good acts while leaving a much more positive legacy behind. Many people don't seem to realize that people on this level of the global stage tend to be rather concerned with how history will remember them.
However, I have known young, ambitious people from powerful political families -- state level, but possibly national in the future as Crist has positioned himself as the perfect Republican candidate for President to compete in this economic environment -- and they have similar rationalizations for similar deceptions. After all, what if you think you would do a better job helping people if you were running the show? If that's the case, you can't help people if you don't play the game. It's not about acquiring power and influence for yourself, it's about making the world a better place.
ofcourse, the political milege that powerful individuals derive from philantrophy is invaluable. But Bill gates has little to do with subsaharan AIDS or malaria in the tropics. Mosques, temples and churches are inseperable part of society and have their place but they cant replace education, a bowl of rice and a roof over your head.
Now, if you are in a position wealth in a highly religious society (most of which probably view AIDS as the wrath of GOD), building Mosques and donating to various moslem charities would probably be more effective in gaining popular goodwill in that society. Not to mention pulling large amounts of petro-dollars out of US markets, would likely be rather dangerous for them (assuming you are talking about Sovereign Wealth Funds). Please don't think that I prefer allocating resources to church building over mosquito nets to combat malaria, I just think the primary underlying motivation and goals are similar.
Considering that the middle east has 50% of the world oil reserves(wonder how many xxxtrillion dollars that is) I wonder how much these rich chador princes ACTUALLY donate to the rest of the world, especially developing countries.
More than likely roundoff error relative to their overall assets. The nameless rich in any country without political ambition tend to just fritter their money away partying as they have no need to be seen as magnanimous. In the US it just so happens that they can throw tax deductible parties if it is a charity "fundraiser" (it's not their fault if the funds raised are barely above the costs involved in throwing these fundraisers).
If you are talking about state sponsored aid, I doubt they do very well there either, but then again the US is probably around the same level as a portion of GDP (just a guess though, most comparisons only involve western countries, it's just hard to go much lower) if you don't consider weapons as aid.
Im not an USAan.
