Bill Gates Was Creative at Microsoft

Mesa, what does Java have to do with it?

"What Gates fails to understand is that his very own innovation was the result of his effort and thoughtfulness"

Maybe Gates do understand this. In fact, I think we can take it as given that he does. Maybe he sees all the Microsoft products and all the money and software that Microsoft is giving away and all the good work that his foundation is doing, and then he still sees 800 million starving people, and then he's saying, what else can I do to help them?

I ask again: what is so odious about that?

"What have Bhuttan and Togo done to make free markets possible there"

I don't know. Are you saying that Butan and Togan subjects deserve to suffer because of their incompetent rulers?

"Why blame western capitalism for their backwardness"

Who's blaming western capitalism?

Microsoft employs 70,000 people worldwide. How is that not compassionate, employing so many people to do creative work? We're not talking about days of drudgery on the factory line, but REAL, CREATIVE work. That's almost the population of a small town. But BillG feels the classic capitalist guilt of one who didn't totally make it from hovel to riches. After all BillG did come from an upper-class household, and did get into Harvard, he did have a few things fall into his lap in the early days. So maybe he lucked out a bit more then pure hard work, and that's why his in Davos spewing this Socialist nonsense.

Gates’ comments are completely unsurprising, given his utter ignorance of economics and free markets, and his recent “philanthropic” (read: tax dodging) efforts with one Warren Buffett, who has exceeded Tom Greene as the most annoying person alive.

Microsoft has indeed exercised some monopoly power in its unique Windows operating platform, but it has lost miserably in many other areas (Java to Sun Microsystems comes to mind) that were not considered by the bogus antitrust lawsuit brought by the Clinton DOJ.

What Gates fails to understand is that his very own innovation was the result of his effort and thoughtfulness, plus knowledge of a crosstown code supplier with nothing better to do. The fact that this more or less fell into his lap is probably the source of what appears to be a sizable manifestation of capitalist guilt, and he in the process fails to take into account all of the people and various spinoff industries he now employs, and all of the well being he has enhanced in doing so, simply by maximizing his own and his company’s profit margins and utility. He has done exactly as these “twin goals” articulate, no need for “creative capitalism,” Billy.

We’ll ignore the overt suckage of Vista for the time being…

What we need more in the world is instead of redistribution of wealth - redistribution of work ethic and personal responsibility. Not that the socialists are listening.

Henri Hein:

What have Bhuttan and Togo done to make free markets possible there? The last I heard if that 100% of African governments are utterly corrupt and don't allow any kind of real private economic activity with all the necessary institutions of law and order required. Why blame western capitalism for their backwardness?

In the end, “kind” when it comes to capitalism is a misnomer. Capitalism is about profits; the profits evidence of how unintentionally kind and virtuous capitalism actually is. That is so because it is profits that tell us who among the capitalist class is doing the most to remove uneasiness from the lives of others. To soften capitalism is to harden the lives of the poor.

This is all true, but one thing that should be mentioned is that for many poor the idea of "socking it to the rich" is so intensely gratifying, even pleasurable. For a while, before the abject misery of their conditions re-asserts itself. The socialist workers of Russia must have had a ball killing their hated capitalists in 1918-1920, but their lives were even worse afterwards.

"Bill Gates is the ultimate hypocrite"

But Gates is not saying that companies should stop competing. There is no hypocrisy.

Though you are lambasting Gates for not fully understanding Capitalism, you guys are doing precious little to fully understand him.

While Capitalism in the West has done wonders for western rich and poor alike, the fact remains that it's done nothing for the poor in Bhutan or Togo.

"[Capitalism] just needs to be spread more widely around the world"

That's like saying, "buying a Ferrari is not that hard, you just need a quarter million dollars." The fact is that Capitalism is not spreading, at least not at sufficient pace to ease the extreme poverty we've seen in the third world for decades now.

Perhaps Gates is interested in exploring what he can personally do in the meantime. I have a hard time understanding what is so odious about that.

No, but Bill Gates demands the rest of us engaging in "philanthropic capitalism" instead of the ruthless cut-throat variety Microsoft practiced and continues to do. How is he allowed to get away with this nonsense?

Bill Gates, living in a (mostly) capitalist country, is free to sell all his Microsoft stock, and use the proceeds to invest in the kinds of businesses he's recommending others create.

BTW, I should note that I don't mind Bill having made his riches w/o sucking at the government teat or using political muscle to oust competitors from the market. He played capitalism in the lean & brutal way it has to be done. I guess he's feeling guilty for being TOO rich and has to spout SOCIALIST nonsense now.

Bill Gates is the ultimate hypocrite. Micro$oft has engaged in monopolist business practices for the last 20 years without remorse. I wonder if he thinks about all the 1000s of small software business he destroyed when he preaches about "compassionate capitalism". Sure, now that he's UBER-rich, he's made HIS, he can tell US what WE have to do.... Shut up Bill and go cure AIDs or something.

"Capitalism has existed in human culture since the dawn of our time."

vidhoys

Good point I do remember them having banks when I watched the Flintstones. So you must be right. Yeah you're white on rice.... course my rice is brown. Dope!~YTS

Capitalism has existed in human culture since the dawn of our time. Capitalism is like breathing, a perfectly natural act of ilving things do, especially humans who have developed it to an art.

If you want to identify "Capitalism" with territoriality, you can do that. Few economic historians use the word this way, but your usage is your choice.

Weingast offers another historical analysis here:

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/08/weingast_on_vio.html

Still bassackward muirduck(SFB),

"The degree of success of Capitalism is dependent on the nature of the government under which it operates and capitalism basically does not exist with out the protections of government.

Posted by: muirgeo | Jan 25, 2008 11:09:05 AM"

Another of your Chihuahua piles.

Capitalism has existed in human culture since the dawn of our time. Capitalism is like breathing, a perfectly natural act of ilving things do, especially humans who have developed it to an art.

In fact taking your bassackward paragraph above one can say with total confidence that, the degree of success of government is dependent upon the existence and vitality of capitalism.

We have seen definitive proof of that in history, most particularly in recent history with the failures of those societies that believed that capitalism was evil and did every thing they could to choke it off. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, N. Korea, N. Vietnam, et. al., what they did was put their own hands around their own necks and choked, captialism continued in the form of a black market all around them and they could not stamp it out. (kind of like us and our drug war, a battle that will never be won) Though vigorous and ubiquitous the black market didn't do a thing for the stupid leaders of socialism/communism because they couldn't tax it and they couldn't stop it.

In order to keep their government the enlightened leaders have done a turn around and are now understanding and promoting capitalism.

Your brick wall is coming and I can feel your pain and mental anguish when you wake up to what a losing faith you promote.

Muirgeo: Co-operation is voluntary. Wealth transfers through government taxes isn't co-operation, it is obedience.

Posted by: Paris Lovett

Are you going to deny that a good part of my taxes are being "stolen" to help the oil industry get its product to the market?

Indeed cooperation IS volunatary...no one makes you stay in this country. The basic rule of this country is that the people get to make the rules. The problem is that corporations often make the rules. The fact that they do is a violation of both our democracy and competitive markets.

Yep. And not a bad way to spend a friday afternoon :)

I love to hear of anyone reading Julian Simon. It so hurt us that Julian died so young.

No worries :)

Very strange, a blog that carries tags between comments (hint to blog host).

Did that work?

Very clever. Thanks.

Comments from you and from Brock along those lines make me wonder whether you come here with genuine concerns and questions, or whether you are merely trolls that we should resist feeding. I often suspect the latter. But I give you the benefit of the doubt.

Aren't We special? I don't come here to preach to your choir. If you want to address some genuine concerns and questions, I leave enough on the record. The unaddressed questions often are most interesting. The ones addressed over and over again are often the least interesting and serve more to keep the choir properly focused.

Did that work?

When I read the posts from muirgeo or Martin Brock I get the feeling that they prefer first grade t-ball to the NFL. The quality of play is terrible, but no one keeps score and when it's all over everyone gets a trophy.

If you don't care what you falsely attribute to others, you may feel however you like, of course. Straw men are always morons, and they always express the opinions of the people constructing them.

The incredible shrinking blog is my fault. I didn't properly terminate a blockquote. Unfortunately, I can't fix it now. It's like closed source software.

I like NFL football. Being a Giants fan, I especially like it right now for obvious reasons. But even going back to the Joe Pisarcik days, I liked the NFL. What does this have to do with Bill Gates' views on capitalism? I look at it this way. The NFL is much like the capitalist marketplace. Good decisions are rewarded; bad ones punished. There can be enormous success - like the 18-0 Patriots and catastrophic failures like the 1-15 Dolphins. It is this competitive system - one that allows equally for success or failure - that produces play at the highest overall levels.

When I read the posts from muirgeo or Martin Brock I get the feeling that they prefer first grade t-ball to the NFL. The quality of play is terrible, but no one keeps score and when it's all over everyone gets a trophy. In the same way, any economic system that attempts to eliminate inequality of results is going to create equality only to the extent that it resuces everyone to the lowest common denominator.

If Bill Gates believes that there are profits to be made serving the poor, he has tens of billions of dollars at his disposal to make that happen. The marketplace will then reward or punish his efforts appropriately - just like the NFL. To suggest the government to step in and "creatively" redirect resources to serving the poor so as to avoid the response of the marketplace is t-ball.

Martin,

"You're only concerned with Bill Gates using all the wealth he produced as he likes."

Actually, Bill is of no concern to me either. My specific practical concern is the belief that the wealthy pay taxes. I don't believe that is possible. I think the wealthy just collect taxes - from guys like me. In other words, I think the system design is intended primarily for the political class to take somewhere between 40 and 50 percent of what I earn through the transactions I participate in. And yes, I'd like to see it reduced. I figure somewhere around 10 percent would be more than enough to pay for what I need from government.

In past generations, the rich achieved their wealth usually through being a member of or manipulating the political power structure or aristocracy. However, the free use of markets enabled those outside the political strucutre to gain wealth also. This process began with the fall of the Roman empire. Most of this wealth was achieved by improving technology or facilitating financial transactions among units of production. However, socialism has co-existed with the market economy in various forms throughout the centuries. Or the game has been rigged by members of the power structure like Andrew Jackson or Thomas Jefferson. It is only recently that the free market concept has gained wide acceptance. A correlary or cushioning effect to lassieze faire has been the idea of christian charity and justice. Poverty was an accepted reality for the pre-20th century man. Only recently has ideas of ending poverty gained a foothold in the popular conscience. The three conditions now widely accepted as necessary for economic progress are freedom, rule of law (or reason), and free markets. Another might be access to education. However, these ideas have not really been active long enough to show how well they work together. The socialists are waging war against the free market supporters. Even with the fall of the Soviet Union and the huge success in China, free markets are under intensive attack by the old order political elites. Clinton, Obama, Edwards, represent the dinosaurs of the socialist empires. The old world will not die easily. Expect much more demagoguery and wild attacks on free markets. Handouts are a powerful opiate that people cannot resist. Many still believe in a free lunch.

Muirgeo: Co-operation is voluntary. Wealth transfers through government taxes isn't co-operation, it is obedience. Voluntary charity is one of many forms of co-operation. How enobled do you feel when you pay taxes? How close do they bring people together? Every day I see evidence of how taxes and spending pull people apart and make them squabble, over who should pay, and who should get. It is government and taxes that atomize society. Consider how much more harmony results when people come together and get personally involved in a charity, or come together to share risk voluntarily via mutual societies or insurance.

Don't confuse the argument by saying that Bill Gates is a capitalist therefore we are being inconsistent when we criticize him. I applaud Gates when he suggests new ideas for people to consider, whether I agree with those ideas or not. But when he suggests government must tax and change incentives and build programs he is certainly not speaking in favor of capitalism. Just because he prospered in a relatively free area of our economy does not make him an authoritative voice on capitalism.

Comments from you and from Brock along those lines make me wonder whether you come here with genuine concerns and questions, or whether you are merely trolls that we should resist feeding. I often suspect the latter. But I give you the benefit of the doubt.

You're the one who wants to use the word "entitlement". An entitlement has to be granted.

Titles to property are entitlements. They're the original entitlements.

The rich receive their entitlement from the people they transact with.

The very rich are entitled to the marginal value of resources they're entitled to govern. We want them to trade these titles to maximize their value. That's all well and good.

Nobody transacts with those who have nothing to offer. Therefore, the rich are entitled by their having something to offer - that is, what they produce.

If you want simply to identify "propriety" with "production", tautologically, you can do that. That's your politics. I distinguish the two.

Saddam was a political actor. One of the elite. Yes, he transacted with those entitled by being productive to gain some of his wealth, he also stole much from his enemies.

Right. So now you can define "steal" for us too, but you must first define "property".

Not my concern.

Right. You're only concerned with Bill Gates using all the wealth he produced as he likes.

Those who develop something to trade, something for which they will receive a measure of entitlement through a transaction or transactions, are doing just fine. Those who don't... not so much. I figure the purpose of the poor is to show others how not to do it.

Right. People born without arms teach me not to be born without arms. People born in Iraq under the Baathists teach me to avoid this birth too. People born unable to read teach me to be born able to read ... no ... wait ... I was born unable to read.

None. And if he had waited for a political entitlement it never would have gotten built.

Like all those public housing apartments downtown, which are much nicer than the cabin, never got built, not to mention all the housing built on VA loans and housing built on credit extended ultimately by the central bank. How do you expect anyone to take these statements seriously?

If he had the power, which he doesn't thank goodness, Gates would be to capitalism what Bush is to conservatism. It's detractor and destroyer.

But he does have power. He has upwards of a hundred billion dollars. That's a lot of entitlement to move resources around. I have no idea why nominal "libertarians" (or "conservatives" or whatever you people call yourselves these days) can't get used to the idea that someone with a hundred billion dollars might want to invest it without strictly accounting for the yield or forcibly channeling the yield back toward his central authority.

Martin,

"If you want to define words so that this statement reads true, you can do that."

You're the one who wants to use the word "entitlement". An entitlement has to be granted. The rich receive their entitlement from the people they transact with. Nobody transacts with those who have nothing to offer. Therefore, the rich are entitled by their having something to offer - that is, what they produce.

"...Saddam Hussein was a wondrously productive transactor..."

Saddam was a political actor. One of the elite. Yes, he transacted with those entitled by being productive to gain some of his wealth, he also stole much from his enemies.

"The questions remain. Why? What if anything can be done about it?"

Not my concern. Those who develop something to trade, something for which they will receive a measure of entitlement through a transaction or transactions, are doing just fine. Those who don't... not so much. I figure the purpose of the poor is to show others how not to do it.

"...what political entitlement built the cabin?"

None. And if he had waited for a political entitlement it never would have gotten built.

...and they are entitled to riches because they produce so much.

If you want to define words so that this statement reads true, you can do that.

The entitlement is granted by those who transact with them.

I necessarily conclude that Saddam Hussein was a wondrously productive transactor, since he had all of those palaces and the million bucks in cash the armed men found on him before they forcibly seized it from him.

No. You mean that other rich people produce their riches. You just aren't very specific about it. You mean that the rich people who really produce their riches are rich people who produce their riches. Let's just leave it at that. We don't want to offend anyone, especially if they're rich.

The poor have no such entitlement because they transact only rarely if at all.

Right. That's what I said. The questions remain. Why? What if anything can be done about it?

They are therefore dependant on political entitlement, which is a risky proposition at best, as it requires first giving up one's rights to an elite in hopes of profiting from the relationship.

That's just a lot of nonsense. My great, great, great, great grandfather was a subsistence farmer who served in the American Revolution. I've seen the site of his tiny cabin, which my ancestors preserved through my father's generation. He was literally dirt poor. Precisely, what political entitlement built the cabin?

I've also seen Monticello. Your ideas seem very strange to me.

The elite, of course, focus their attention on the opportunities for profit among those who have been entitled through their ability to produce.

Well, if you want to say that anyone holding a Treasury note "produces" the note's yield, you can do that. I don't use the word "produce" this way myself, but I can't stop you.

So they pay lip service to the dependants, but transact primarily with those who can help them turn their position into profit.

So you pay lip service to the unprofitable. Am I supposed to find this declaration instructive? Do you think it's a revelation to me?

It would interesting to take George Bush's "compassionate conservatism" and substitute them for the words "creative capitalism" in Boudreaux's letter to the WSJ. As in the original, it would be spot on.

If he had the power, which he doesn't thank goodness, Gates would be to capitalism what Bush is to conservatism. It's detractor and destroyer.

"...to experiment, cooperate, and compete. No philanthropist, no government body or commission, no Great Leader - no matter how "creative" or "kind" - has done one-trillionth as much to give dignity and comfort to ordinary people as has capitalism."

The "cooperate " part of the equation is where government is included. To divorce capitalism from the government under which it operates is impossible in the real world. The degree of success of Capitalism is dependent on the nature of the government under which it operates and capitalism basically does not exist with out the protections of government.

No reasonable person doubts the success of capitalism but lots of reasonable people disagree on the rules under which capitalism operates best. Capitalism in our country indeed required the "great leaders" of its founding to pave the way for its supreme success here. Had we continued under the rule of kings back then or if we allow the return of kings now capitalism will suffer and be far less effective then it could be.

That's what we are seeing now with poorly regulated capitalism as opposed to what I believe Mr Gates is referring to. The most glaring example in todays world is capitalism's failure to advance us and in fact its complicity in preventing the market from developing alternative energy sources.

"Capitalism" has cost the citizens trillions of dollars with its grotesque hybridization with the peoples government using it as an instrument to protect and get its product to the market. Failure to recognize this fact or willingness to ignore it is an explicit disregard for the very principles of capitalism.

... if these people would have a really hard time (if at all) under the totally free market then a Socialist or Welfare country which gave them some sort of regular payment then they'd would be better off than in a Capitalist country.

Bill Gates is a capitalist in a nominally "Capitalist" country. The incredible hypocrisy of nominal "libertarians" never ceases to amaze me. They tell me all the time that "private charity" is so much more useful than state welfare benefits, but when Bill Gates becomes a philanthropist, he suddenly isn't one of Us anymore. It's no wonder that most libertarians can't get elected dog catcher.

... the rich when indulging in fancy mansions and yachts are creating jobs whereas charity and philanthropy create (voluntarily-given) welfare-dependency?

Philanthropy is not simply a welfare check. If the recipient is totally disabled, it might be, but philanthropy more generally is an investment that the investor rationally expects to be unprofitable. It might be unprofitable only to the investor, because he can't expect to track the fruits well enough to recover a positive yield. The yield might ultimately exceed the investment but not so as to return the yield to the investor. A return on investment is a matter of accounting and channeling fruits, usually by force, back toward the investor.

Nature doesn't operate this way at all. A plant dropping a seed never expects to see the fruit and certainly doesn't demand that the fruit ultimately fertilize the ground immediately beneath. If a wind catches the seed and blows it far away, to grow in other fertile soil, so much the better. Why expect all useful investment to operate according to rules that armed men construct to channel fruits toward them? The expectation is ludicrous.

Like Boudreaux and company understand Capitalism sooo much better than Bill Gates. We apparently learn all about Capitalism from our Capitalist instructors in Capitalism school.

What is 'pre-Capitalism'? I could argue there are three possible states: 'Fascism' - strongman types who lord over others with force for their personal gain, 'Socialism' - where reward and effort don't go hand-in-hand and the perceived problem of inequality (for better or for worse) and, of course, 'Capitalism' - where reward and effort go hand-in-hand, even if a society has little wealth, if people are getting their personal payoffs from their hard work, even if it is still meagre, then it is still Capitalism. But then that could be just me.

The progression in the article is fascinating. It begins with Gates commenting that he merely aims to encourage and goad and help spark (profitable) ventures. No force involved:

Companies should create businesses that focus on building products and services for the poor. "Such a system would have a twin mission: making profits and also improving lives for those who don't fully benefit from market forces," he said.

The first note of force isn't attributed. Is it a quote from Gates, or the journalist's sloppy paraphrasing?

With Thursday's speech, Mr. Gates adds his high-profile name to the ranks of those who argue that unfettered capitalism can't solve broad social problems

I guess this implies that "fetters" are required?

OK, wait, Gates doesn't want to employ government muscle, he just wants to encourage businesses to look harder for profitable opportunities that also help the poor:

Key to Mr. Gates's plan will be for businesses to dedicate their top people to poor issues -- an approach he feels is more powerful than traditional corporate donations and volunteer work.

No, no, wait. Next sentence:

Governments should set policies and disburse funds to create financial incentives for businesses to improve the lives of the poor, he said Thursday.

Read far enough and you will always find the same old tune. Central control. Transfer payments. We've seen the results.

In the interview, Mr. Gates was emphatic that he isn't calling for a fundamental change in how capitalism works . . . "We don't need some dramatic big new tax or requirement," Mr. Gates said in the interview. "What we need is the recognition of the creativity here that some of the leaders are exercising."

Well, which is it? Are you against some dramatic new tax or requirement? Are you just about encouraging business leaders to explore new avenues that they has somehow overlooked, avenues that will yield profits for them, and wealth and wellbeing for the poor.

Or are you for fetters, for policies that disburse funds and creating incentives?

Capitalism is not a thing, a prescription, a mechanism, etc. It is Marx's label for an environment of freedom whereby individuals are able to pursue their own interests via production and trade. Pre-capitalism, there was little wealth available, except by the whimsy of nobility, to seek and discover the means for improving the lot of humanity and disseminate the benefits widely.

You want to distribute a cure for malaria to the poor?

You have the freedom to accomplish just that in the market of human interaction.

You can't rightfully blame 'capitalism' for not doing so. That is a job for concerned individuals.

Only collectivist thinking would relegate such a task to undefined 'others'.

Martin,

"The richest are not therefore rich because they produce so much. The richest are rich because they are entitled to riches..."

I like that. Let me carry it a few more steps.

...and they are entitled to riches because they produce so much. The entitlement is granted by those who transact with them. The poor have no such entitlement because they transact only rarely if at all. They are therefore dependant on political entitlement, which is a risky proposition at best, as it requires first giving up one's rights to an elite in hopes of profiting from the relationship. The elite, of course, focus their attention on the opportunities for profit among those who have been entitled through their ability to produce. So they pay lip service to the dependants, but transact primarily with those who can help them turn their position into profit.

From Microsoft: Please refer to Mr. Gates as Comrade Gates or Chairman Gates from now on.

For a more gradual review of capitalism's development, see Victory of Reason by Rodney Statrk.

The leading figures of every corporation I've ever worked for, are card carrying members of the political class - class A shareholders in the corporation. They spend huge amounts to dot all the politically correct i's and cross all the politically correct t's. They don't complain about it. Why would they? The byzantian maze of regulation, oversight, and tax laws, protects them from competition.

I'd say you missed M. Brock's point wintercow20. His argument reminds of what I read in a book which went alongs the lines of defining an 'agricultural surplus' - "the world's hunger problem hadn't been solved rather the farmer grew more food than his would-be customers are going to absorb".

His point (presuming I got it right) is that the free market has no time for those who especially unproductive. Or (surprise, surprise) if these people would have a really hard time (if at all) under the totally free market then a Socialist or Welfare country which gave them some sort of regular payment then they'd would be better off than in a Capitalist country. Strictly speaking the free market is only able to raise those out of poverty the ones who find them able to do something proactive and productive. Strictly speaking if you bring nothing to the table in a free market society whether it be low-tech or hi-tech you're equally done for either way.

P.S. Did I mention there are the occasional articles where the author argues against charity and philanthropy such that the rich when indulging in fancy mansions and yachts are creating jobs whereas charity and philanthropy create (voluntarily-given) welfare-dependency?

Funny how Mr. Gates "hated" Bill Easterly's book. The danger in a presentation like this is that it mixes up lots of nuggets of truth and inspiration with a misunderstanding of how markets work. Sure, "capitalism" (as if it is a living, breathing entity) seems to serve the wants of the rich, but such a comment overlooks two major facts. First, almost all of the major advances that have been brought by capitalism (as Don indicates above) have benefitted the poor. To see this, take the classic example of what a poor 18th century citizen would be impressed with about today's society. He is less likely to be amazed by a Wii or an iPod and more likely to be astounded by plumbing, heating, medicine and the like - all things enjoyed by the poorest in America today. The second point that is entirely overlooked is that the natural state of the world is poverty. In the article it is stated that, "unfettered capitalism can't solve broad social problems." Well, can socialism do it? Can philanthropy do it? Uh, no. Just as Don indicates. Just how do we think we can most improve people's command over resources going forward? By making corporations more thoughtful? Or by helping the world's poor and their governments unleash the power of innovation and entrepreneurialism themselves, and allow them to integrate into this dynamic, prosperous, global economy?

It's tiring to read "capitalism" as a pejorative term. Bill Gates can do whatever he pleases with his billions - he's earned it. But as for "going to cellphone companies, banks and more pharma companies" and telling them how to be kinder, gentler, capitalists ... well, why doesn't he start more companies of his own that do the sort of things he envisions?

Where is Capitalism? I'd like to pat Him on the back for all the great work He's doing.

"No CEO, no government body ..." Why not these words?

From the article:

Greater focus on recognition for improving the lives of others could provide a spur for companies to focus more on making money out of providing valuable products at affordable prices to the world's poor.

Obviously, making products cheaply enough that "the poor" may consume them is a ludicrous prescription. The poorest often are poor because they do not, often cannot, produce anything themselves that they can exchange. Obviously, the best thing we can do for many poor people is organize them more productively, but this approach is not universally applicable. Some people cannot be productive without an unprofitable expenditure on their behalf, and others can never be productive. Capitalism is no panacea. It doesn't cure every ill.

The richest are not therefore rich because they produce so much. The richest are rich because they are entitled to riches, as Presidents and Congressmen are entitled to direct trillions worth of resources that they don't produce themselves. CEOs and other titular lords are similar. Why object only when they become philanthropic, while ignoring or even celebrating their castle building? Am I supposed to believe that the castle building is somehow "more productive" than unprofitably distributing malaria treatments or building schools or even handing out dubiously useful laptop computers? I don't believe it in fact.

That second to last sentence - "No philanthropist, no government body ...." - is just brilliant! I'm going to write it on the white board in my office right away.

Great work, as usual! ;-)

I commented on the story yesterday too.

http://tinyurl.com/2vyzeh
</p>