TTI Forums

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:28 pm**

Ayn Rand Institute Press Release

Memo to Gates: The Cause of Third-World Poverty Is Not Capitalism, But a Lack of Capitalism
January 28, 2008

Irvine, CA--Bill Gates made waves at the World Economic Forum by calling on Western nations to adopt a new, “creative capitalism.” He complained that under “pure capitalism . . . . the great advances in the world have often aggravated the inequities in the world. The least needy see the most improvement, and the most needy see the least . . .” Gates called for corporations and governments to devote far more time and money “doing work that eases the world's inequities.”

“Gates’s entire speech essentially blames Western capitalism for the Third World’s poverty,” said Alex Epstein, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute, “and offers a slightly more sophisticated form of foreign welfare handouts as the antidote. But the West did not become wealthy at the Third World’s expense--we did not seize computers, houses, pharmaceuticals, and railroads from the Sahara. We created our wealth under capitalism, the system that liberates individuals to produce and trade without interference. And Third World countries could do the same if they adopted that system.

“The last 200 years have shown that wherever capitalism is adopted--from Singapore to the United States to Hong Kong to Australia--it enables its citizens to create wealth and prosper. Yet not one word of Gates’s speech calls for poor countries to change their anti-capitalist governments.

“No matter how many billions Bill Gates gives to poor nations, until he starts advocating universal capitalism instead of attacking it, he is acting as an enemy of prosperity in the undeveloped world.”

### ### ###

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Op-eds, press releases and letters to the editor produced by the Ayn Rand Institute are submitted to hundreds of newspapers, radio stations and Web sites across the United States and abroad, and are made possible thanks to voluntary contributions.

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:35 pm**

There is a man, that started out real good, but went down the pooper.

At one point, he actually played a large part in getting the courts to uphold software copyrights and intelectual property.

But those days of thoughts going from the brain to the mouth have turned into thoughts going from stomach to butt.

What a dissappointment.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:13 am**

Wow, that really is quite appalling.

Despite the many studies showing that lack of respect for private property is the biggest cause of poverty, not to mention the experiences of aid workers whose efforts were continually frustrated by violent and corrupt governments, he still seems to believe that more aid is going to fix things.

How the heck is there "pure capitalism" in the developing world, anyway? Almost all poor countries lack the fundamental structures of capitalism.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:36 am**

No doubt about it. He has become a huge appeaser.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:48 pm**

This is not a new perspective for Bill Gates (he lives in Seattle for GOD's sake). He’s made similar decisions in the awarding of grants from his foundation. At face value his comments are disagreeable. But is there a silver lining to this dark cloud? What if 100 million people were brought to a higher and better standard of living (as a result of these words or Gates’ charity)? Would it be too much to expect that a few of these people (for their own personal rewards of course) would produce ideas that dramatically improve the standard of living for the rest of the world?

Ginuad Amarasen wrote:How the heck is there "pure capitalism" in the developing world, anyway? Almost all poor countries lack the fundamental structures of capitalism.

I’ve seen more Capitalism in the parts of the developing world I’ve visited than in my own home town. It seems to me the developing world has a host of other problems some of these things being oppressive and restrictive government; a lack of a broad education system; oppressive religion; limited infrastructure.

And these other issues are present as concomitant factors along with pure capitalism in these societies. I do not believe Gates is blaming Capitalism for the iniquities of the developing world; this is just another attempt at social engineering.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:34 pm**

musashi wrote:What if 100 million people were brought to a higher and better standard of living (as a result of these words or Gates’ charity)?

Charity is a temporary "fix" for a philosophical problem.

Ginuad Amarasen wrote:How the heck is there "pure capitalism" in the developing world, anyway? Almost all poor countries lack the fundamental structures of capitalism.

And this is the philosophic problem

I’ve seen more Capitalism in the parts of the developing world I’ve visited than in my own home town.

Like what?

It seems to me the developing world has a host of other problems some of these things being oppressive and restrictive government;

When this reaches a certain degree, it actually stops all freedom and prevents capitalism completely

a lack of a broad education system;

This didn't stop America from becoming very knowledgable about freedom. It was considered an honor to have books about aristolian philosophy. Just look at the success of Ben Franklin's library.

oppressive religion; limited infrastructure.

More philosophical preventive problems that makes charity only a temporary "fix"... definately not a solution.

And these other issues are present as concomitant factors along with pure capitalism in these societies. I do not believe Gates is blaming Capitalism for the iniquities of the developing world; this is just another attempt at social engineering.

What he saying is a huge contradiction because he has improved so many lives through following parts of pure capitalism, for profit. Nows he is avocating the statist quo (yes, pun) and talking about how temporary "fixes" are solutions to a problem.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:47 pm**

Also, if a country has no copyright laws, that is often enough to not have any innovation. If they have a great idea, they move to America.

This can be seen as two extreme examples:

In America, when space was running out in cities and such, people innovated and built up (ie, bigger buildings).

In Russia, people just stuffed more people into smaller places.

If government doesn't give the ability to profit from ideas, then kiss improvement goodbye; and therefore, any charity really just becomes a temporary "fix" and probably hurts more than helps anyways.

Bill Gates ideas now are much worse than they used to be.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:04 pm**

Tolthar Lockbar wrote:... any charity really just becomes a temporary "fix" and probably hurts more than helps anyways.

It's not probably, it's a matter of fact now.

All the charity going to Africa, for example, has created a whole new system of corruption that feeds on this money. And MOST money goes into this corruption, very little bit of it helps anybody there. So, charity is putting Africa into bigger and bigger hole.

So much for a flawed principle of charity = good.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:20 pm**

Hi all,

Surfing by to see how things are going - read this article and was hit by major cognitize dissonance..

Tolthar Lockbar wrote:
... any charity really just becomes a temporary "fix" and probably hurts more than helps anyways.
Oleksandr wrote:
It's not probably, it's a matter of fact now.

All the charity going to Africa, for example, has created a whole new system of corruption that feeds on this money. And MOST money goes into this corruption, very little bit of it helps anybody there. So, charity is putting Africa into bigger and bigger hole.

So much for a flawed principle of charity = good.

The Ayn Rand Institute is a non-profit organization that gets the entirety of its funding from charitable donations. It then produces this article, which you all seem to fully support, that attacks the charitable actions of Bill Gates - arguably one of the most successful capitalists of this century.

So I guess A does not equal A here afterall....

You support the non-profit based on its ideology, and ignore its hypocritical reality. You despise the true capitalist because he doesn't cling to your philosophical dogma.

AT

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:33 pm**

I would like you, AT, to show exactly where I said charity is bad regardless of the context.

In fact, I said that charity to Africa is bad because it feeds corruption even more than it exists already. In fact, some African representive have said so themselves.

In fact, if you read Ayn Rand's words, you will find:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charity.html

My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

In fact, despite Bill Gates being the best most productive in the century (that's possible I suppose) it doesn't negate his immoral views that he developed in the last decade or so. His complete misunderstanding of Capitalism is appauling for somebody who could be called 'best Capitalist of the year.'

So don't throw away insults at Ayn Rand Institute that you can't back up.

------

A is A in the same context.

You took my statements out of context at best. I didn't say charity is bad. I said charity to Africe is bad. And charity based on reasons of Bill Gates is immoral and impractical as well.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:57 pm**

I would like you, AT, to show exactly where I said charity is bad regardless of the context.

Your exact quote was:

So much for a flawed principle of charity = good.

If I mistook your statement as a universal instead of a 'specific to Africa' conditional, when you did not mean it as such, then you are correct. It did not look to me that you were maintaining the specificity of the statement because you chose to separate this specific line from the rest.

So don't throw away insults at Ayn Rand Institute that you can't back up.

Which insults are you referring to? My statement only included the following verifiable facts:

The Ayn Rand Institute is a non-profit organization that gets the entirety of its funding from charitable donations

This is easily verifiable by looking directly at their website.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer? ... contribute

Bill Gates - arguably one of the most successful capitalists of this century.

The above is a subjective opinion (thus the word 'arguably'), but one you seem to accept as potentially valid, based on your own reply.

In fact, despite Bill Gates being the best most productive in the century (that's possible I suppose)

My last statement, that

A does not equal A here afterall

was purely my extrapolation of your statement that the principle of charity = good is flawed (and therefore false).

It's not an insult, its a logical syllogism....

Charity is bad
The Ayn Rand Institute is a charity

Therefore, the Ayn Rand Institute is bad.

As you pointed out, the argument can be deconstructed using a series of conditionals:

1) Charity is only bad when Africa is the subject.
2) Ayn Rand didn't consider _all_ charity bad.

etc.

But, frankly, I think the situation is an excellent demonstration of the logical incoherence of dogmatic statements as opposed to the reality of action. In essence, the Ayn Rand Institute is attacking Bill Gates for his charitable actions, when the reality is that the Ayn Rand Institute would not exist to make such statements were it not for the same charitable impulse.

If the morality of a specific action is entirely tied to conditional statements (charity for ARI vs. Africa), then what differentiates so called 'Objective' morality from Subjective morality, which states that everything is purely a matter of perspective?

AT

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:11 pm**

You all can argue who said what when, but about your last statement argument:

But, frankly, I think the situation is an excellent demonstration of the logical incoherence of dogmatic statements as opposed to the reality of action. In essence, the Ayn Rand Institute is attacking Bill Gates for his charitable actions, when the reality is that the Ayn Rand Institute would not exist to make such statements were it not for the same charitable impulse.

If the morality of a specific action is entirely tied to conditional statements (charity for ARI vs. Africa), then what differentiates so called 'Objective' morality from Subjective morality, which states that everything is purely a matter of perspective?

Did you read my statement above? The one Oleks was using as his context?

I said that giving charity to people where its a philosophic problem, not a money problem, is bad. That is what Bill Gates is avocating:

an approach he calls "creative capitalism"—that will bring the benefits of science and technology to everyone

This is the stuff Gates is coming up with. My emphysis.

Its like a broken harddrive. If it can't work, giving it more power won't suddenly make it jump up and make it work right.

Also, conditional statements does not mean something is subjectively moral. As long as the statements of morality are conditional based on objective morality, then it is still an objective statement on morality.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:48 pm**

Here is some more crap from his speech:

There are billions of people who need the great inventions of the computer age, and many more basic needs as well. But they have no way of expressing their needs in ways that matter to markets. So they go without.

The great advances in the world have often aggravated the inequities in the world. The least needy see the most improvement, and the most needy see the least—in particular the billion people who live on less than a dollar a day.

This next one might really stir up the heat!

Not only do these people miss the benefits of the global economy – they will suffer from the negative effects of economic growth they missed out on. Climate change will have the biggest effect on people who have done the least to cause it.

As I see it, there are two great forces of human nature: self-interest, and caring for others. Capitalism harnesses self-interest in helpful and sustainable ways, but only on behalf of those who can pay.

awwwwww

Under a law signed by President Bush last year, any drug company that develops a new treatment for a neglected disease like malaria or TB can get priority review from the Food and Drug Administration for another product they've made. If you develop a new drug for malaria, your profitable cholesterol-lowering drug could go on the market a year earlier. This priority review could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Holy smokes, this is like right out of Soviet Russia.

Creative capitalism is basically capitalism with subjective self-interest instead of objective self-interest. In creative capitalism, a producer should aim to make wealth _and_ reputation through charity. Basically, its saying that producers should give money to charities to get more publically noticed... like charity is some virtue..

I can see it now... all the producers of the world will be yelling at each other: "But I gave this much to this!", "so what, I gave this much to this cause!". Then whoever gives the most, pretends to care the most, is the one on top... I wonder how many people will make decisions based on that crap.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:26 pm**

You all can argue who said what when

No, no you cannot. Who said what when is clearly established. What they meant by their statements at the time (what unspoken conditionals were misunderstood) - that can be argued.

Did you read my statement above? The one Oleks was using as his context?

I said that giving charity to people where its a philosophic problem, not a money problem, is bad. That is what Bill Gates is avocating:

I attempted to read your statement, but I must confess it made no sense to me at all....

What do you mean by 'giving charity where it is a philosophical problem, instead of a money problem'? This distinction is lost on me.

People in Africa are not having a 'philosophical problem' with money. Reality is they are starving to death. Now that may not be a problem to your philosophical bent on morality - their 'lack of understanding of capitalism' is the cause of their poverty - but death is not philosophical - it is very real.

As mushashi pointed out - 'What if 100 million people were brought to a higher and better standard of living?' - might a few of them take the opportunity afforded by greater resources to pursue a more permanent _capitalistic_ solution to their poverty?

There was a recent Nobel prize given for the concept of 'microloans' - very small loans given to the very poor to help them get started in business. The funds for those loans came entirely from charity - wealthy philanthropists, with the idea that the banks offering them would become self-sufficient over time as these loans were paid back. This is a form of 'creative capitalism' in the very vein of what Gates was referring too. A small infusion of cash 'kick starting' local economies with the stated goal of growing true markets and raising the standards of living in very poor communities.

So where does charity stop and 'investment' begin. The individuals these microloans are being offered to hand no collateral and no real income. No 'regular' bank would grant them credit. Only charitable philanthropists had the vision to try it.

Ginuad Amarasen wrote:
How the heck is there "pure capitalism" in the developing world, anyway? Almost all poor countries lack the fundamental structures of capitalism.

And this is the philosophic problem

This is exactly the issue microloans were created to address - since no banks existed which would offer the credit necessary to fund these 'fundamental structures', charity was used to generate the first bits of capital that made the markets grow from nothing. It's like planting seeds - eventually, these structures will take root - they will evolve out of the micromarkets created by this 'charity'. And, again, this is not a 'philosophical' problem. It is a very real problem of having no capital to build a business from, and no 'regular financial institution' willing to take the risk on the very poorest individuals.

Quote:
I’ve seen more Capitalism in the parts of the developing world I’ve visited than in my own home town.
Like what?

The microloans program began in Bangladesh, and has extended to many impoverished nations. More info on the whole concept is available here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcredit

Frankly, the rest of your commentary about 'philosophical problems' follows in the same vein. Lack of education and infrastructure isn't a problem of 'lack of thought or reflection' - they are an actual lack of education and infrastructure, brought on by crushing poverty. This lack of education and infrastructure prevents the spread of ideas such as freedom, resulting in increased religiousity and oppressive government systems. You are mistaking cause and effect. Wherever education is strengthened and nutured, a healthy respect for freedom and progress always follows.

The United States did, in fact, have a broad educational system from its beginnings. These systems were one of the first things implemented by the individual states before the nation was united, and some of the first acts of Congress where to begin plans for creating and funding schools.

http://www.servintfree.net/~aidmn-ejour ... tates.html

The above URL gives a fair outline of public education in the US, starting with religious schools of the Puritans in the 1600's. It mentions that in 1791, 7 of the 14 states of the new United States specifically mention education in their Constitutions. Ben Franklin, whom you mention, actually created the idea of the American high school in 1751, in the form of the American Academy, before the nation was founded.

There is considerable evidence that the reason for this nation's prosperity was in its embrace, from the very beginning, of the idea of state sponsored education. For all its faults (its elitist beginnings, its exclusion of minorities, etc), the educational system allowed individuals to truly take advantage of available knowledge and, from it, begin innovation of their own. From this emphasis on learning sprang all the ingenuity and wisdom that made America successful for two hundred years.

There's no reason why the same thing couldn't happen again, in places like Africa or elsewhere, if a few charitable people put money into the right hands, and do what they can to increase educational opportunities for as many as they can. And if the results of those actions last as long as they did in the nascent US, I'd surely not call them 'temporary'.

That idea is also 'creative capitalism'. You won't find it anywhere in your philosophy.

Maybe the great entrepeneur knows something Objectivism doesn't. Maybe that's why he's a billionaire with loads to give away, and Objectivist organizations have to get handouts to print their ideology.

AT

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:33 pm**

Arakasi Takeda wrote:Your exact quote was:

So much for a flawed principle of charity = good.

You have misunderstood my quote then. I presented in this form, implying that a concept of charity being _always_ good is flawed.

That's all I was saying that charity isn't always good, but in fact it could be bad for the receiver.

Also, just b/c I said that it's false that charity is always good, doesn't logically imply that charity is always bad.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:04 pm**

Arakasi Takeda wrote:
Your exact quote was:

Quote:
So much for a flawed principle of charity = good.

You have misunderstood my quote then. I presented in this form, implying that a concept of charity being _always_ good is flawed.

That's all I was saying that charity isn't always good, but in fact it could be bad for the receiver.

Also, just b/c I said that it's false that charity is always good, doesn't logically imply that charity is always bad.

I don't believe there is any misunderstanding of your statement on my part. I don't see any logical english translation of your particular combination of words in that sentence that can interpreted to mean that charity is both good and bad, depending on circumstances. It certainly reads like a universal statement. You may not have meant the comment to be taken as a universal, but I am not a mind reader - I only have the specific words and grammer of this one sentence to base my understanding off of.

But this is just beating a dead horse. I know understand that you did not imply it to be a universal, but, instead, that it was a conditional statement.

While this lessens the cognitive dissonance, I don't think it entirely resolves it for me. After all, we are still discussing a charity publishing a hit piece against a capitalist for engaging and promoting charity.

If you don't see the inherent irony (if not outright contradiction) in that idea, I don't know what else to say.

AT

[/quote]

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:28 pm**

Arakasi Takeda wrote:But this is just beating a dead horse. I know understand that you did not imply it to be a universal, but, instead, that it was a conditional statement.

I'm unclear here which statements of mine you were referring to. Is "it" in this quote: charity=always good?

While this lessens the cognitive dissonance, I don't think it entirely resolves it for me. After all, we are still discussing a charity publishing a hit piece against a capitalist for engaging and promoting charity.

The problem you have here is in calling Bill Gates a Capitalist. He isn't one, though he is a businessman.

And the only irony here is that a businessmen is advocating action that are against requirements of Capitalism. He's advocating charity while ignoring the fact that those countries have political systems that destroy and will destory any Capitalistic growth.

Whatever mini-loans may be given to business in Africa will be crushed by the government. That's the main point here.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:45 pm**

Arakasi Takeda wrote:
But this is just beating a dead horse. I know understand that you did not imply it to be a universal, but, instead, that it was a conditional statement.
I'm unclear here which statements of mine you were referring to. Is "it" in this quote: charity=always good?

Specifically, I meant your quote: 'So much for the flawed principal that charity = good'.

I was stating that, based on the wording, I interpreted it as charity = always good = false, which was an incorrect interpretation, based on our later discussion.

Quote:
While this lessens the cognitive dissonance, I don't think it entirely resolves it for me. After all, we are still discussing a charity publishing a hit piece against a capitalist for engaging and promoting charity.
The problem you have here is in calling Bill Gates a Capitalist. He isn't one, though he is a businessman.

And the only irony here is that a businessmen is advocating action that are against requirements of Capitalism. He's advocating charity while ignoring the fact that those countries have political systems that destroy and will destory any Capitalistic growth.

I see, so now Bill Gates is not a Capitalist? His wealth was not built on his own production, for his own benefit. He did not mutually trade the results of his productivity with other traders for equal value? He is a fraud, or a second-hander?

In order for there to be 'irony' there must be an apparent contradiction. If you prefer not to grant him the title of Capitalist, but find it ironic that a businessman is advocating charity, then for irony to be there you must be implying that businessman is somehow the opposite of charity...which, to me, sounds a whole lot like Capitalist.

Whatever mini-loans may be given to business in Africa will be crushed by the government. That's the main point here.

Upon what do you base this conclusion? So far, the programs put in place around micro-loans are working. Whatever your political feelings about the Nobel committee, they aren't in the habit of giving their prizes to complete and abject failures. They expect some kind of concrete results to base their selections on.

You say that any governments in Africa will 'crush' businesses built on these micro-loans. Are you convinced then that Capitalism has no power to change governments? If Capitalism takes root in Africa because of this process, it will never succeed, because governments are more powerful _and_ inherently against it?

I'd like to know how 'strong' you think Capitalism is, as a force for change - your statement certainly seems to imply a pessimistic outlook on the subject.

AT

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:53 pm**

Arakasi Takeda wrote: Specifically, I meant your quote: 'So much for the flawed principal that charity = good'.

I was stating that, based on the wording, I interpreted it as charity = always good = false, which was an incorrect interpretation, based on our later discussion.

No, there is another misunderstanding then. I did say and did mean that "charity = always good = false." And I stand by it. Charity isn't always good. And Africa was my example of proof.

I'd like to know how 'strong' you think Capitalism is, as a force for change - your statement certainly seems to imply a pessimistic outlook on the subject.

Here's an example of how strong the government is in Africa against Capitalism:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6283990.stm

A total of 1,328 Zimbabwean businessmen and women have been arrested and fined for breaking official price controls in the past two weeks, police say.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:05 pm**

No, there is another misunderstanding then. I did say and did mean that "charity = always good = false." And I stand by it. Charity isn't always good. And Africa was my example of proof.

No, sorry - I meant the constuction as a universal negation - implying that charity is _always_ bad. That was my misinterpretation of your statement. As I said, our subsequent discussion demonstrates that you were holding it as a conditional statement - something like:

charity = always good = false
charity = good IF A = true
charity = good IF B = false

That's a better outline of a conditional statement.

Your second statement isn't an answer to my question; you listed a single case example where the government was stronger than those engaging in a Capitalist action. But do you believe that this will _always_ be the case? Is Capitalism powerless in the face of government?

AT

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:09 pm**

Arakasi Takeda wrote:But do you believe that this will _always_ be the case? Is Capitalism powerless in the face of government?

Yes, it is. Government has a monopoly on force.

Businessmen can only offer somebody a product.

When a gun and money collides guns win.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:28 pm**

What do you mean by 'giving charity where it is a philosophical problem, instead of a money problem'? This distinction is lost on me.

The purpose of philosophy is to determine and judge between choices, which is good, and which is bad. If this is a major problem, then charity won't help the person.

Oleks brings up a good point though: if those with physical power over the people have a messed up philosophy, it might not even matter if the people under them have a good/bad philosophy.

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:33 am**

Yeah, one of the reasons why people are starving is because not many people are going to go to the effort of growing food if you've got no protection from random gangs of machete-wielding goons (who may indeed be FROM the government, if you made the mistake of siding with the wrong faction).

Indeed if the occuptation which offers you the best chance of survival is being a random machete-wielding goon, it shouldn't come as much of a surprise if the general standard of living ends up being pretty miserable as a result.

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:41 pm**

Tolthar Lockbar wrote:
musashi wrote:What if 100 million people were brought to a higher and better standard of living (as a result of these words or Gates’ charity)?
Charity is a temporary "fix" for a philosophical problem.

Agreed for the majority of circumstances. However occasionally a lily breaks the surface of the stagnant waters, and makes the whole cesspool worthwhile.

Tolthar Lockbar wrote:
musashi wrote:I’ve seen more Capitalism in the parts of the developing world I’ve visited than in my own home town.
Like what?

People are at their best and worst when they are hungry. When you haven’t had enough to eat, it tends to inspire you to work a little harder. I’ve seen the effect in everything from shoe shines, haircuts, even factory labor.

Tolthar Lockbar wrote: What he saying is a huge contradiction because he has improved so many lives through following parts of pure capitalism, for profit. Now he is advocating the statist quo (yes, pun) and talking about how temporary "fixes" are solutions to a problem.

It is social engineering, and that can turn out badly or not. But let’s look at some of men that came before him. How about Andrew Carnegie he used his estate to found hundreds of public and private Universities. Or Alfred Nobel he used his estate to elevate other great works of the mind. (BTW I hardly consider their efforts as temporary fixes – even if Al Gore did just win the prize.) Yes Gates has used some unfortunate phrasing of his idea – Capitalism is not the problem it is the solution. But he has amassed a fortune and been given a second by Warren Buffet, I think he deserves to be able to spend it. And given my choice between accepting the social engineering of some deceitful bureaucrat or a vision an entrepreneur like Bill Gates could create, I think I’d take my chances with Gates.

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:51 pm**

musashi wrote:...And given my choice between accepting the social engineering of some deceitful bureaucrat or a vision an entrepreneur like Bill Gates could create, I think I’d take my chances with Gates.

The nasty trick here is that people like Bill Gates who donates millions to corrupt governments allow their existence.

Consider this quotation from news on the same country link I gave earlier in the thread:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7189032.stm

Yet Zimbabweans have found ways to survive. Because it is still basically a rich country, and - because the aid agencies do an excellent job - there is little malnutrition.

What does this mean?

President Mugabe has survived in power for nearly 28 years.

It means that these governments can survive despite acting against reality.

Consider the case of Rearden who was feeding the looters. Then looters saw no reason why their flawed system shouldn't work. If you wish to help that country, then you need to make them face consequences of their own actions.

Until that time, they will think that their system can work, and will continue to do so so long as they are given aid.

TTI Forums

ARI Press Release: Gates Talking Out of His Butt

ARI Press Release: Gates Talking Out of His Butt