You're viewing a single thread.
One of the few good billionaires (lol maybe he is the only one ).
Edit : By comparison of course like good he done : evil he done ration . Not saying he is a saint.
- There's no good billionaires
- Bill Gates is not any kind of exception
- Even in comparison to other living billionaires
Lives have been saved through his funding . Can you see elon or zuck doing that ? Ever ? So in comparison i do consider him good but i could be wrong.
The reason is that there just isn't an ethical way to accrue a billion dollars. Stealing from workers labour is an inherent part of becoming a billionaire. Plus, usually some other exploitation too, like fucking others over with patents.
Doing charity with a small fraction of your obscene wealth after this isn't any kind of moral absolution.
No one said it was absolution. As was obviously stated, it means he's better than others.
But sure binary thinking is the best. either he is good or bad, either his charity is meaningless or completely erases any bad he ever did.
Hardly anyone is all good or all bad. But with any billionaire ever, the bad will always outweigh the good because of what monumental injustice was necessary to collect a billion dollars.
I don't really agree but even if so, there still are degrees of wrong doing. Gates has helped to eradicate disease but to many in this thread that means literally nothing because of their binary thinking
The reason is that there just isn't an ethical way to accrue a billion dollars. Stealing from workers labour is an inherent part of becoming a billionaire. Plus, usually some other exploitation too, like fucking others over with patents.
I would agree that there is no ethical way to become a billionaire, but I think that lacks context and scale.
Most billionaires make their fortunes from exploiting the labour and material wealth of the global south. Gates made his fortune by bullying the rest of silicon valley in the 90s, leading to the monopolistic tech market we know and hate today.
This is unethical in that scope, but when compared to global exploitation of other billionaires in the same tax bracket.... it's the best we could realistically hope for. Gates has essentially been unethical in the realm of wealthy 1rst world nations, all while directing a significant part of his wealth to improve material conditions in the places most billionaires extract wealth from.
Doing charity with a small fraction of your obscene wealth after this isn't any kind of moral absolution.
I mean 50 billion dollars is not just a small fraction of his wealth, and he's literally cured diseases that have killed millions of people over time.
Moral absolution isnt something that can be weighed and measured, it's subject to ethical belief systems that are not uniform across people or cultures.
Aside from anticompetitive actions, I don't see much harm having been done by selling an operating system.
Did he code it all by himself? Or give the profits to the programmers in direct proportion to how much they worked on it?
I'm not saying Wozniak didn't get fucked by their dealings or that CEO to Worker pay rate is justifiable, but they're a lot better off than most. Wozniak is working as a US treasury and defence contractor and he likes to sell uncut pages of bills to strangers for fun, man is worth at least 120 Million USD.
Woz was at Apple, not Microsoft.
Ah, shit, you're right. Yeah I've never even heard of a disgruntled Microsoft programmer, I guess Paul Allen? But he still got 60-40 split with Gates even after Allen left to deal with cancer. Then there is Charles Simonyi who is also quite affluent after moving on to bigger and better things.
Lol shows how much you know
Yeah I really fumbled on that one, Woz was with Apple not Microsoft. Can you name anybody who worked at Microsoft before 1990 who didn't become wildly successful?
I mean, if you can name them, it's probably because they were successful, right?
Microsoft is not a paragon of good employee treatment btw. As others pointed out, they had their asses sued to pieces for trying to maintain employees as contractors because it allowed them to save money by not paying benefits.
Aside from anticompetitive actions
"Aside from 95% of the shit he did, I don't see much harm from the other 5%."
Bill Gates' anticompetitive behavior probably set the entire computing industry back a decade or more.
Lol, as if. Computing industry limitations are still dictated by Hardware, which has advanced at the same rate it would have without Windows. Plus, the vast majority of servers run Linux, anyways, so all he did was be one of three or four firms that helped bring computing into people's homes when otherwise it would have required more technical skills than anybody had in that time period.
It's so funny that the socialist rethoric doesn't even crumble here when talking about big tech. Who are Microsoft's poor exploited workers exactly? Last I checked, developers in big tech make bank. It's the customers that get fucked.
I don't know when the last time you checked is, but I don't think it's funny that as early as 1996 Microsoft was successfully sued for nearly 100m for abusing workers as "permatemps". That isn't counting their practices of forcing their staff to work extreme hours, avoiding to pay benefits, and just doing just about anything they could to avoid giving their employees a way of "making bank".
"In 1996, a class action lawsuit was brought against Microsoft representing thousands of current and former employees that had been classified as temporary and freelance. The monetary value of the suit was determined by how much the misclassified employees could have made if they had been correctly classified and been able to participate in Microsoft's employee stock purchase plan. The case was decided on the basis that the temporary employees had had their jobs defined by Microsoft, worked alongside regular employees doing the same work, and worked for long terms (years, in many cases)."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permatemp#Vizcaino_v._Microsoft
You can't be that naive.
https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-slammed-over-child-labor-accusations-2010-4
Also, it's very funny, you talking about "socialist rhetoric", because I don't think you even know what socialism means by "exploited worker".
Have a look.
https://socialistworker.org/2011/09/28/what-do-we-mean-exploitation
THE TERM "exploitation" often conjures up images of workers laboring in sweatshops for 12 hours or more per day, for pennies an hour, driven by a merciless overseer. This is contrasted to the ideal of a "fair wage day's wage for a fair day's work"--the supposedly "normal" situation under capitalism in which workers receive a decent wage, enough for a "middle class" standard of living, health insurance and security in their retirement.
Sweatshops are horrific examples of exploitation that persist to this day. But Karl Marx had a broader and more scientific definition of exploitation: the forced appropriation of the unpaid labor of workers. Under this definition, all working-class people are exploited.
Maybe, but that's clearly not his intention as he has showed many times.
Take for example case covid
In April 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Gates was criticized for suggesting that pharmaceutical companies should hold onto patents for COVID-19 vaccines. The criticism came due to the possibility of this preventing poorer nations from obtaining adequate vaccines. Tara Van Ho of the University of Essex stated, "Gates speaks as if all the lives being lost in India are inevitable but eventually the West will help when in reality the US & UK are holding their feet on the neck of developing states by refusing to break [intellectual property rights] protections. It's disgusting."
Gates is opposed to the TRIPS waiver. Bloomberg News reported him as saying he argued that Oxford University should not give away the rights to its COVID-19 information, as it had announced, but instead sell it to a single industry partner, as it did. His views on the value of legal monopolies in medicine have been linked to his views on legal monopolies in software
Hmm you do make a compelling argument
It's easier to just assume all billionaires are evil. The chances of it being wrong is about the same as for any good person to become a billionaire
That is true maybe there were some exploits done by them here and there but everything is gray there are no black and white.
Yeah obviously. I'm not saying an evil person cannot do good things, Hitler was responsible for VW Beetle - objectively one of the most beautiful cars in human history. We just can't call Hitler a good person because of that one thing
Making a good car isn't doing a good thing . What are you on about ?
No, it's pretty black and white with Billionaires. None of them have changed the world NEARLY as much as literally any figure from history. At all.
No billionaire has earned their billions for the simple fact that a person cannot produce that much wealth on their own. They MUST steal from others to get that rich. It literally HAS to be the case, because there is no physical way they generated that wealth themselves.
Still probably a net positive, though. Hell, he could kill 110 Million people added to every sars-cov-2 death combined and still be net positive. Good person? Debatably no. Best billionaire? Yeah.
That's one stupid argument backed with made up numbers there
Covid19 has killed less than 8 Million people total, and you can argue in good faith that Bill Gates would be responsible for some of those deaths by advocating for full commercialization of the vaccine.
Yeah, it's a lot, but compared to a random estimate from The Guardian of 122 Million lives saved by the Gates Foundation... yeah.
Now, I realize some people would say saving any number of lives wouldn't justify murder, but anybody who says Bill Gates is anything other than a net positive impact on the world is out of their fucking head.
Some people would say that he has given negative 130 billion, or whatever his net worth is right now
I wouldn't go that extreme, but still think he has had net negative effect in the world
-
I would pay 130 billion to save 122 Million lives. That's only 1066 USD per life saved. You must be greedy af if you think that's a bad deal.
-
That's not how stocks work. He hasn't taken 130 Bn USD. Most of his 129.2 Bn net worth is unrealized gains in the form of shares of companies such as Microsoft, meaning when or if it ever becomes income he will likely donate that as well, in fact he has promised to do so on many occasions. To date, Bill has donated 59 Bn USD to charities, the vast majority of his income.
Okay I take that as you did not read the article, but only the misleading title, if you claim that Bill and Melinda saved 122m infants...
The article says that infant deaths (0-5yo) have halved from 1990 to 2015. From 1990 to 2000 the number already gone from 12 million down to around 9.5 million yearly. This is when Bill and Melinda Foundation was founded and they started pouring money on vaccinations which is good of course.
So yes, they've certainly done a part in reducing infant death rates, but they're only a small part of it. And most of the money invested wasn't even theirs, but donation from Warren Buffet who actually donated away most of his wealth.
-
Charity is the oligarchy picking the winners.
So the only way bill gates can set himself apart as a billionaire is by destroying capitalism singlehandedly?
Humanity is fucked by these idiotic binary ways of thinking.
Who gives a shit about whether "Bill Gates can set himself apart as a billionaire?" That's a moot point because he shouldn't have become a billionaire to begin with.
I care that moronic ways of thinking discount the good done with billionaire money.
It doesn't matter that you ignore it, it does happen occasionally. It makes no sense to evaluate the world only as it should be, and ignore how it is
I’m just saying, the Native Americans didn’t have highways before the settlers, so even though there was a lot of bad, there was also some good.
Of course you'll claim I'm sucking off billionaires when the reality is all I'm saying is a very simple and undeniable truth. You can't think clearly when you have to categorize everything as good or evil.
It literally doesn't matter to you that bill gates has saved thousands of lives because he's also been shitty. That's fucked up.
No, he can be taxed to millionaire status. Then we can democratically decide who the money is used to help. He no doubt got to where he is because he benefitted from the help of the US.
Who gives a fuck whether some other rich sociopath would've done better?
What you should be asking is why important shit like this should be left to the whims of a single private citizen with too much power instead of handled by government. The notion that Bill fucking Gates is some kind of savior übermensch who somehow knows better than the entire voting public how to spend the money is fucking ludicrous.
Black or white. Gray doesn't exist. Like at all. I get angry when people say it does.
His company has also doomed some billions of people to using Excel, but on the other hand some number of millions of people get the pleasure of using Excel
You're not wrong. Compared to his peers, he's a saint.
Everyone is compared to his peers
We can say Bill Gates is the best billionaire without accepting that there are any good billionaires.
He doesn't realise best of shit is still shit. Like talking about "the best rapist", haiyaaaaa
He's not even better than Taylor Swift IMO
He's pretty terrible. I don't know whether or not all of the other billionaires are worse.
He’s not even better than his ex-wife
I don't think we can say that.
He helped championed one of the Covid vaccines, but also forced the private ownership and profit of it. Something the scientists working on it didn't want to do. This in an stark contrast to the polio vaccine, which was free and who's lead scientist referred the idea as "trying to own sunlight".
More specifically it was Jonas Salk, and what he said was “There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?” and then laughed at the thought.
Video of him saying it here:
This is true. It was said by Jonas Salk, who was attributed with the creation of the injectable vaccine in the 1950s that was greenlit for widespread use.
The injectable vaccine is a non-sterilizing vaccine (meaning you still get the disease, but your body can fight it off effectively - which is most vaccines). The injection vaccine was replaced by a sterilizing vaccine (where your bodily systems can kill the virus before you become contagious, and in many cases, before symptoms). The sterilizing vaccine, used to this day, is basically a magic potion that you drink. It kills the polio virus in your gut, which is the ingress method for polio.
From what I've seen, Salk didn't live to see the success of his vaccine; but he's a hero in my mind.
My late father was a polio survivor. He was permanently disabled as a result of the disease. He lost something like 70% of the use of his right (?) leg (could have been his left). He was still ambulatory, and could walk, but often needed to use his stronger leg when climbing stairs because his disabled leg was too weak to lift him up the stairs. He walked with a limp... And he was lucky. Post-polio survivors frequently had much more severe disabilities. I saw him struggle with the effects of it my entire life, and given he only had a relatively mild disability, I consider anyone who developed a poliovirus vaccine to be a hero of humanity, and anyone who refuses that vaccine to be an ignorant fool.
Salk's comments are just icing on that hero status for me.
Don't be a fool, get vaccinated.
You are unfortunately mistaken. Maybe in comparison better than others but that does not mean good.
I don't have any links ready to prove that though, so I understand if you disregard that.
Of course i meant by comparison and no need for links i have heard some shit
only a forcibly expropriated billionaire is a good billionaire
Gonna take a few downvotes and agree with you. Dude donates so much to the world health organization he beats all other COUNTRIES except for the US. If all billionaires were like him, the world would be a much better place.
Wrong. Gabe Newell is the only good billionaire.
bruh gaben is literally an ancap nutjob whose company is a breeding ground for all kinds of bigotry under the guise of mEritOcrACy
it's only because he's basically not a public figure that he isn't tied with elon for worst billionaire
Yeah i had to look him up as i am not a gamer . Guy seems really nice but i don't get what he did to be the only good one maybe share dome sauce ?
He and Buffet have been making a lot of progress towards affordable, renewable energy in poverty stricken and rural areas. So Buffet might be alright too.
Huh thanks that seems nice of him
Even with issues like polio where he's supposedly doing good, he does lots of harm from my understanding. Probably not though malice, but being a know-it-all who uses their money to shape policy, the end result is still the same. Having a tech billionaire in charge of medical policy has caused many more people to suffer from polio as a result than would have without his meddling. And that's the problem with billionaire: even if they try to be good, they're no dieties and giving that much power to unaccountable individuals means they can accidentally cause lots of harm. And often the have perverse incentives (see Bill Gates and all he's done to hurt education in the US, for example).
Sauce or it didn't happen .
Source: Trust me, bro.
The best source now i have to believe it the power of the brohood compells me.
On the education thing, this AP article doesn't go too heavily into policy details but does cover the extent of Gates' influence on the American education system.
Or were you talking about the controversies surrounding the Foundation's handling of certain diseases? Here's one from PBS that's arguably the most neutral I could find outlining criticisms regarding joint efforts between the Gates Foundation, WHO, and various governments/orgs on eradicating polio and issues with their strategies.
Or what didn't happen? That the public didn't get a chance to vote on how Bill Gates spends his money?