Bill Gates on How To Save Capitalism

[edgray]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA1ioym5OYA

Interesting ideas. Thoughts? Is this possible? Or will the selfish pursuit of profit simply not allow it?

 

[TommyTooter]

here i thought you were a cynic.

billy is the scion of some old wasp money that carpetbagged the pacific northwest behind rogers and clark. big time import/export lawyers. they claim bill made it on his own without the family money. the influence was plenty and the market was ripe for the attack.

good old billionaire bill and his self-made mentor, warren buffett. i haven't got the pathways clear in my mind yet, but this all seems to play into the raygunomics policy of reducing public funding on services and having the private sector pick up the slack with donations to the charities burdened with the clients of the reduced social services.

bill has always spouted off his utopian geek visions. some of it's loopy and some makes sense. he is either a really sincere person or one hell of an actor -- almost ronald reagan-ish in that way. the jury is still out on this one.

 

[edgray]

here i thought you were a cynic.

billy is the scion of some old wasp money that carpetbagged the pacific northwest behind rogers and clark. big time import/export lawyers. they claim bill made it on his own without the family money. the influence was plenty and the market was ripe for the attack.

good old billionaire bill and his self-made mentor, warren buffett. i haven't got the pathways clear in my mind yet, but this all seems to play into the raygunomics policy of reducing public funding on services and having the private sector pick up the slack with donations to the charities burdened with the clients of the reduced social services.

bill has always spouted off his utopian geek visions. some of it's loopy and some makes sense. he is either a really sincere person or one hell of an actor -- almost ronald reagan-ish in that way. the jury is still out on this one.

I'd like to think I'm more of an optimist than a cynic when it comes to politics.

I think Mr Gates has some interesting ideas. But I agree with you, I think it does smack a little of Reaganomics, and we all know where that lead us to. Bill's ideas rely on people being as generous as himself, which is too much to risk for the poor of the world, as we know full well people aren't particularly generous at all.

I'd like to think Mr Gates is a genuinely nice fellow, he certainly comes off that way, and his philanthropic gestures bode well.

 

[TommyTooter]

I'd like to think I'm more of an optimist than a cynic when it comes to politics.

I think Mr Gates has some interesting ideas. But I agree with you, I think it does smack a little of Reaganomics, and we all know where that lead us to. Bill's ideas rely on people being as generous as himself, which is too much to risk for the poor of the world, as we know full well people aren't particularly generous at all.

I'd like to think Mr Gates is a genuinely nice fellow, he certainly comes off that way, and his philanthropic gestures bode well.

he seems to have mellowed with success. he was pretty notorious for his temper and the anti-competitive business practices in the old days.

the idea of giving the money back has merit, but i think these guys should be doing things that their own people maintain administrative control over. zuckerman just handed off 100 mil to a school board going broke. i don't think that money was well spent. a private school or four could have been built for that.

 

[edgray]

he seems to have mellowed with success. he was pretty notorious for his temper and the anti-competitive business practices in the old days.

the idea of giving the money back has merit, but i think these guys should be doing things that their own people maintain administrative control over. zuckerman just handed off 100 mil to a school board going broke. i don't think that money was well spent. a private school or four could have been built for that.

Very much so. I guess when you're as loaded as he is, there's little need for stress any more.

I think there's always a problem with charitable donations. The thing is, they never actually solve the problem, just delay it really.

People cannot rely on charity, it does nothing to help them help themselves. What people need is more opportunity.

 

[Accountable]

There are infinite opportunities. People just need to recognize them and believe they have the ability to succeed. Without that belief, no program in the world will pull them out of poverty.There's a cancer in our culture that continues to eat away at us while we look for outside sources to blame.

 

[edgray]

There are infinite opportunities. People just need to recognize them and believe they have the ability to succeed. Without that belief, no program in the world will pull them out of poverty.There's a cancer in our culture that continues to eat away at us while we look for outside sources to blame.

but our system only makes opportunities that seem to work with the few. I've looked into Social Mobility, and it's shockingly bad in most western countries, decreasing yearly in the UK & US, for example.

Something just isn't right with this. Otherwise the "opportunities" would be taken.

 

[Accountable]

But it's not that the opportunities don't exist, is what I'm getting at. Culturally, we just don't "see" them so we assume they're not there. Yes, something isn't right, but I don't think the answer is in ceding liberty to the government, but in reclaiming the liberty we've forgotten we still have.

 

[edgray]

Ok fair point.

I don't think the answer is ceding liberty to government either. The problem is, mass unemployment needs a mass solution. I don't know how that could be organised without some kind of government organisation.

 

[Accountable]

I disagree, but it may be cultural. Unemployed individuals need individual jobs supplied by individual employers. Any government solution would be temporary & risks just picking things up for now just to drop them back in the shit later.

 

[TommyTooter]

I disagree, but it may be cultural. Unemployed individuals need individual jobs supplied by individual employers. Any government solution would be temporary & risks just picking things up for now just to drop them back in the shit later.

in this same discussion somewhere else, there was a general consensus reached that the billionaire's give it back plan would be best served by setting up more for profit organizations with generous stock option plans for the employees.

one thing the IT billionaire buckaroos are known for is running a lot of operations that enable many people to retire young with millions in their portfolios.

to fill in where the government falls short in charitable social services is another sham by the 'old blood' banker gangsters secretly controlling the money flow. sucker talented people like bill gates and warren buffett to bust ass all their lives and then half of it back to support programs that should be supported by tax dollars.

 

[Accountable]

Charities should be supported by tax dollars? Federal tax dollars or local?

 

[Minor Axis]

I'm impressed with Bill's view. The problem that Bill is overlooking- as long as large corporations remain focused on short term profits, so company leaders and upper levels of the management food chain can enrich themselves while not thinking about the long term prospects for their company , by minimizing workers, in essence creating a disposable work force and by off shoring jobs then Bills vision will not resonate with this crowd. If you are a greedy bastard, it's all about you, how great you are, how indispensable you are (self perceived), and how well off you deserve live your life as compared to your fellow human beings.

 

[TommyTooter]

Charities should be supported by tax dollars? Federal tax dollars or local?

not for profits are being used to pick up the slack on a lot of fronts in this town. they all seem to be getting public money from somewhere.

in austin, the main homeless shelter and the mental health consumer advocacy group are getting public money.

using the billionaires to pick up the slack doesn't seem right to me. i'm more in favor of them doing what they do best and seeing them set up more for profit enterprises and small business loan funds.

 

[Francis]

If Bill had really been sincere he would have made a OS System that was free and add on's that would be affordable for all to use. Realistically the industry has bitched about the piracy for years but only recently has the cost of the software come down. The only OS that is Free is Linux at this point to run multiple programs.. Google is about to launch an OS geared at Browsers but who knows what else it may or may not run and market watch..

 

[edgray]

I disagree, but it may be cultural. Unemployed individuals need individual jobs supplied by individual employers. Any government solution would be temporary & risks just picking things up for now just to drop them back in the shit later.

There's simply not enough money going around for individuals to to employ people right now. This financial crisis, as I pointed out some months ago, has coincided with the wealthy hoarding more money than ever before, and the top 1% earning over 25% of the total wages.

There just isn't enough money moving around the system. That's the problem.

Unfortunately what this means is either we need a redistribution of that wealth, or we need the govts to create more.

 

[Accountable]

to fill in where the government falls short in charitable social services is another sham by the 'old blood' banker gangsters secretly controlling the money flow. sucker talented people like bill gates and warren buffett to bust ass all their lives and then half of it back to support programs that should be supported by tax dollars.

Charities should be supported by tax dollars? Federal tax dollars or local?

not for profits are being used to pick up the slack on a lot of fronts in this town. they all seem to be getting public money from somewhere.

in austin, the main homeless shelter and the mental health consumer advocacy group are getting public money.

using the billionaires to pick up the slack doesn't seem right to me. i'm more in favor of them doing what they do best and seeing them set up more for profit enterprises and small business loan funds.

I agree that successful businessmen's money helps the community most effectively by building successful businesses. That's the best way to truly help.
Charities are for charitable work; the federal gov't should not be involved with them one way or the other. It squelches individual generosity when the gov't takes money by force to give to charitable organizations; it creates an "I gave at the office" attitude. People start feeling less responsible to help their fellow man in need & end up resenting him instead.

 

[Accountable]

There's simply not enough money going around for individuals to to employ people right now. This financial crisis, as I pointed out some months ago, has coincided with the wealthy hoarding more money than ever before, and the top 1% earning over 25% of the total wages.

There just isn't enough money moving around the system. That's the problem.

Unfortunately what this means is either we need a redistribution of that wealth, or we need the govts to create more.

Governments don't create wealth. They print money, but if that's what you mean, printing additional paper actually reduces wealth, as each piece of paper is worth less than before.
IMO, and as I've said before, it's gov't interference that's stalling any recovery. Investors don't know where it would be safe to invest because they don't know where the long arm of gov't might reach next to screw up what new industry. If it was dependably predictable that gov't help would not be forthcoming then the investors would calculate and invest accordingly. Then recovery would increase speedily.

 

[edgray]

Governments don't create wealth. They print money, but if that's what you mean, printing additional paper actually reduces wealth, as each piece of paper is worth less than before.
IMO, and as I've said before, it's gov't interference that's stalling any recovery. Investors don't know where it would be safe to invest because they don't know where the long arm of gov't might reach next to screw up what new industry. If it was dependably predictable that gov't help would not be forthcoming then the investors would calculate and invest accordingly. Then recovery would increase speedily.

Well yes this is very true. But what I meant was that government has the power to redistribute. It has the resources to create employment.

It's not an ideal solution, but when the wealthy are hoarding so much that there's not enough to keep the economies moving, something needs to be done.

I don't agree with the investment situation. Govts make it very favourable for people to invest, they offer tax breks, incentives etc. This investment seldom makes it to the general population in the form of employment anyhow.

 

[Accountable]

Well yes this is very true. But what I meant was that government has the power to redistribute. It has the resources to create employment.

Any resources a government has, it got from its citizens. Any employment it creates for the purpose of employment is temporary make-work. Far better to leave the resources with its citizens and allow them to create actual businesses that employ other citizens.

It's not an ideal solution, but when the wealthy are hoarding so much that there's not enough to keep the economies moving, something needs to be done.

The government are the reason for the "hoarding," as you put it. The gov't creates a crisis, then insists that they are the only solution to the problem ... and you buy into it.

I don't agree with the investment situation. Govts make it very favourable for people to invest, they offer tax breks, incentives etc. This investment seldom makes it to the general population in the form of employment anyhow.

Rephrase. Gov'ts can make it very favorable, but your very own description of how they do it is to lift the government's own disincentives - the solution to the problem they themselves create.

The investment always has an impact on employment. I don't understand how you can believe businesses operate in a vacuum that only involves the rich. Do you honestly believe that they take their cash and stuff their mattresses??

In the US, I'm hearing that the rich are responsible for 50% of the retail spending. That spending is the demand that creates the jobs from the clerk to the manager, from the delivery truck to the warehouse to all the people involved in the logistics, from the assembly worker to the machinist to the engineer & designer. But that demand for the product would be useless without the seed money to create the business that makes the product. That money comes from the investor, who would never invest in a company without employees.