28 Feb 04
Forbes published their most recent list of the world's richest people today. Bill Gates is number one (no surprise), with a net worth of $46.6 billion. I did some research, and by contrast the countries of Niger, Republic of Congo, Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali, Namibia, Zambia, Guinea, Madagascar, Mozambique, Mauritius, Senegal, Gabon, and Malawi have a combined gross domestic product of $45.25 billion. Bill Gates has a greater net worth than the combined GDP of 14 countries, which have a combined population of 126 million people.
The top 33 richest people on the list had a combined net worth of $550 billion. The most recent figure I could find (1998) listed the combined GDP for all of Africa at $549 billion. It takes the combined GDP of an entire continent, comprising 780 million people, to equal the horded wealth of 33 individuals.
Am I the only one who is appalled and disgusted by these figures?
*all statistics from:
www.forbes.com
www.clickafrique
www.camelworld.com
28 Feb 04
Originally posted by rwingettYes, it is appalling...but it says a lot for entrepreneurism and working to attain one's goals however lofty they are...it also reflects Capitalism at its best...and worst. Gates giving 90% of his net worth away would still leave him mega-wealthy, but whom should he give it to? That's the question to be debated...
Forbes published their most recent list of the world's richest people today. Bill Gates is number one (no surprise), with a net worth of $46.6 billion. I did some research, and by contrast the countries of Niger, Republic of Congo, Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali, Namibia, Zambia, Guinea, Madagascar, Mozambique, Mauritius, Senegal, Gabon, and Malawi have a combi ...[text shortened]... these figures?
*all statistics from:
www.forbes.com
www.clickafrique
www.camelworld.com
28 Feb 04
Originally posted by RedmikeNo way man.
Maybe if we had a policy that the chief exec of a company could only be paid a maximum of 10X the lowest wage in the company we'd make a start on this sort of obscenity.
He built a company from scratch with some brilliant ideas.
If I had ideas like that, I would do exactly the same thing.
28 Feb 04
Originally posted by rwingettInteresting. They left me off the list again Rob. Would you contact them for me and get to the bottom of this? I don't appreciate them constantly snubbing me this way.😉
Forbes published their most recent list of the world's richest people today. Bill Gates is number one (no surprise), with a net worth of $46.6 billion. I did some research, and by contrast the countries of Niger, Republic of Congo, Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali, Namibia, Zambia, Guinea, Madagascar, Mozambique, Mauritius, Senegal, Gabon, and Malawi have a combi ...[text shortened]... these figures?
*all statistics from:
www.forbes.com
www.clickafrique
www.camelworld.com
As a side note. Do you know who John Kerry's Grandfather is? I'll give you a hint. His name is Forbes and he was a banker in France. John himself was raised in the south of france by a nanny in his granddads castle. Splain's a lot about him, don't you think? The warm personal charm, i mean.
🙄
29 Feb 04
Originally posted by CrowleyThe question is not whether Mr. Gates deserves to be rewarded for his ingenuity and hard work. The question is whether he deserves to be rewarded to the tune of $46.6 billion. Does anybody deserve to make that kind of money when there are hundreds of millions of people living in abject poverty across the world? If $4.66 million was the upper limit to one's net worth, do you think that Bill Gates would have just thrown up his hands and said, "What's the use?", and gotten a job as a greeter at Walmart instead? No, of course not. He would have done exactly the same thing. He still would have been a success. And he still would have been greatly rewarded for his efforts.
No way man.
He built a company from scratch with some brilliant ideas.
If I had ideas like that, I would do exactly the same thing.
Is it better to have one man with $46.6 billion, or 10,000 people with $4.66 million? Or 1,000,000 people with $46,600? There must be a better way.
29 Feb 04
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettSpeaking of "Software". The reason we need to ignore your antiquated notions, Rob is because the 'free market' does something that all the greatest and smartest people in the world couldn't do in your beloved USSR. It does something that all the biggest and fastest computers hooked up in parallel couldn't do. It SETS LIMITS ON NEEDED GOODS AND THE PRICING of those goods. The free market is indeed the greatest machine the earth has ever produced. Nobody understands it. Nobody can control it. It reflects EXACTLY what has to be done to progress into a better tomorrow. Your ideas are just plain wrong. Why not give it a rest? We are all outraged that some are rich and some are poor. The alternative is that we are all pawns in your wonderful socialist workers heaven. That translates to slave in any language.
The question is not whether Mr. Gates deserves to be rewarded for his ingenuity and hard work. The question is whether he deserves to be rewarded to the tune of $46.6 billion. Does anybody deserve to make that kind of money when there are ...[text shortened]... ion? Or 1,000,000 people with $46,600? There must be a better way.
<edit> And I know you think the "free" market can be "patially tinkered" with. But you are wrong. That has been tried. The results are stagnation. There is a reason why all the best and brightest from ALL nations of the earth are "paid" to leave the homes most dear to them and toil in the USA. Reward is it's own reward. And Means.
29 Feb 04
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWySVW: "The alternative is that we are all pawns in your wonderful socialist workers heaven. That translates to slave in any language."
Speaking of "Software". The reason we need to ignore your antiquated notions, Rob is because the 'free market' does something that all the greatest and smartest people in the world couldn't do in your beloved USSR. It does somethi ...[text shortened]... ialist workers heaven. That translates to slave in any language.
There are more alternatives than the one you described. European Social-Democracy and European Christian-Democracy are two of the moderate alternatives, one situated on the polical left and one in the middle. Not that bad at all ....... these parties could be a necessary "counterweight" to the right winged conservative Evangelical Christians in the US. I sometimes wonder what is more important to those right-winged Christians in power: their political agenda or the teachings of Christ.
29 Feb 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeSee my post above. I really don't see how you can define 'free' other than to say 'unfettered and uncontroled'. Partially free markets are just that. Partially effective and paritally reflective of need and pricing.
SVW: "The alternative is that we are all pawns in your wonderful socialist workers heaven. That translates to slave in any language."
There are more alternatives than the one you described. European Social-Democracy and European Christian-Democracy are two of the moderate alternatives, one situated on the polical left and one in the middle. Not that bad at all .......
What do you suppose would happen if the US economy were to become a fully owned subsidiary of chinese communist economy tomorrow? The stock market wouldn't open. Police would come into every factory and all managers would be shot and dead by noon. Then what? How long would Europe survive? I wonder.
29 Feb 04
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyIf you want the economy to be free, than you have to abolish all kinds of protecting measures the US government has taken to protect the US economy. Same thing here in Europe. The two Unions don't want that. They know it will benefit the developing countries at their expense. All the conferences where anti-globalists are protesting deal with that very issue. The world economic markets are NOT free.
See my post above. I really don't see how you can define 'free' other than to say 'unfettered and uncontroled'. Partially free markets are just that. Partially effective and paritally reflective of need and pricing.
What do you ...[text shortened]... dead by noon. Then what? How long would Europe survive? I wonder.
29 Feb 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeI want the same economy as Einstein proposed. After examining human nature and coming to the conclusion that the human race has no hope of "benevelence" in matters of money. His solution, though admittedly a poor third choice forced upon us by reality, was to simply (i am paraphrasing here) "As an economy grows, let the portions that are older than the need, be moved to the next world down. As the US outgrows the Steel industry, let it move to the "second" world. When their turn comes let that industry be handed down to the third world. Let this be true in all economies."
If you want the economy to be free, than you have to abolish all kinds of protecting measures the US government has taken to protect the US economy. Same thing here in Europe. The two Unions don't want that. They know it will benefit the developing countries at their expense. All the conferences where anti-globalists are protesting deal with that very issue. The world economic markets are NOT free.
There is no reason not to share the wealth that these industries bring. But for the US and Europe to hang onto these 19th century jobs is a crime against humanity. Likewise is the "ownership" of these industries must transfer to the second and third worlds. That is what is happening, but at a glacial pace.
So yea, I agree. The world will never see a "free" economy. That would mean giving the guys in the third world an even break. Greed. But that still begs the question as to whether trying to destroy the free market will cause more harm than good. Big Business and Corporations WANT regulation. It protects them and allows them to plunder the earth and her peoples. Do away with government agencies that "control" aspects of the economy and the world would be better off. I think. Maybe not. Who can know such a thing? Nor have I heard of any smart enough to figure out the results.
29 Feb 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWhat, exactly, does a "free market" mean? That you are free to rape and plunder the market at will? That you are free to despoil the environment at a catastrophic level? That you are free to commit any atrocity in order to push profits even higher?
Speaking of "Software". The reason we need to ignore your antiquated notions, Rob is because the 'free market' does something that all the greatest and smartest people in the world couldn't do in your beloved USSR. It does something that all the biggest and fastest computers hooked up in parallel couldn't do. It SETS LIMITS ON NEEDED GOODS AND THE ...[text shortened]... leave the homes most dear to them and toil in the USA. Reward is it's own reward. And Means.
Corporations act with near impunity, but fortunately they are not totally "free". An examination of the top 100 corporate crimes of the last decade (http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/top100.html) reveals 38 environmental crimes, 20 anti-trust violations, 13 cases of corporate fraud, etc.. These are the fruits of your "free market". The robber barons are free to commit their plunder, but for the rest of us that freedom is a little more elusive. Any sense of justice one may feel at the prosecution of their crimes is quickly dissipated by the knowledge that they are merely the tip of the iceberg. For every corporation that is prosecuted, there are dozens, or hundreds, who get away with it.
We have corporate crime, like Enron, on a colossal scale. And we have social and economic inequality of grotesque proportions. But at least Bill Gates is free to wallow in his hoard of gold while millions starve. At what point do we conclude that this system is nothing but a detriment to society as a whole? At what point do we decide that we can do better? Or is there no longer any hope at all for anything better?
29 Feb 04
A free market doesn't mean free for all.
To make money within a free market system, you must have money to start with.
Obviously there are exceptions, as Bill Gates may well shout when he's in the shower, but there are always exceptions, or there would be no rules.
So, say one in every million people make it from rags to riches because they come up with a great idea. The question then is: How?
Fact of the matter is that Bill Gates is not a self made millionaire.
No. I'm afraid the truth is a little more complicated.
The people who work in his factories, deliver his goods and do the creative thinking for him have made him rich.
All these people however (and specifically those working anywhere but the west) are not going to be self made millionaires. In fact, quite a few of them probably live off less than a few dollars a day.
In fact. You could say that most of the people who make Bill Gates, are like the machines which stamp out the chips and the vans that deliver the software...they're nothing more than 'methods of production'.
"Oh but they have a will..."
Sure they do. A will to do as they're told. Which they generally do. And they frown upon people who do not do as they are told. For that's how they've been educated.
Anyway, I'm not suprised at the figures. Until people are fed up making other people rich, the situation at hand is not going to change.
Now for a beer.