“Instead of one person owning 2 billion shares, 2 billion persons would own one share each.”
If Bill Gates wants to give away his shares, I have no problem with that. But that’s not what he’s doing. Instead, he’s essentially taking $50B that he COULD have used to provide capital to Microsoft or any other firm he wanted and instead giving that money away to save lives in Africa and elsewhere.
Someone else pointed out that when Gates sells his stock, someone else purchases it, so there’s no net capital loss to Microsoft. I was merely pointing out that there IS a capital loss to the economy overall because a dollar spent on consumption is not the same as a dollar invested in innovation etc. ESPECIALLY if the consumption being subsidized is overseas.
The essential point of the original article is that from the standpoint of improving welfare, Bill Gates would be wiser to invest his $50B in capital (either in U.S. or other countries), as this will grow the economy/create jobs/raise living standards far more than the temporary boost that comes from feeding today’s hungry children. Capitalism has repeatedly been demonstrated to be the single most potent approach to poverty reduction ever devised. It’s too bad that people like Gates feel the need to apologize for their wealth or “atone” for it by giving it away. Investing it back into the economy is arguably the best possible use of his wealth in terms of welfare improvement.
I Agree.
This discussion is very much like the old saying. Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for life.
Warren and Bill are giving a bunch of men a fish, not teaching them.