Posted on 12/03/2010 10:57:35 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Milton Friedman once noted that most businessmen are anti-capitalists. However, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are moving into a category all their own, putting their vast fortunes behind support for everything from philanthrostatism to just plain statism.
Mr. Buffett recently offered fulsome praise to “Uncle Sam” for allegedly rescuing the U.S. (and himself) — with taxpayers’ money — from the consequences of policies put in place by … Uncle Sam. The Sage of Omaha is a big believer in soaking the rich. He has joined Mr. Gates in a high-profile attempt to strong-arm other billionaires into committing to give away their fortunes, thus implying that the world’s billionaires might otherwise be cooking up schemes to “take it with them.”
Mr. Gates has in the meantime become a full-blown Global Salvationist, dedicated to solving the problems of the world’s poor by not merely doling out his own money but by “leveraging” that of hapless taxpayers, muscling pharmaceutical companies, and bugging the entire corporate sector to divert its attention from making money to solving social problems. Indeed, there is a danger that the Saviour from Seattle may do as much damage in the process of giving away his fortune (and that of Mr. Buffett) as he did good in building it.
Mr. Gates has always reacted angrily to those — such as William Easterly — who point out that humanitarian aid has mostly been not just ineffective but counterproductive. Now Mr. Gates’ ire has fallen on best-selling author Matt Ridley for his book, The Rational Optimist, in which Mr. Ridley dares to suggest that human ingenuity and free markets might actually enable us to muddle through to a brighter future. What in particular angers Mr. Gates is Mr. Ridley’s suggestion that the problems of Africa and climate change have been greatly overstated, and that solutions are in any case not likely to come either from aid or from unwieldy processes such as that one dying this week in Cancun (which, it should be noted, is also very much tied up with justifying more aid).
Milton Friedman once noted that most businessmen are anti-capitalists. However, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are moving into a category all their own, putting their vast fortunes behind support for everything from philanthrostatism to just plain statism.
Mr. Buffett recently offered fulsome praise to “Uncle Sam” for allegedly rescuing the U.S. (and himself) — with taxpayers’ money — from the consequences of policies put in place by … Uncle Sam. The Sage of Omaha is a big believer in soaking the rich. He has joined Mr. Gates in a high-profile attempt to strong-arm other billionaires into committing to give away their fortunes, thus implying that the world’s billionaires might otherwise be cooking up schemes to “take it with them.”
Mr. Gates has in the meantime become a full-blown Global Salvationist, dedicated to solving the problems of the world’s poor by not merely doling out his own money but by “leveraging” that of hapless taxpayers, muscling pharmaceutical companies, and bugging the entire corporate sector to divert its attention from making money to solving social problems. Indeed, there is a danger that the Saviour from Seattle may do as much damage in the process of giving away his fortune (and that of Mr. Buffett) as he did good in building it.
Mr. Gates has always reacted angrily to those — such as William Easterly — who point out that humanitarian aid has mostly been not just ineffective but counterproductive. Now Mr. Gates’ ire has fallen on best-selling author Matt Ridley for his book, The Rational Optimist, in which Mr. Ridley dares to suggest that human ingenuity and free markets might actually enable us to muddle through to a brighter future. What in particular angers Mr. Gates is Mr. Ridley’s suggestion that the problems of Africa and climate change have been greatly overstated, and that solutions are in any case not likely to come either from aid or from unwieldy processes such as that one dying this week in Cancun (which, it should be noted, is also very much tied up with justifying more aid).
In a recent exchange in The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Gates objected strongly to Mr. Ridley’s faith in bottom-up human ingenuity when it came to solving the problems of Africa and climate change, in which, according to Mr. Gates, Mr. Ridley’s expertise is “not very deep.”
One of Mr. Ridley’s alleged flaws is that he spends only 14 pages on Africa. This, of course, is no more an argument than the “not very deep” crack. Indeed, Mr. Gates presents no argument against Mr. Ridley’s assertion that it is freedom and property rights that are the source of the vast majority of wealth.
Mr. Gates’ bizarre claim is that saving lives will lead to slower population growth, and thus higher economic output. This makes no sense. It is higher economic output that leads to lower population growth, not the other way round. Meanwhile, as Mr. Ridley points out, Africa has as many entrepreneurs as anywhere; they just need to be freed from tyranny and bureaucracy. It is there that Africa’s hope lies, not in the posturing of Lords Bountiful such as Mr. Gates.
When it comes to climate change, Mr. Gates embarrasses himself, suggesting that he is not able to grasp Mr. Ridley’s devastatingly clear-cut analysis of the economic nonsense at the heart of the projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Put simply, the IPCC’s projections are based on poor countries being devastated at the same time as they are achieving astonishing wealth.
Instead of addressing evidence taken from the IPCC itself, Mr. Gates subcontracted his thinking to a single scientist, Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science, who responded by praising the role of U.S. regulations, “based on publicly funded science,” in reducing pollution! “What is true of the U.S. case, I’d suggest,” writes Mr. Gates, “can be true of the world as a whole as we deal with the challenges posed by climate change.” In other words, what we need is more global regulation. This from the guy who for years was persecuted by U.S. anti-trust authorities.
Mr. Gates takes a quick swipe at the excessive pessimism of Karl Marx, perhaps imagining that this is sufficient to establish his credentials as a free enterpriser. He also takes a shot at the short-sightedness of the “sustainability” perspective, and mentions Julian Simon’s famous bet with Paul Ehrlich as other hints that he might really “get it.” But he doesn’t. Instead he suggests that what we need is to have “the right people” worrying about, and acting upon, potential threats. Those right people would presumably be him and all those highly paid wonks he has hired to tell him how to think.
Mr. Gates concludes by accusing Mr. Ridley of being a Pollyanna, of suggesting “Don’t worry, be happy.” Rather, Mr. Ridley is somebody who insists on looking at real costs and benefits, and at the lessons of history. Mr. Gates prefers to proceed on the basis of historical ignorance, moral self-inflation and a dangerously large pile of cash. Perhaps that’s why Mr. Ridley’s response was remarkably mild. For some reason, people are reluctant to speak truth to billions.
Idiot-Savant.
I highly recommend The Rational Optimist. The most enlightening book I have read in a very long time.
Savant indicates some level of specialized intellect.
Obama has neither specialization nor intellect.
Idiot suffices.
The problem with Gates is arrogance. He has had great success, wealth, and monopoly control over a very important industry - and for decades, has always been worshipped and praised as the smartest guy in the room. Of course he believes that other elitists can work out all the problems for the unwashed masses.
Gates needs to be humbled.
I am not a huge Apple fan but Jobs is less of a fascist one-world Obama stooge than Gates/Buffett. Screw Gates. Microsoft sucks.
I am no fan of Bill Gates’ philosophy, neither am I a huge fan of Microsoft, but as for the company, Gates has not been involved with it for at least 4 years.
Steve Ballmer is the man for Microsoft now and I know of MANY Microsoft engineers and sales people who aren’t statist.
So, let’s keep Gates and Microsoft separate for now.
Super-rich statists are nothing new. There were many Industrialists who joined the bad side in Ayn Rand novels too.
What these guys really want is global communism.
Sickening!
I am not sure the motivation for super industrialists to renounce the environment that permitted them to succeed. Gates was a ruthless capitalist, dedicated to wealth creation. His wild success has perhaps brought a sense of guilt that has clouded his vision. Perhaps it is just the overwhelming sense of power enabled by his business success.
Why do very successful industrialists lose the fervor to continue to grow their wealth? Do they forget about the transformations enabled by economic growth? Are they blind to the devastion of statist policies? The experience in the Eastern Block was a vivid picture of the ravages of state control. The state was heavy handed but the ravages were not due the restrictions on political disent. The ravages occurred because of state control of the economies.
“Bill Gates, irrational statist (Billionaire thinks we should rely on wonks, not property rights) “
OK so they’ll put Steve Jobs in charge of the tech sector. Moron.
Gates has risen to his level of incompetance.
Except when it comes to enforcing copyright on Microsoft products.
Indeed.
Well, Jobs makes prettier life-tracking and total surveillance products, that's for sure. And when his boot smashes down on a chained face, you can be sure it will be the most stylish possible boot, and clean. And that the ad campaign for face smashing will be careful to reframe the process as a maxilo-facial realignment breakthrough that is available only to premium subscribers.
elitist bump for later......
Gates and his father are morons. They should be first in line to be forced to give up their wealth before the rest of us has to !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.