Maybe for Gates, as the saying goes, "I'd rather be lucky than smart". I agree that the "elimination of poverty" is an impossible goal. However, the distinction is not in the goal he is setting, but the attitude he is adopting. There is the saying "Life is unjust", or "Life isn't fair". The point isn't whether it is true - it obviously is. The point is whether it is used as the end of an argument, or the beginning of one. That is a statement on the individual making it, not an organization or institution. Gates has chosen to use it as the beginning of an argument. He has the resources to make a substantial contribution, whereas most can only make small ones in time and/or money. When he dies, the only point will be whether he took one side of the argument or the other. Apparently he made his choice.
Total BS. The big house and yacht cost a lot of money to build and maintain... employed/employs a lot of people... and pays a lot of taxes to some local revenooer. All of that money goes back into the economy. Besides, who is better qualified to spend the money he/she made?
Bill's an intelligent, visionary man and very dedicated to getting the most bang out of his bucks. I'm sure he will find more efficient ways to improve living standards of the poor than to just hand over bags of money to corrupt foreign governments... The very assumption that he will do so is a testimony to some people's short-sightedness here. BTW, from Wikipedia: "As of 2007, Bill and Melinda Gates were the second most generous philanthropists in America, having given over $28 billion to charity."
ahhhhhhhh, Your very Wikipedia quote seems to contradict your comments - they have given $28 Billion, but has poverty gone away? Has it even been reduced? I don't think people aren't giving Gates credit for wanting to do some good, but there is no way in heck he can stop some corruption from occuring with that amount of money especially after he's dead! JJackET4
They only seem to contradict from a short-sighted point of view. Most of it is 'invested' in improved health care and education, which, according to Gates, will pay of eventually. Sure, efficiency can always be improved, but I'm sure that's what he'll work on for many years to come.
I respect your opinion, but I just wanted to put in my two cents. Economic prosperity is directly correlated with a decline in the population replacement number. A number of 2.1 children per woman is required to keep population constant. The United States is just above this number and declining while most of europe and some asian countries are in the 1's. Far more telling though is that the acceleration of this coefficient is negative and declining further. Over time this leads to even lower replacement rates and potentially underpopulation problems such as in Japan. The UN estimates the carrying capcity of the earth at anywhere between 10 and 15 billion people. They also estimate the world population to cap off at 10 billion by 2030 and begin to decline from there. If you are in your twenties like me the world is going to look much different in thrity - forty years than people are making you believe. I say all of this to make the point that I believe Bill Gates is doing this in the hopes that it leads to less population growth and a more sustainable world. If there is a free market solution to the worlds problems we should openly support it. Or would you rather the government decide how to handle rising populations and scarce resources? Just something to chew on.