Bill Gates, Time Magazine "Person of the Year" 751
klubar writes "Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda, were named Time Magazine "Persons of the Year". He was joined in this honor with Irish rocker Bono-all being named for being "Good Samaritans" who made a difference."
This should prove... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well. (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course the other argument is that, percentage wise he doesn't actually give that much...
Kudos (Score:4, Insightful)
Keep up the good work, Mr & Mrs Gates.
Respect.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Aero
Before you flame Time... (Score:1, Insightful)
I am not making any links, I am not vehemently anti-Gates, but I just thought it would be a good perspective to keep in mind before you went and sent letter bombs to Time
Sorry to get Biblical guys... (Score:5, Insightful)
41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts.
42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.
43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others.
44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything-- all she had to live on."
As much as I understand the necessity of patting people on their back for doing anything at all with their insanely huge wealth - to stop them turning away sneering at the 'ingratitude' of the world, I can think of a lot of "Good Samaritans" who better deserved Person of the Year
Keep it in Perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
For every illegal practice Bill's company has been accused of, there are at least a few practices that have helped bring computers and the internet to the masses. Not sure I would personally consider Bill Gates to be a good person, but you have to be a ruthless dictator in order to run a multi-national. When in Rome. Show me one CEO who can exist in *that* world, without holding true to the values of the Sith.
That said, much of Bill's contribution to the dark side of the force has sparked great strides for the light. Our enemies unite us, and there is no clearer enemy to Open Source than Bill Gates. Maybe he just wants us all working for free? Nah.
Total amount is really not a true measure (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:cancel my subsc... oh wait, never mind. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Kudos (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Well. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe Roman Abramovich is a model citizen, because, while he wastes his money on football teams, yachts, and whores, at least he hasn't made (gasp! horror!) a closed-source operating system? That's really what it's about, isn't it?
Sorry Bill (Score:2, Insightful)
1) EULAs that take away the users rights
2) Operating systems with little or no security
3) Business tactics that make the Borgias look like a kindergarden group.
5/10, try harder.
Ed Almos
Just the Carnegies and Rockefellers of the past (Score:2, Insightful)
Time Magazine, how stupid are you.
Re:Say what you like (Score:5, Insightful)
The same amount I've raised using illegal business practices.
Re:Cynics' Interpretation (Score:4, Insightful)
good samaritan who made a difference n. Rich bastard in need of a tax break.
Standard Slashdot comment every time this topic comes up.
Hopefully, at sometime time, the morons will realize that
making charitable donations doesn't increase your money.
1) You have 100$. No charitable donations.
You pay say 30% tax on it - i.e. 30$.
You have 70$ left with you.
2) You have 100$. You give 20$ to charity.
Now you pay tax only on the remaining 80% i.e. 24$.
The money you have left = 100 -24 - 20 = 56$.
i.e You would have been left with more money if you
hadn't given charity & got the tax breaks.
The only diff to this scenario is when giving the
donation puts you in a lower tax bracket. However
I doubt it that's the case with Bill Gates - he should
far far above the highest tax bracket.
Re:The devil is always kind (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Get me a bucket I'm gonna throw up. (Score:2, Insightful)
Conspiracy Theory FTW!
Bill Gates is surely giving a larger percentage to charity than I do. I think I gave $2 for the flood victims because a couple of swedes were there, otherwise I usually think "well build yuor homes somewhere else next time". Otherwise I havn't been giving a single penny to charity for about 10 years.
Re:Well. (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean really. See beyond your jealousy and hatred of IE's "broken HTML" and other assorted technical-philosophical gripes for one minute.
Bono bloody Bono (Score:3, Insightful)
Time also named former Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton as "Partners of the Year" for their humanitarian efforts after the Asian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina, and the unlikely friendship that developed from that work.
Unlikely friendship??? Someone hand me a hanky. Gotta love applauding Bush for Katrina. It ain't as ironic as giving Kissenger the Peace prize, but it's gettting there. And Bono??? Bono???
The guy may be well meaning and all, but by allowing politicians to exploit him, he essentially allows them to look good while they make the problems of Africa worse. Him and Bobby Geldof were complete tools at the last G8, allowing Blair to look like he wanted to help Africa, when all they did was continue the same IMF policies of handouts in exchange for selling off of resources to the west. And Bono does it over and over again [zmag.org].
Bono - Pompous, Self-Righteous Twit (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=1
This quote epitomizes U2's pious, holier-than-thou attitude:
"I don't know why, but we always had this belief that there was something sacred about our music, that it was almost holy."
-Bono, pompous asshole and lead singer of U2
Cocky, high-handed, imperial assholes.
Re:Linus Charity donations (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe we should be evaluated not by how much we donate, but by what we have left after the donation. Then, I could be considered as a _big_ donator!
Re:Respect.. (Score:3, Insightful)
false. You need only to look at all the local libraries that were built and furnished with books or look at a number of our universities (CMU comes to mind). Gates foundation has spent a mere amount compared to the robber barons of the 1800s/early 1900s. Now down the road, he may well do more, but at this time, he has not even come close.
Re:Linus Charity donations (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you implying that Bill Gates who keeps for himself every bit of "intelectual property" that he has created or has had others create on his behalf is a better man than a guy who has shared his work with all of humanity?
I didnt think you were.
Sycophants and Shills (Score:3, Insightful)
It just goes to show that people are stupid and that the mass media are sycophants.
I am sick and tired of hearing what a great genius and philanthropists Bill Gates is.
Let us not forget that Bill Gates went to India in 2002 and gave $100 million to fight AIDS, which received great press. What the main-stream media failed to report was that $421 million of Microsoft's money at the time went to fight Linux and Free Software [theregister.co.uk].
So make your own conclusions about his priorities.
Re:This should prove... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well. (Score:2, Insightful)
God how I *do* hate to defend Bill Gates, but giving to charity is without a shred of a doubt where this man really shines:
the Seattle-based foundation has an endowment of approximately $28.8 billion.
(Thats from: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/AboutUs/ [gatesfoundation.org] )
28.8 billion. Buh-ill-eee-on. LARGE number. And even quite a healthy percentage of Gate's own personal fortune. He's worth about sixty billion right now.
So, if you do not give near half of the worth of your total assets, I second the idea of you "enjoying a slice of shut the hell up".
Re:Well. (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course the other argument is that, percentage wise he doesn't actually give that much...
- My main beef is: how much of that charity money is obtained due to the fact that his company is a gigantic monopoly? He made a fortune entirely on unethical and sometimes illegal competition and now he is donating a boatload of that money away.
Re:Well. (Score:1, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gat
He has donated over 30 Billion dollars and is worth about 50 Billion ATM, can anyone here really say they have given a larger percentage of their money to charity?
Re:Linus Charity donations (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This should prove... (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how they missed bin Laden in 2001, who turned the world upside down, in favour of Giuliani, who for all his virtues, was just a mayor. Obviously they choked on following through on their own stated criteria when it was too close to home.
Re:Sorry to get Biblical guys... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:cancel my subsc... oh wait, never mind. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well. (Score:4, Insightful)
Infact, Bill Gates, who had a lot to do with the success of the modern PC revolution has helped hundreds of millions of people get jobs that made them trillions of dollars. And I don't care if he gives to charity either, but sure, it is nice.
Every market transaction makes both parties better off, or else they would not engage in the transaction.
Re:This should prove... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is always easier to destroy rather than build. It is easier to tear down than rebuild. Most mayors would not have shown the leadership that Giuliani did. See New Orleans, use the mayor or governer as examples. Not bad people, but simply not up to the task and not having the leadership skills needed to cope. You and I would probably not done much better.
So Giuliani *did* make a difference, in making what Bin Laden attempted to do less meaningful. Distructive, yes. Painful, yes. Did it make the US back down and do what he wanted? No.
"Giuliani was just a mayor" is the *whole point* of why he got Person of the Year. He wasn't supposed to be capable of displaying this kind of leadership, yet he did. He is "just a mayor" that did more to comfort Americans all over the US, and deal with the real issues, make the hard decisions, and kept a cool head he entire time. Perfect? No, but I can't think of anyone else that could have done better, nor anyone else more deserving in 2001.
My person of the year... (Score:5, Insightful)
My person of the year is Jabbar Gibson [wikipedia.org], the 18 year old kid who saved 70 people from the aftermath of Katrina by stealing a bus and driving to Houston. Maybe that's because my definition of a hero is somebody that rises above even when the chips are down.
Re:Cynics' Interpretation (Score:4, Insightful)
Tax rates are marginal anyway, so it wouldn't save you any additional money if you did switch brackets. Assuming that there's a tax bracket at $90, with everything below it taxed at 15%, and everything above it taxed at 30% as above. Repeating the same two scenarios that you used:
(1) $100 income, no charitable contribution. $90 @ 15% + $10 @ 30% = $13.50 + $3.00 = $16.50 of taxes. After-tax income: $83.50
(2) $100 income, $20 charitable contribution. $80 @ 15% = $12.00 of taxes. After-tax income: $68
So not only does money not magically appear from crossing marginal tax rate boundries, but your tax refund on the donation isn't even as large ($6 in the parent's example, but only $4.50 here), so while the $20 contribution only took $14 out of the parent's pocket at the end of the day, here the same contribution would cost us $15.50
Re:This should prove... (Score:4, Insightful)
But I would like to congratulate you for creating on of the most subtle Godwins ever =).
Re: Sycophants and Shills (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, $100,000,000 / $51,000,000,000,000 = 0.2% of his net worth.
Suppose you're far better off than most people, to the point of having $100,000 socked away in the bank, and you decide to be equally generous. Should you expect kudos for your $200 donation?
What about all the people working their way through college, who still find a way to dro $5 or $10 in their church's collection plate every week?
Re:Sorry to get Biblical guys... (Score:3, Insightful)
6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
6:2 Therefore when thou doest [thine] alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6:3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
6:4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
i.e Donating to charity and not boasting about it is charity. Putting out press releases afterwards makes it self publicity.
Re:Linus Charity donations (Score:5, Insightful)
Kudos to Bill for all the charity work he has done, but the impact of creating a very good operating system that the people in the poorest of countries can use for free, on old "thrown away" hardware is tremendous. I'm not a Christian, but there is good sense in the phrase: Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.
Linus's gift will keep giving years after he is gone because it helps raise the education and living standards in the poorest nations. And he doesn't exactly get a tax credit for it. Of course, let us not forget everyone who contributes to FOSS, be it Samba, Apache, Bind or Squirrelmail, and of course our own Jesus look-alike, RMS
It's hard to measure the impact in dollars, but GNU/BSD/FOSS are great equalizers that embiggen the smallest men.
Re:Well. (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe the figure is 2% of his net worth. Thats certainly much more, percentage wise, than I give. Fair play to him.
Re:This should prove... (Score:1, Insightful)
Bin Laden made a much bigger difference than Giuliani did. Anyone could have done what Giuliani did. Anyone.
Yes, I'm posting AC because of the tremendous wealth of idiots who think Giuliani did anything extraordinary.
Re:Well. (Score:2, Insightful)
To show real humanity, Gates would have to open and tell people what kind of a gutter rat he really was and how he is going to change (especially his predatory business practices).
Re:Sycophants and Shills (Score:2, Insightful)
Let us not forget that Bill Gates went to India in 2002 and gave $100 million to fight AIDS, which received great press. What the main-stream media failed to report was that $421 million of Microsoft's money at the time went to fight Linux and Free Software.
Because of course the man's personal spending habits and those of his company are a valid comparison, and he has total control over every action Microsoft takes.
Whatever else you may think of the man, you can't make a comparison like this to show his priorities. Many others are involved in decisions of where to spend Microsoft's money, and as rich as he is, I imagine $100 million means more to him than $400 million to Microsoft.
Re:This should prove... (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh, and look what happened, coincidence eh?
Re:This should prove... (Score:4, Insightful)
That is impossible.
Where are they pointing the camera? Framing what? Who is mic'd? And what other audio is present? For how long do you shoot?
The idea that you can somehow remove all subjectivity from the newsgathering process is a false one.
Re:Sycophants and Shills (Score:3, Insightful)
That's bad reasoning, it's like saying that if this year I buy a house for $100 000 and only give $33 000 to charity, I'm an evil person for putting my interests before those of people in need.
No it isn't.
Bill Gates got where he is today through ruthlessness, double-crossing, lying, cheating and selling deadful products at over-inflated prices. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.
Microsoft's strong-arm tactics and draconian licensing policies, high prices coupled with publicity and bribing governments locks whole countries into expensive Microsoft proprietary software, ruining indiginous engineering and leeching billions of dollars out of countries that can ill afford it. M$ then "gives away free" computers and "software licenses" to schools and universities to make sure that the next generation is indoctrinated into the Church of Bill.
Maybe if M$ didn't leech so much money, and productivity (due to poor software), out of these "developing" countries, they'd be better developed and more able to cope with things like AIDS on their own without Bill's pocket change.
Microsoft has ruined the world econonmy in the last 15 years.
Re:This should prove... (Score:3, Insightful)
I would disagree with this for a simple reason: how many people outside the United States have heard of Giuliani, or knew anything that he did on 9/11? Not many. On the other hand, bin Laden is known worldwide and everyone is very clear on what he and his organization did.
So Giuliani *did* make a difference, in making what Bin Laden attempted to do less meaningful. Distructive, yes. Painful, yes. Did it make the US back down and do what he wanted? No.
He sure did. He got his Holy War in the middle east; there's no way bin Laden could have coaxed that into existence without 9/11, he was quite marginal before then. I'd call it total success for him, actually. Not to mention the fact that a big chunk of the US population has been wringing its hands over terror attacks ever since (as Gwynne Dyer puts it, "there are heavy smokers who worry about terrorism").
Corp v corp conflict is necessary ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bill's corporation competed against other corporations, it harmed some of them, but that is how the market is supposed to work. That is in part how we have a darwinian process that determines supply and demand. MS' illegal practices were not obviously illegal at the time they were put into practice, the line is fuzzy and they were definitely treading in questionable territory but it was not a given that the government would see that it would warrant prosecution and it was not a given that a judge would rule against them. Comparing MS to the Mafia just destroys any credibility you may have, it exposes your politics / blind hatred. Linux destroys corporations, the traditional Unix vendrors. Apple can be even more heavy handed than MS. They merely don't get the bad press because they are not on top. Markets are like hamburgers, their creation is not a pretty picture.
Re:Well. (Score:5, Insightful)
That particular piece of dogma assumes that everybody has perfect knowledge of all the economic factors, and an infallible ability to apply that knowledge correctly. It may make for a nice computer model, but it applies only sporadically to real life. As a counterexample, ask some ex-Enron employees how much better off they are due to their 'market transactions' with Enron regarding their retirement funds...
Out of curiousity.... (Score:2, Insightful)
The only headlines I remember about Gates donations deal with MS software and computers that have MS software preloaded, particularly to charities and schools. These donations are simply good marketing. They get people to feel good about MS, they get schools on the MS upgrade threadmill (first one is free, next one costs you), and they get students hooked on MS products so when they go out into the work-force they are MS evangelists. Most big companies, properietary or open source, to varying degrees, use the same strategy. For instance, Jobs wanted to donate OSX for the $100 laptops. Generosity aside, it would have been a huge marketing opportunity for Apple. In the end Red Hat was chosen.
If you subtract all the marketing related "charity" work, what how much have the Gateses actually donated compared to other billionaires in their league?
Re:Well. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but it also destroys the local retail outlets. That can really hurt a tight-knigt community (just think of how different the vibe is at your favorite local shop vs Wal Mart), and said storekeepers will have to adjust. And working at Wal-Mart is NOT an improvement. Sure Wal-Mart might throw jobs at those whow might otherwise have difficulty finding employment (particularly the mentally handicapped), but it doesn't change the fact that they pay starvation wages and make it exceedingly difficult to rise in the ranks.
Infact, Bill Gates, who had a lot to do with the success of the modern PC revolution has helped hundreds of millions of people get jobs that made them trillions of dollars.
I think you have it backwards. Windows was fueled by the success of the PC revolution, not vice versa. If we didn't have Windows, we'd be running some sucessor to OS/2 instead... which would probably be an improvement. MS didn't create the market, and their near-monopoly status has resulted in less competition which means less jobs then their could/should be.
Every market transaction makes both parties better off, or else they would not engage in the transaction.
Sure. But that doesn't mean one side isn't getting the better deal (usually due to a lack of choice). Like the check I write to my ISP every moth since they're the broadband operation in town. Or when the Lakers traded Shaq for Lamar Odom.
Re:for good or for ill (Score:5, Insightful)
Not anymore. In 2001, the Man Of The Year was Rudolph Guiliani, when it is painfully obvious that Usama bin Laden had an inestimably bigger impactful on that year's events. (Indeed, 100% of Rudy's interesting actions were merely responses to Usama's initiatives).
Face it, Time uses at least 4 factors to pick Yearitude: Attractiveness, Deserving, Virtue, and Import.
Re:This should prove... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but not true. His was the face people saw all over the world. You can google it in any country and see the sheer volume of articles about him. I deal with Europeans on a daily basis, they know him, believe me.
He sure did. He got his Holy War in the middle east; there's no way bin Laden could have coaxed that into existence without 9/11
This assumes that Bin Laden wanted a holy war over in the middle east. I am pretty sure this is *not* what he wanted. What he wanted was for the US to get OUT of the middle east, not more involved. He didn't want the US to mow over Afghanistan and give it back to the people. He didn't want the Saudis to work with us (who are his sworn enemies).
I have no idea why people think Bin Laden wanted a war. He didn't. He wanted a blow so hard that we would be afraid of war. He wanted capitulation and the American people to rise up and tell the government to get us out of Saudi Arabia and the middle east, and in particular, to quit helping Israel. He has stated as much, many times, so this isn't exactly guesswork.
Now what he has is a war in his own backyard, with more democracies than before (Afghanistan and Iraq), women voting and participating, and going to school. Even Egypt and Saudi Arabia have begun some limited but meaningful democratic reforms. Many people in Jordan are protesting against Al Qaeda. Siria is under pressure to pull out of Lebanon. I'm pretty damn sure this isn't what Bin Laden had as a goal.
It has been painful, ugly, deadly and far from over, but anyone who thinks Bin Laden is winning is simply kidding themselves, or willing to spin the facts to their own fantasy life view.
Like Saddam, he simply misunderestimated the US and our few but true allies.
Re:This should prove... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bin Laden changed the entire world by provoking the US to go on the rampage. Which was exactly what he planned. Giuliani did a great job, as mayor of one single (big) city, but how many people in the world even know his name? Half the world knows bin Laden, and their daily lives are affected by his actions and the fear he provoked. This week, for instance: The Lebanese immigrants who were beaten up in Sydney; the NSA spying on Americans Bush is trying to defend. Every day there are more repercussions of that one act.
Re:Keep it in Perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
Pleaaaaase, come on ! Before the IBM PC (note, 'IBM'), there were lots of personal computers just as able, CP/M was working OK, and there were many less known OS just as able or more useful than MS-DOS ; speaking of Internet, I remember pretty well it was much easier to connect with OS/2 warp than Win 3.1 (where you had to rely on third party connectors such as trumpet winsock), and until Win95 osr/2 the connection was still a pain in the butt, while most major OSes had already seamless Internet integration (including linux, BSD, aforementionned OS/2, etc.).
Bill is a capitalist genious when it comes to steal and sell other's ideas to masses, but that's been his only contribution to mankind so far.
Re:This should prove... (Score:5, Insightful)
True. That's WHY Usama was more important: because he was a destroyer, and destruction is easier. Therefore with the same amount of effort, he could become more important than someone who tried to create or preserve.
The easiest way to earn an international headline is always to flip out and kill a bunch of people. No contest, no question.
Actually, many would argue that Giuliani made more of a difference than Bin Laden
That's rather insulting to Giuliani, but it might be true. Prehaps if he'd had a more intelligent fire-depeartment structure, there could've been 1000 fewer deaths. But it's a stretch to blame him for that incompetence.
You can google it in any country and see the sheer volume of articles about him.
If you'd done that, you'd know Guiliani had under 0.3% of binLaden's article count. LNS.
with more democracies than before (Afghanistan and Iraq),
Neither of them has come close to qualifying as a "democracy" yet.
Even Egypt and Saudi Arabia have begun some limited but meaningful democratic reforms.
Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, and especially Iran have become more theocratic and militant at the same time. The worsening conditions in Iran and North Korea are especially troublesome, as either of them had already presented a stronger threat than Iraq plus Afganistan combined.
Re:Well. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:This should prove... (Score:2, Insightful)
What do you mean no? The American people have lost more freedom in a couple of years than they have gained in a hundred years. The Secret Police (Homeland "Security") listens to the calls, watches who they meet, where they travel, what books they borrow from the library. American citizens who photograph public buildings are dragged into police stations for hours and hours of interrogation without attorneys present or any kind of defense whatsoever. Election results are being tampered with. By uttering the magic word "terrorism" FBI can attack whoever they want. Their target cannot defend him/herself in any way, not even go public about the attack since that is against the law too. Osama bin Laden did never even have wet dreams about such a success in destroying the American way of life and the freedom of all Americans. Republicans and the Bush regime have done his job better than he ever could.
New Orleans (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, Katrina is in a whole other order of magnitude from 9/11. We're talking a few buildings knocked down vs. widespread destruction across an entire city and ensuing unlivability and anarchy.
Also, with 9/11, federal aid was instantaneous.
9/11 was a tragedy, but it has been so played-up to incite "patriotism" that many have lost perspective on what a true disaster is.
Re:Well. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is the percentage of your net worth the right way to measure generosity? Bill Gates can give that much money away without it affecting his lifestyle in the slightest. You think he notices the difference between having $60bn and having $90bn? Is it really so generous to give that much money away when you don't even notice it's gone? He could give twice that much money away and live like a king for the rest of his life.
Normal people couldn't give away half their net worth without losing their home. That alone should clue you in that percentage of net worth isn't the right way to measure generosity.
The PR works. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fallacy (Score:2, Insightful)
How much do you attribute that truth to Bill Gates, and how much do you attribute that to the corporate collective? What I think is that Gates is sometimes sold on really bad ideas that hurt the company, from people who want to get ahead in the company (risk takers, wheeling & dealing). Bill might be a genius, but he buys into sometimes wrong ideologies, because he is possibly an idealist at heart (with the intellect to think he actually can make a difference, because he can see it maybe the way I'm describing it). Some of the most dangerous people have the best intentions, and I like to think Bill gets caught up in corporate politics, not that he's a bad person. Corporatism is not free market, but one man does not truly have absolute power. There are always outside forces, for good and evil.
Re:Well. (Score:3, Insightful)
Giving to charity, so much an anglosaxon measurement for how good you are, always comes after (!!) the fact that people have taken care of their own well being. As a simple example, mother Theresa didn't GIVE to charity, she WAS charity.
Having moved from Europe to Canada (which follows the American/British model), I'm still flabergasted about how people here think that 'giving to charity' can wipe out their evil, or lack of action. You first lay-off a person, no problem at all, and then when Xmas comes you give some spaghetti-kits to them via the food-bank and -- even better for feeling good -- some cheap toys to the Childrens Hospital. And then it's all OK again.
I don't care a dime what Bill Gates is doing for Africa. That's only spending money. I do care what he is doing as a person, even more as a business person and that hasn't smelled very well over the last two decenia...
Re:This should prove... (Score:3, Insightful)
The argument against that being that a real life robin hood would steal from Bill Gates since he is the richest man on the planet. If Bill is a modern Robin hood, he skims off the top so much that he is the number one target of any other modern day Robin Hood. The super rich [com.com] stealing from the middle class to help feed the poor does not exaclty fit the robin hood stereotype. Just about anyone stealing from Bill Gates and giving to the poor would fit the stereotype.