Bill Gates: China's wealthy should be more charitable

[TaiShang]

Where did you get all this from? He just asked for the rich to help the poor.

Why are people who upset about this? What if he was a Chinese ultra-nationalist? Nothing about his message of helping the poor would change.

I don't understand where this anger is coming from.

You do not have to understand. Sometimes all you need to do is to respect. We do not have to explain every single sentiment of us to outsiders.

Do we question why your people behave this or that way at every instance?

 

[That Guy]

What @iajj said is spot on. Charity is the biggest hoax pulled by oligarch's like him and others in an oligarchy like the US. People and their welfare should be the responsibility of the govt., not whims of billionaires and rich people like him, whose priorities are screwed up to begin with. The reason there are rich billionaires is because in a capitalist system, the rich always gets to control the system to their advantage. Most of them became rich is by conning others, so they are the biggest crooks around. Western democracies are already failing in this respect. Liberals are doing their best to go towards a more social democratic type govt. like in Scandinavia, but they are failing in the US:
Nordic model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This has nothing to do with nationalism, but rather about efficiency of governance. The system that allows con men and crooks to become billionaires and depends on their whims for welfare of people is screwed up. Chinese system is still evolving, so hard to say how it will turn out eventually.

The system that provides best welfare for the maximum number of people among a population and thus maximizes their creative potential and at the same time creates a space for enterprises who can channel these creative individuals will best others and rule the world. The West is still best at it, even with all its flaws, others like China can definitely beat it if they can be more efficient in creating opportunities for people and maximizing their productivity. And I am glad that the Chinese people do not have to depend on rich people's charity for their welfare.

The idea that the US and the West has figured out the best system of governance and no one can have a better system than them is the typical supremacy complex you will find among people from these countries. I would like to see China prove them wrong and it will be good for the rest of the world to break their supremacy complex.

I completely disagree, his message has nothing to do with the socio-economic model of a nation or region. His message is clear, give back to the people who helped make your rich.

Your mention of the nordic model completely ignores the fact that it does not rule out charity. Yes, the government must be the one to take take care of it's people, but it's a flawed way to think if you honestly believe that the government will be able to help you in any which way, especially if you're nation is the size of China, it's just economically unviable for the Chinese government at this time to go ahead with just a method of governance. But, let's be fair and look at the welfare model of nordic system...

"
Nordic welfare model
The Nordic welfare model refers to the welfare policies of the Nordic countries, which also tie into their labor market policies.

While there are differences among different Nordic countries, they all share a broad commitment to social cohesion, a universal nature of welfare provision in order to safeguard individualism by providing protection for vulnerable individuals and groups in society, and maximizing public participation in social decision-making. It is characterized by flexibility and openness to innovation in the provision of welfare. The Nordic welfare systems are mainly funded through taxation.

Despite the common values, the Nordic countries take different approaches to the practical administration of the welfare state. Denmark features a high degree of private sector provision of public services and welfare, alongside an assimilation immigration policy. Iceland's welfare model is based on a "welfare-to-work" (see: workfare) model, while part of Finland's welfare state includes the voluntary sector playing a significant role in providing care for the elderly. Norway relies most extensively on public provision of welfare."

Yeah, it doesn't say anything about not having charity. Even in these nordic nations, charitable organizations are still alive and much needed. It's completely unreasonable to think that places like Denmark can cover for every single one of their citizens. Living in Canada, I know about collectivism (more than most), I can tell you right now that it has it's flaws.

You do not have to understand. Sometimes all you need to do is to respect. We do not have to explain every single sentiment of us to outsiders.

Do we question why your people behave this or that way at every instance?

Hold on there, you've made some extreme allegations in your comment, I think it's only fair for you to explain yourself. I do understand what you're saying, what I don't understand is the logic behind it, because (to me) it makes little logical sense. It's simply a pit of assumptions, for example, you're accusation of neo-liberalism, do you even know what neo-liberalism is? It certainly doesn't promote charity or oligarchy. In fact, nothing Bill said deserves the scorn you're showing his simple statement. What I find disturbing is that you seem to be defending not helping the poor.

 

[kalu_miah]

I completely disagree, his message has nothing to do with the socio-economic model of a nation or region. His message is clear, give back to the people who helped make your rich.

Your mention of the nordic model completely ignores the fact that it does not rule out charity. Yes, the government must be the one to take take care of it's people, but it's a flawed way to think if you honestly believe that the government will be able to help you in any which way, especially if you're nation is the size of China, it's just economically unviable for the Chinese government at this time to go ahead with just a method of governance. But, let's be fair and look at the welfare model of nordic system...

"
Nordic welfare model
The Nordic welfare model refers to the welfare policies of the Nordic countries, which also tie into their labor market policies.

While there are differences among different Nordic countries, they all share a broad commitment to social cohesion, a universal nature of welfare provision in order to safeguard individualism by providing protection for vulnerable individuals and groups in society, and maximizing public participation in social decision-making. It is characterized by flexibility and openness to innovation in the provision of welfare. The Nordic welfare systems are mainly funded through taxation.[26]

Despite the common values, the Nordic countries take different approaches to the practical administration of the welfare state. Denmark features a high degree of private sector provision of public services and welfare, alongside an assimilation immigration policy. Iceland's welfare model is based on a "welfare-to-work" (see: workfare) model, while part of Finland's welfare state includes the voluntary sector playing a significant role in providing care for the elderly. Norway relies most extensively on public provision of welfare.[26]"

Yeah, it doesn't say anything about not having charity. Even in these nordic nations, charitable organizations are still alive and much needed. It's completely unreasonable to think that places like Denmark can cover for every single one of their citizens. Living in Canada, I know about collectivism (more than most), I can tell you right now that it has it's flaws.

He has no message, a product of a system has no right to peddle prescription to products of a different system, which is fundamentally different than his own system. The US system is failing big time, every day I hear hours and hours of radio shows about what difficulty the US is going through with its system, how the billionaires are screwing it up in every way possible. Are you aware how the Citizens united have changed the amount of money that corporations and rich people can spend on politics? Do you know the conservative judges are now majority in the Supreme court? Do you know that there is no one man one vote in the US, because of electoral college? Do you know how the gerrymandering is allowing Repubs to own the congress? This country, which happens to be the most powerful in the world is running itself to the ground and I know all about it, just ask me. They are just getting by and staying on top because of momentum and its going to come crashing to the ground, when pushed around by a better system. I am just hoping that China can do that job, but I am not so sure, may be the politburo can hire me as their consultant.

I mentioned Nordic system, not because it does not have role for Charity, it is still a capitalist society, but it provides much more welfare from the govt. and does not depend on Charity as much.

The core idea is that you want an efficient system with as little waste as possible and at the same time it maximizes the productive and creative potential of the human capital/resources - a system run for, by and of the billionaire do not for sure provide it, Nordic system I think does a better job than the US and I believe China has the potential to develop a meritocracy that may beat both, but its not a given. It can be achieved through experimentation and research, but the free market and capitalist dogma in the West will for sure not let it happen in the West. The powers that be controls the media, politics, money everything, they will never allow anyone who will threaten their status quo. You have seen how the Occupy wall street movement was crushed, it was kind of a moronic movement anyway, very disorganized and quickly got infiltrated by govt. subversives and provocateurs. But they have little power over how the Chinese system evolves and that is a good thing for the world.

 

[iajj]

Oh, you're an ultra-nationalist. Never mind, I don't talk to crazy people, because they generally have no idea what they're talking about.

I shall now ignore you.


That's generalizing things. As we don't have proof of your claims, I think it's safe to say that you're wrong.

u r an idiot if you don't understand the difference between ultranationationalist and ultra statist. i am both. it is the former that expresses my fondness of pakistan but it is the latter that is talking to you.

Besides, what is wrong with what he's asked? No one has been able to point out the flaw in what he's asked? He's simply asking others to be a bit more charitable, and to help the poor. What is wrong with that?

a lot of people here alreasdy explained what is wrong with his request (and with your defense ofit): it subverts the state! you are just a liberal or religious ideologue who obsessses over the idea of non-state charity and refuses to listen.

 

[TaiShang]

Hold on there, you've made some extreme allegations in your comment, I think it's only fair for you to explain yourself. I do understand what you're saying, what I don't understand is the logic behind it, because (to me) it makes little logical sense. It's simply a pit of assumptions, for example, you're accusation of neo-liberalism, do you even know what neo-liberalism is? It certainly doesn't promote charity or oligarchy. In fact, nothing Bill said deserves the scorn you're showing his simple statement. What I find disturbing is that you seem to be defending not helping the poor.

I know very well what neo-liberalism is. Neo-liberalism promotes charity by promoting individual morality/righteousness (against collective morality) and oligarchy by taking away state's powers and entrusting them to business interests and international organizations. You know, even the capitalist have to feel good about himself by giving away and even when the state is weakened the society has to be regulated in one way or another.

We are talking about his statement, simple or not, that's the point of departure for our discussion. Whether he meant it, how deeply he meant it, what was the context does not matter. I am not essentially against him (I do not address specific persons here), I criticize his argument by not agreeing with him. Give us that much liberty!

I defend progressive taxation and collective (state-led) help toward the poor. Individual help and good will is nice, but I despise hero-actions such as celebrity donations (BG is a celebrity).

 

[kalu_miah]

@iajj and @TaiShang China should start exporting its system of governance to developing countries like Bangladesh and others. We tried democracy and Indian agents took over using the freedom in democracy. Democracy is definitely not suitable for underdeveloped countries. I think we should move towards a Chinese style governance since it is already proven more effective than democracy.
@That Guy Pakistan should think about that as well.

 

[Solomon2]

...charity giving has little to do with tax collection, because tax collection is based on personal income.

Quite right. Very rich people in the U.S. do not donate from their income but from their wealth: entire assets deeded to charitable foundations. Gates' Microsoft is worth over 10,000 times the amount of money he originally invested in it!

charity drives can ease the burden from the government's shoulders, and can help the government help reach remote areas where the authorities have a hard time reaching.[/quite]Private charity is more flexible and can target special situations with more accuracy than government.

Finally, Bill gates has given tens of billions of dollars to eradicate polio and has helped millions of people with his charitable donations, I think he's earned the right to say whatever he wants.

And he's working to eradicate malaria worldwide by funding the R&D for a practical vaccine, which governments aren't doing.

Everyone has the right to speak. What Gates has earned is even more important: the right to be listened to.

 

[iajj]

Quite right. Very rich people in the U.S. do not donate from their income but from their wealth: entire assets deeded to charitable foundations. Gates' Microsoft is worth over 10,000 times the amount of money he originally invested in it!

stay out of this conversation, jew. your kind has had an entirely different understanding of state and wealth for the last few millennia than others'.

 

[Arya Desa]

chinese are not a people known for charity.

 

[That Guy]

@iajj and @TaiShang China should start exporting its system of governance to developing countries like Bangladesh and others. We tried democracy and Indian agents took over using the freedom in democracy. Democracy is definitely not suitable for underdeveloped countries. I think we should move towards a Chinese style governance since it is already proven more effective than democracy.
@That Guy Pakistan should think about that as well.

The Chinese style of governance isn't suited for a nation such as Bangladesh. Technically speaking, geography does a lot to dictate the type of government a nation will have. That's why the EU nations are democratic, and Russia has traditionally been authoritarian. I'm not going to pretend I know which type is best for Bangladesh, but the Chinese model wouldn't work for it.

 

[iajj]

The Chinese style of governance isn't suited for a nation such as Bangladesh. Technically speaking, geography does a lot to dictate the type of government a nation will have. That's why the EU nations are democratic, and Russia has traditionally been authoritarian. I'm not going to pretend I know which type is best for Bangladesh, but the Chinese model wouldn't work for it.

climatic/geographic determinism is so cliche - and so buried and dead when the modern state first demonstrated its political superiority. today all national rivalries and competition involve the competition in a more complete and perfect form of statism, which is why we always see from americans such sick combination of liberalism and neoconservatism.

neither china, nor pakistan, nor bangladesh nor any communist, social-democratic or even muslim countries should countenance the existence of charity organizations because no sovereign, functioning state can countenance the rich dictating the terms of relationship between them and the poor.

 

[senheiser]

why should china waste money, there have billions of poor in their own country

 

[That Guy]

I know very well what neo-liberalism is. Neo-liberalism promotes charity by promoting individual morality/righteousness (against collective morality) and oligarchy by taking away state's powers and entrusting them to business interests and international organizations. You know, even the capitalist have to feel good about himself by giving away and even when the state is weakened the society has to be regulated in one way or another.

We are talking about his statement, simple or not, that's the point of departure for our discussion. Whether he meant it, how deeply he meant it, what was the context does not matter. I am not essentially against him (I do not address specific persons here), I criticize his argument by not agreeing with him. Give us that much liberty!

I defend progressive taxation and collective (state-led) help toward the poor. Individual help and good will is nice, but I despise hero-actions such as celebrity donations (BG is a celebrity).

What you described is right wing conservatism, not left wing liberalism. Bill is far from being a celebrity, he just happens to be a rich influential man, it's not the same thing.

You have the right to disagree, but I have the right to question why you disagree and the logic behind it. Your logic sounds good, but in practical terms is unrealistic. China may one day end up where you're talking about, but it's not this day, and until that day arrives, something needs to be a stop gap.

u r an idiot if you don't understand the difference between ultranationationalist and ultra statist. i am both. it is the former that expresses my fondness of pakistan but it is the latter that is talking to you.



a lot of people here alreasdy explained what is wrong with his request (and with your defense ofit): it subverts the state! you are just a liberal or religious ideologue who obsessses over the idea of non-state charity and refuses to listen.

Uh no, nothing you've said is the same as what others are saying.

 

[That Guy]

He has no message, a product of a system has no right to peddle prescription to products of a different system, which is fundamentally different than his own system. The US system is failing big time, every day I hear hours and hours of radio shows about what difficulty the US is going through with its system, how the billionaires are screwing it up in every way possible. Are you aware how the Citizens united have changed the amount of money that corporations and rich people can spend on politics? Do you know the conservative judges are now majority in the Supreme court? Do you know that there is no one man one vote in the US, because of electoral college? Do you know how the gerrymandering is allowing Repubs to own the congress? This country, which happens to be the most powerful in the world is running itself to the ground and I know all about it, just ask me. They are just getting by and staying on top because of momentum and its going to come crashing to the ground, when pushed around by a better system. I am just hoping that China can do that job, but I am not so sure, may be the politburo can hire me as their consultant.

I mentioned Nordic system, not because it does not have role for Charity, it is still a capitalist society, but it provides much more welfare from the govt. and does not depend on Charity as much.

The core idea is that you want an efficient system with as little waste as possible and at the same time it maximizes the productive and creative potential of the human capital/resources - a system run for, by and of the billionaire do not for sure provide it, Nordic system I think does a better job than the US and I believe China has the potential to develop a meritocracy that may beat both, but its not a given. It can be achieved through experimentation and research, but the free market and capitalist dogma in the West will for sure not let it happen in the West. The powers that be controls the media, politics, money everything, they will never allow anyone who will threaten their status quo. You have seen how the Occupy wall street movement was crushed, it was kind of a moronic movement anyway, very disorganized and quickly got infiltrated by govt. subversives and provocateurs. But they have little power over how the Chinese system evolves and that is a good thing for the world.

See, I just can't agree with this, because his message is clear. You're making a big deal out of a simple message of good will.

Also, your entire idea for the Nordic system was that it doesn't have a role for charity, don't try and twist your own meaning.

The idea of state run welfare is all fine and dandy, but like I've mentioned before, it's unreasonable to expect the government to take care of everyone all the time. The government is very limited in what it can do, no government has that kind of reach, even in Canada. This is why governments allow charity groups to operate, it's why the Chinese gov hasn't shut down every single charity group that exists in the country.

Bill was not telling the Chinese gov to change it's policy or it's practices, his message wasn't even directed towards the gov, but rather the wealthy in China. What I find disturbing is that people are actually defending the ultra rich, which is exactly what is causing the income inequality in nations like the US and China.

 

[kalu_miah]

The Chinese style of governance isn't suited for a nation such as Bangladesh. Technically speaking, geography does a lot to dictate the type of government a nation will have. That's why the EU nations are democratic, and Russia has traditionally been authoritarian. I'm not going to pretend I know which type is best for Bangladesh, but the Chinese model wouldn't work for it.

If you do not know about Bangladesh then how would you know if Chinese model would not work in Bangladesh? What does geography has to do with it? May be you can elaborate.

I know well about Bangladesh and after the recent takeover of Indian intelligence of Bangladesh using their agents, under cover of so called democratic "freedom", they have established a full-on dictatorship terrorizing oppositions and civilians, regular general people. The US expressed some dismay but did nothing to help us from Indian aggression.

If we are going to have dictatorship in disguise, it is better for us to get Chinese help and have a full on Chinese style govt. US/West was fine with Indian takeover before, they should be fine with a Chinese takeover and Chinese style govt., as long as they get to utilize cheap labor and no Islamic terrorism emanating from our space.

Any way this is off topic here, but what is on topic is I do not believe in charity. I believe in systems that take care of everyone. So rich should be taxed high and that money should be used by the govt. to take care of poor and needy.

The rich gets rich using resources in the state, often ruining the environment, there has to be much better accounting of that. Companies must pay for environmental damage they cause. Corporations should not exist for the benefit of the shareholder, but rather to further the interest of the population of the entire country, this is the fundamental flaw in current free market setup. And the state should have every right to tax the rich as high as they need.