I mean there’s probably an argument for how benevolent dictators can achieve more in a shorter timespan by circumventing a democratic process, might depend on how far out you would be willing to zoom out the graph of progress though

@laelfy I actually quite like Bill Gates, and I should probably declare up front (despite the risk of losing a few allies by doing so :slight_smile: ) that I actually used to work for Microsoft (before I was radicalised - safety wink).

He has said himself that he should never have been allowed to get that rich, so amongst the new tech barons he’s one of the better ones (Larry Ellison spends his money on Mig-21s, Peter Thiel, Mark Zuckerberg are just inherently evil). I grudgingly admire what he’s done, but it’s not a repeatable model, because we have no way of knowing whether he just got lucky with his successes, or whether he might suddenly decide to invest in something that is less to the benefit of mankind (drones that kill poor people?) If the state controlled the investment then we could decide (using democracy) what it should get spent on, even if that is a fucking wall, sadly.

Compare him to the Koch brothers, who spend their billions trying to influence or even install their placemen in every major government and media outlet in the world (ooh - conspiracy theory, best leave that one for now).

Finally, the idea that governments are not as innovative as the private sector has also been proven false. There’s a great book by Mariana Mazzucatto called the Entrepreneurial State which shows that pretty much all the big tech companies only exist because of strategic investments in infrastructure by the state. Private capital is too short-termist to ever do that, so it waits until the government invests, then creams off the profits.

1 Like

The macrocosm you’re describing is probably not really consistent with democracy anyway.

1 Like

similar reason for why we have elected representatives in parliament at the moment?

don’t understand what this means

I agree. He is very clever, so he is good at focusing on specifics, and he does seem to respect existing development initiatives without stepping on everyone’s toes.

OTOH he has got a bee in his bonnet about ‘solving’ education at the moment and it’s pissing a few people of AFAIK. Which illustrates the point I guess - no accountability (except to the trustees, who are his wife and his mates).

Notwithstanding the contradiction in terms of 'benevolent dictator, sure, see Cuban literacy rates for instance. Thing is the world is basically a giant jenga tower - you remove one problem and you create another one in its place. No system is going to work properly - not even one administered by an all-benevolent state.

1 Like

how much money does he have to live on day to day outside of what he gives to charity?

if it’s more than like £100k then he still has way too much money

Fuck tons

Peter Crouch

3 Likes

this is why we have arguments!

Would have thought people could agree with my basic concepts though

1 Like

He persuaded several multi-billionaires to give away all but their last billion. Bless! That could limit the number of countries he could buy to retire to

1 Like

And working with them also! Being nimble is probably their greatest asset. But yeah you wouldn’t want global international development solely being in the hands of a few wealthy philanthropists, far from it.

1 Like

Dave Grohl.

3 Likes

If only everyone would agree with me! We’d be in paradise!

royal family now receive 75% of all charitable donations, dogs and cats get the rest. homeless people get nothing.

5 Likes

Why does dave grohl, the nicest man in rock, not simply eat the others

6 Likes

Our brave boys would get some

kinda feel like I have not much in common with DiS if people don’t think it’s unreasonable for some people to earn over £100k a year