People like this grind my gears. Many things go into being rich, but the top of that list is making more money than you give away. Practically by definition, people who continue to do this will continue to get rich.
There is no shortage of humanitarian efforts, funds, and foundations started by the wealthy for the sake of the underprivileged. To suggest these are insufficient because their founders remain wealthy is foolhardy.
"The major part of my book... was devoted to descriptions of the economic and social institutions that enable some countries to operate near the technological frontier. The failure to establish such institutions, or to operate them effectively, condemns most of the world to levels of productivity and living standards far below what is possible with existing knowledge and techniques. That subject should interest you"
There's nothing about funds and foundations being insufficient because their founders remain wealthy. He's explicitly saying the opposite: that in many countries with plenty of foreign cash flowing in most people will remain poor and very limited in their opportunities to change that due to inadequate institutions, even if they have access to the mobile telephones and antibiotics their parents didn't and shinier public buildings in the capital city. Gates points to oil-rich Gabon's per capita incomes being "nearly" where the US was in the 1960s, but in 1960 the average American had access to running water and had a life expectancy significantly higher than 55... Gabon might have the income of a "middle-income" country but a large proportion of the population lives in exactly the same way as people in a nearby very poor countries. The problem here is that even though there's enough oil money going into Gabon to ensure the average person has an adequate standard of living, that money is so badly distributed there's a fair chance that Bill will have to chip in for people in Gabon to have malaria nets and HIV tests.
In reality, I think they're talking past each other and would probably end up on agreeing on most points that actually matter: I don't think Gates brought up book titles to ridicule the idea that reforms are necessary for poor countries to prosper, and I doubt Kay objects to Gates' current level of spending on malaria nets.
> Many things go into being rich, but the top of that list is making more money than you give away. Practically by definition, people who continue to do this will continue to get rich.
Except there is this thing called "diminishing returns" that somehow does not apply to being rich. Also, wouldn't "spend" be a more appropriate description than "give away" here?
> There is no shortage of humanitarian efforts, funds, and foundations started by the wealthy for the sake of the underprivileged. To suggest these are insufficient because their founders remain wealthy is foolhardy.
Luckily, the author of this article isn't suggesting that - he is arguing that in its current form these efforts are insufficient because the poor remain poor, and that he has good reasons to believe they will stay poor if we don't change specific problems not addressed in Gates' letter.
> there is this thing called "diminishing returns" that somehow does not apply to being rich
Once you hit a certain amount of money, investments begin to drive your income. Unlike salary which is additive, investments tend to be multiplicative in their wins and losses. So you stand to make (or lose, if you are bad at it) money faster.
> Also, wouldn't "spend" be a more appropriate description than "give away" here?
Semantics. Credit and debits are all i am referring to.
The author is literally arguing that poor places are not getting richer fast enough. Money alone does not make for better living conditions. There are environmental constraints, infrastructure additions, and countless logistical issues. The author provides no solutions that i saw, and instead spends his time ranting about comparison between developed vs developing countries.
There is no shortage of humanitarian efforts, funds, and foundations started by the wealthy for the sake of the underprivileged. To suggest these are insufficient because their founders remain wealthy is foolhardy.