Tag Archives: TIME Magazine

The oft-maligned Bill Gates on “creative capitalism”

Posted on by
4

The August 11 edition of TIME Magazine featured philanthropist and Microsoft founder Bill Gates on the cover, and included a somewhat interesting article by the man himself on the topic of “creative capitalism”. As arguably one of the greatest individual beneficiaries of the capitalist system in the twentieth century, I suppose that we should not be surprised to hear that Gates believes that capitalism does have the potential to lift the third world out of poverty and into the marketplace. On the other hand, it may be surprising to some to hear that one of the most successful in-practice exponents of market domination ever believes that capitalism should be bent to meet the needs of the less unfortunate.

This passage from the article sums up Gates’ philosophy quite succinctly (p.28):

As I see it, there are two great forces of human nature: self-interest and caring for others. Capitalism harnesses self-interest in a helpful and sustainable way but only on behalf of those who can pay. Government aid and philanthropy channel our caring for those who can’t pay. And the world will make lasting progress on the big inequities that remain – problems like AIDS, poverty and education – only if governments and non-profits do their part by giving more aid and more effective aid. But the improvements will happen faster and last longer if we can channel market forces, including innovation that’s tailored to the needs of the poorest, to complement what governments and nonprofits do. We need a system that draws in innovators and businesses in a far better way than we do today.

In short, he is something of a modern-day socialist. Gates cites C.K. Prahalad’s work The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid (which sounds like an intriguing read!) in formulating his thoughts in the article, which revolve around the fact that there are many markets all over the world that the free market system has essentially looked over. Effective markets have not arrived in some impoverished developed countries, and the blame for this can clearly not just be laid at the feet of the despots who lead some or perhaps many of these places. Free-ish markets have failed to deliver wealth to the world’s poor over the last few decades, and clearly need more of a push from the public and non-government sectors.

It is deeply ironic that despite the fact that Gates is almost universally maligned today as the former leader of the world’s least cool software company, the work he has done in his industry and is now involving himself in is quite frankly invaluable to the world at large.

ELSEWHERE: There’s a video featuring Gates’ thoughts on the topic here.

Demolishing media caricatures

Posted on by
1

One of my pet hates regarding the mainstream media is the way that personalities in the limelight are swiftly and forcefully reduced to archetypes, or caricatures. If you ask anybody what words spring to mind when they consider George W Bush as a person, it’s a fair bet that the answer will be at least partially derogatory. I certainly won’t contest the point that some or even most of the criticisms made of the US President are valid ones, but I also think that like anyone, there is much more to Bush than meets the eye initially. When people like George Bush, or Harbajhan Singh, or Amy Winehouse are attacked by commentators who don’t know them personally or seek to engage with them intellectually, one wonders whether they are really succeeding in identifying genuine flaws in their targets, or merely flaws that appear in the caricatures of the targets presented by the media. Do we usually score a hit on the person we are criticising, or are we merely connecting with their shadow, reflected grotesquely on the wall by the flash bulbs of the paparazzi?

What we do notice is that every now and again, someone has the courage (or the sheer bloody-mindedness) to challenge the media’s publicly accepted caricature of someone, and attempt to paint an altogether different picture of them and where they are coming from. Enter Bob Geldof. Geldof has written a number of pieces for TIME Magazine reflecting on President Bush’s achievements in Africa, and his good will tour there. To be honest, the former musician really does handle everyone’s least favourite president with kid gloves, but on the other hand, I challenge anyone to decry reported results like these:

The great unacknowledged story of America in Africa didn’t immediately originate with this President (John Kerry and Bill Frist initiated legislation in 2002 to conbat the continent’s AIDS epidemic). But it was accelerated hugely by him, increased by him, argued for by him and monitored by him. It has saved millions upon millions of lives and healed broken bodies; more than 1.5 million Africans are on lifesaving antiretrovirals.

…

Unusually, it is being done deftly, slowly and gently with due respect to the dignity of those it seeks to help. There are no votes in helping the poor of Africa, but Bush did it anyway.

It is these sorts of facts that don’t fit quite neatly into the universalist portraits of Bush that often win through in the mainstream media and in popular critiques. Yes, his administration made a terrible, bloody mess with foreign policy in Iraq and with its hawkish “axis of evil” rhetoric. It is patently true that he does not have a way with words like one might wish of a leader of the free world. The temptation to intellectually shrink Bush (and personalities like him) and what he stands for into a tiny caricature of the real person is overwhelming, but I think, for the sake of efficacy, we should all challenge ourselves to resist. There is more to our old mate Dubya than meets the eye, and more to his often horrifically bumbling but not entirely destructive administration than meets the eye.

As there is, I am quite sure, to virtually every other person presented to us through the media’s regressively simplifying lens.

ELSEWHERE: Another TIME piece from Geldof featuring Bush is online here.