Just imagine a World where ALL governments, ALL schools of all countries did not have to pay a fee to the then world richest man.
Imagine if a fraction of those governments invested instead on infrastructure, both physical (imagine literal bridges going to schools) and software (as some are doing now) or better paid teachers. Imagine that some of that money would be invested in Linux, gcompris, etc.
That’s the genuine cost of Gates wealth.
Think I’m a “communist” for thinking that? Well I guess then the American DoJ is on that boat too because the 2001 antitrust law case was a landmark, not a matter of my opinion.
So… yes, he’s a billionaire who did donate a lot of money, but how did he get that money in the first place? It wasn’t his to donate to.
If he stole tens of billions from the Americans then donated it to starving children in the poorest region, isn’t that still a net possitive? It’s like the tech dystopian Robin Hood.
In your analogy that’d still be Robin Hood coming from a very rich family, accumulating more wealth that anybody he knows around him, fighting with his best friends to keep more, getting indicted by the most powerful government on Earth because he abused his power… then giving only a very small fraction of his wealth to some starving children while still sitting in his mansions, accumulating still more money without working.
That’s not the Robin Hood of my childhood to say the least. To me that’s clearly not a net positive.
I do recommend listening to the episode of Behind the Bastards to get a clearer view of the entire process, not “just” imagining a “net positive” outcome regardless of the path that lead to it.
Edit : sorry but while re-reading what I wrote, somehow confabulating the richest man on Earth for years to Robin Hood shows how excellent his PR work was. Like… what the fuck?!
Edit2: oh yeah and Robin Hood would fight for Big Pharma during a worldwide pandemic, … no, absolutely NOT Robin Hood.
“Forbes magazine ranked him as the world’s wealthiest person for 18 out of 24 years between 1995 and 2017, including 13 years consecutively from 1995 to 2007. He became the first centibillionaire in 1999, when his net worth briefly surpassed $100 billion. According to Forbes, as of May 2025, his net worth stood at US$113 billion, making him the thirteenth-richest individual in the world.”
That’s fine, you’re missing the point as I clearly don’t manage to explain it clearly enough for you so please document yourself anywhere else you want. I gave you few sources but feel free to search elsewhere. Take care.
Just imagine a World where ALL governments, ALL schools of all countries did not have to pay a fee to the then world richest man.
Imagine if a fraction of those governments invested instead on infrastructure, both physical (imagine literal bridges going to schools) and software (as some are doing now) or better paid teachers. Imagine that some of that money would be invested in Linux, gcompris, etc.
That’s the genuine cost of Gates wealth.
Think I’m a “communist” for thinking that? Well I guess then the American DoJ is on that boat too because the 2001 antitrust law case was a landmark, not a matter of my opinion.
So… yes, he’s a billionaire who did donate a lot of money, but how did he get that money in the first place? It wasn’t his to donate to.
If he stole tens of billions from the Americans then donated it to starving children in the poorest region, isn’t that still a net possitive? It’s like the tech dystopian Robin Hood.
In your analogy that’d still be Robin Hood coming from a very rich family, accumulating more wealth that anybody he knows around him, fighting with his best friends to keep more, getting indicted by the most powerful government on Earth because he abused his power… then giving only a very small fraction of his wealth to some starving children while still sitting in his mansions, accumulating still more money without working.
That’s not the Robin Hood of my childhood to say the least. To me that’s clearly not a net positive.
I do recommend listening to the episode of Behind the Bastards to get a clearer view of the entire process, not “just” imagining a “net positive” outcome regardless of the path that lead to it.
Edit : sorry but while re-reading what I wrote, somehow confabulating the richest man on Earth for years to Robin Hood shows how excellent his PR work was. Like… what the fuck?!
Edit2: oh yeah and Robin Hood would fight for Big Pharma during a worldwide pandemic, … no, absolutely NOT Robin Hood.
Small Fraction?! It’s been over 90% of income for decades, recently he’s vowed to distribute 99% of not just income but total wealth.
“Forbes magazine ranked him as the world’s wealthiest person for 18 out of 24 years between 1995 and 2017, including 13 years consecutively from 1995 to 2007. He became the first centibillionaire in 1999, when his net worth briefly surpassed $100 billion. According to Forbes, as of May 2025, his net worth stood at US$113 billion, making him the thirteenth-richest individual in the world.”
Wake up. Not Robin Hood.
That doesn’t argue any of the things that I said.
That’s fine, you’re missing the point as I clearly don’t manage to explain it clearly enough for you so please document yourself anywhere else you want. I gave you few sources but feel free to search elsewhere. Take care.
Bonus : as others also highlighted Gates isn’t sadly just about software, he’s also, unfortunately, about intellectual property more broadly (because that is how he made his fortune) in health business (not health care) cf e.g. https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-the-world-loses-under-bill-gates-vaccine-colonialism/