I think that Bill is the guy that everybody loves to hate because he's been so successful at epitomizing American ideals. He's probably done very little wrong under the law, the law which makes it nearly impossible to resist mergers, take overs by large multi-nationals, wherein profit and stockholders become the end all and be all of business. When he started up in business, he was an innovator, motivated probably by his passion, by his good ole American competitiveness, and he had those hard-ball instincts, which have served him so well. I read the business section everyday, and everyday there is yet another merger, yet another buy out of the little guy in the holy grail for more index points.
But then, if government really is the puppet of large multi-national banks and corporations, why is Bill being taken to task? It looks more and more like just another forest-through-the-trees distraction, avoiding the real issues altogether. The real issues are the ever widening gap between rich and poor, the irresponsibility of corporations to the communities which are affected by their actions, their lack of accountability to the people. In reality, we need K-Mart, SafeWay, more than we need the federal government, so why shouldn't there be a set of standards, fixed by an elected commission which also arbitrates disputes between citizens and corporations? We must insist upon responsible behavior from corporations: quoting from Retired Army Lt. Gen. Howard Graves, "There are more stakeholdes out there than just stockholders."
Ah, but Bill may have carried that hard ball a little too far......Not only did he hurt a few businesses. We must remember the injured software users, who have had to put up with a clunky, overbloated operating system and accompanying software. This must really be the rub... The fact that by keeping competitors at a minimum, we as consumers have suffered for lack of innovation. The arrogance of Microsoft, thinking they know what is best for us, is why we hate the icon Bill. But I've never sat at a table with him.**
Because we have elections, we feel we live in a democracy, but the truth is, it is all about money. Whoever can get the most money amassed can reach a certain threshhold, and then be heard. Having just watched "Manufacturing Consent" with Noam Chomlsky for the third time, I wonder. If only 12 major media companies own most of the media, could it be that our illusions of democracy ARE in fact maintained by the mainstream media, even if it is not a "conspiracy". it is a form of compliance. . . . . .
Do either the government or the corporate feudal lords have our best interests at heart? The bottom line is the Almighty Federal Reserve Note.Money changes everything. It insulates and protects, but not forever. It cannot buy everything, because in the end there has to be a buyer. If the public won't buy it, it ceases to exist. But Bill can afford to lose a few million in pocket change, and Windows is such a great product that . . .
Didn't this fuss begin with the integration of the winDOH's operating system and it's brouser (thus it's attempt to take over the portal to the on-line world?) HA! What about Sherlock, the Mac "finder" which has become an internet search engine? Is the government going to stop the progression of innovation, uh, rather bigger, better more bloated operating systems?
Just so you know, I am NOT paranoid, and do not subscribe to all the great conspiracy theories. I don't believe there are a bunch of bad guys in some secret rooms plotting ways to keep the sheep in line, but I do believe that money buys power, and there are systems in place which favor the rich and powerful. The bad guys are you and me, if we allow ourselves to become complacent consumers, taking our freedoms for granted. The bad guys are just like you and me, swayed by convenience and decisions made with whatever information is made available. (And I suspect alot of them get some bad information, insulated at the very least by their own wealth. Example: In a recent survey of US representatives, a large percentage of them did not know the cost of a quart of milk or a pound of butter -- THIS is insulation) And with information becoming more and more accessible, faster and faster, we are (with some digging), able to find information (and mis-information), and information will inevitably leak out. There is no longer the ability to suppress completely, because there is too much information, , it is too big, with too many sources, and there are too many of us.
Some corporations are discovering that certain types of heirarchical systems are not working: they may go the way of the dinausaur. Input from those who are affected by decisions is proving to be good for business. This is perhaps where the hope for us all lies. I am looking forward to the day when we have a truly direct representative democracy, wherein corporations must also answer to those who are affected by their decisions (employees, for one), which can only be good for democracy. Change does not happen overnight nor easily. We can vote with our pocketbook and support only those things we truly believe in.
For Bill, this lawsuit really is just another pie in his face-- a bit messy, he'll have a dry cleaning bill, but eventually it will be obvious that it was just a surperficial set-back, and life will go on.
2007-03-06 05:51:34
·
answer #1
·
answered by Brite Tiger 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
He was speeding in Albequerque New Mexico once.
See his mug shot at http://www.zpub.com/un/bill/bgates.jpeg.
Other than that, he's rather narrow-minded when it comes to what he chooses to fund as a philanthropist.
Beyond that, the man's a business genius, and I salute him. It's very rare that someone can build a company that makes nothing -- that just buys and markets the products of others -- and turns it into a multi-billion dollar industry.
Oh wait...Sam Walton did that, too.
2007-03-06 05:46:48
·
answer #2
·
answered by Scotty Doesnt Know 7
·
0⤊
1⤋