Bill Gates: China's wealthy should be more charitable

[kalu_miah]

See, I just can't agree with this, because his message is clear. You're making a big deal out of a simple message of good will.

Also, your entire idea for the Nordic system was that it doesn't have a role for charity, don't try and twist your own meaning.

The idea of state run welfare is all fine and dandy, but like I've mentioned before, it's unreasonable to expect the government to take care of everyone all the time. The government is very limited in what it can do, no government has that kind of reach, even in Canada. This is why governments allow charity groups to operate, it's why the Chinese gov hasn't shut down every single charity group that exists in the country.

Bill was not telling the Chinese gov to change it's policy or it's practices, his message wasn't even directed towards the gov, but rather the wealthy in China. What I find disturbing is that people are actually defending the ultra rich, which is exactly what is causing the income inequality in nations like the US and China.

There is no simple message of goodwill. It reeks of supremacy complex, I know better than you, kind of stuff. If you lived in Canada long enough, you should know by now.

State run welfare is perfectly reasonable and can be done, all a matter of how the governance system is setup.

Having said that, Charity tax seems like getting a lot of objection from people in China:
Why No One Trusts Government Charities in China Anymore - Rachel Wang - The Atlantic

Also the idea of Charity seems to be growing in China. If charity is run as non profit enterprises with people who feel passionate about helping people in need and if it is more efficient than govt. welfare then, there could be a place for it, I think this is the direction that China could be moving towards very slowly. If govt. run charity is failing to do the job and private charity does better, then I would support going with the more efficient choice. But I would make sure that the fund goes through govt. control and screening department:

There are signs, however, that philanthropy is on the rise in China. Last Thursday, Jack Ma and Joe Tsai, founders of the e-commerce giant Alibaba said they established personal charitable trusts that could be the nation’s largest.

The trusts hold about 2 per cent of Alibaba’s equity, according to a company press release. The fund could be worth between US$2 billion to US$4 billion, after the e-commerce giant’s listing on the New York stock exchange expected later this year.

The new trusts will operate alongside Alibaba’s corporate charitable foundation that has already existed since 2010 and earmarked 0.3 per cent revenue for charity.

“We hope to live in a world with bluer skies, cleaner water and better access to health care,” Jack Ma was quoted in the press release. “We must assume responsibility and take action to improve the environment that our children will inherit.”

No Chinese billionaire has yet signed up to the Giving Pledge, an initiative by Gates and Buffett in which they ask the world’s richest to give at least 50 per cent of their wealth to charity.

The Chinese government has however gradually been moving toward improving the regulatory environment for philanthropy, said Kennedy. "The key step will be the passage of a Charity Law, which may occur this year," he said. "Once issued, we can expect the overall level of philanthropy to rise rapidly."

source link below

My personal opinion, the rich know how to create enterprise and create jobs, they should use their surplus capital for job creation, not for charity. In developed countries, many almost are full employment economies, so job creation is not as big a priority as in developing countries. Here is a similar comment from the same news:
Bill Gates urges China's richest to give to charity in People's Daily article | South China Morning Post
guy.pantApr 29th 2014
2:40am

Just because not many are giving (unnecessary) credence to the Gates-Buffet name, doesn't mean money isn't given in another name, anonymously, or through other other means. I recall a Chinese national saying Chinese people would rather see money put into job creation - the best form of giving - by the wealthy than a hand-out.

 

[That Guy]

There is no simple message of goodwill. It reeks of supremacy complex, I know better than you, kind of stuff. If you lived in Canada long enough, you should know by now.

State run welfare is perfectly reasonable and can be done, all a matter of how the governance system is setup.

Having said that, Charity tax seems like getting a lot of objection from people in China:
Why No One Trusts Government Charities in China Anymore - Rachel Wang - The Atlantic

Also the idea of Charity seems to be growing in China. If charity is run as non profit enterprises with people who feel passionate about helping people in need and if it is more efficient than govt. welfare then, there could be a place for it, I think this is the direction that China could be moving towards very slowly. If govt. run charity is failing to do the job and private charity does better, then I would support going with the more efficient choice. But I would make sure that the fund goes through govt. control and screening department:
source link below

My personal opinion, the rich know how to create enterprise and create jobs, they should use their surplus capital for job creation, not for charity. In developed countries, many almost are full employment economies, so job creation is not as big a priority as in developing countries. Here is a similar comment from the same news:
Bill Gates urges China's richest to give to charity in People's Daily article | South China Morning Post
guy.pantApr 29th 2014
2:40am

Yeah, as soon as you said "I know better than you", you lost all legitimacy in my eyes. Go believe whatever you want, I don't care any more.

If you do not know about Bangladesh then how would you know if Chinese model would not work in Bangladesh? What does geography has to do with it? May be you can elaborate.

I know well about Bangladesh and after the recent takeover of Indian intelligence of Bangladesh using their agents, under cover of so called democratic "freedom", they have established a full-on dictatorship terrorizing oppositions and civilians, regular general people. The US expressed some dismay but did nothing to help us from Indian aggression.

If we are going to have dictatorship in disguise, it is better for us to get Chinese help and have a full on Chinese style govt. US/West was fine with Indian takeover before, they should be fine with a Chinese takeover and Chinese style govt., as long as they get to utilize cheap labor and no Islamic terrorism emanating from our space.

Any way this is off topic here, but what is on topic is I do not believe in charity. I believe in systems that take care of everyone. So rich should be taxed high and that money should be used by the govt. to take care of poor and needy.

The rich gets rich using resources in the state, often ruining the environment, there has to be much better accounting of that. Companies must pay for environmental damage they cause. Corporations should not exist for the benefit of the shareholder, but rather to further the interest of the population of the entire country, this is the fundamental flaw in current free market setup. And the state should have every right to tax the rich as high as they need.

The videos are on Russia, but they'll give you a good idea about who geography effects politics and governance.

As for Bangladesh, just because I don't know how to cook, it doesn't mean I don't know how to recognize if food tastes like shit. The reason why the Chinese model works for China is that it has a very large work force, and decades of nurturing collectivism in China. The Chinese also had the loan credit that Bangladesh doesn't have. Just having a centralized government won't solve the problems in Bangladesh, because unlike China, Bangladesh doesn't have as many resources to work with.

This is the last thing I will say, and it's only a formality.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

they should use their surplus capital for job creation, not for charity.

I'm not a particularly religious person but didn't some very influential people from long ago talk about helping the poor and the needy....

 

[aliaselin]

What he wants to say is how to evade tax legally.

 

[kalu_miah]

Yeah, as soon as you said "I know better than you", you lost all legitimacy in my eyes. Go believe whatever you want, I don't care any more.



The videos are on Russia, but they'll give you a good idea about who geography effects politics and governance.

As for Bangladesh, just because I don't know how to cook, it doesn't mean I don't know how to recognize if food tastes like shit. The reason why the Chinese model works for China is that it has a very large work force, and decades of nurturing collectivism in China. The Chinese also had the loan credit that Bangladesh doesn't have. Just having a centralized government won't solve the problems in Bangladesh, because unlike China, Bangladesh doesn't have as many resources to work with.

This is the last thing I will say, and it's only a formality.

Read the whole sentence again:
"There is no simple message of goodwill. It reeks of supremacy complex, I know better than you, kind of stuff. If you lived in Canada long enough, you should know by now."

What I meant is: supremacy complex = I know better than you, kind of stuff
So "I know better than you" meant that Gates telling Chinese billionaires that he knows better than them.

You picked out 4 words, misinterpreted it out of context and jumped to conclusion, that I meant these words for your personally. Next time try to look at the whole sentence instead of words out of context.

Also, Its obvious that you are biased about Western liberal democracy, which we tried in our country with disastrous results. We may eventually loose the country in pieces because of it. You would have no idea what is currently happening in Bangladesh. So yes naturally we are looking for new models and new ideas.

 

[kalu_miah]

I'm not a particularly religious person but didn't some very influential people from long ago talk about helping the poor and the needy....

The whole idea is to design a system where you would not have poor and needy in the first place, yes it sounds utopian, but not very difficult to do, I think. That is what we are talking about, not have a system where people have to depend on the whim of some people who have accumulated so much, they do not know what to do with their money.

A simple wealth tax to take care of the poor and needy can do the trick. The actual company who provides the care can be private non-profit or govt. dept, depends on which proves to be more efficient.

Govt. welfare in its current form of course creates many waste, like we see in the US. I once had an idea, that instead of giving cash welfare benefits, one could build self sustaining small coop towns in rural areas, where people would have do actual work, run their own schools, grow their own food etc. and eventually pay off loans to become fully paid for. Free money given without any work done, I think makes people lazy and ruins their habit of work. Also, it would take poor people away from inner city urban areas living in squalid blighted areas called food deserts for example.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

The whole idea is to design a system where you would not have poor and needy in the first place, yes it sounds utopian,

I believe that was the whole purpose of Socialism. It was Utopian but unfortunately "All animals are equal" turns into "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

 

[kalu_miah]

I believe that was the whole purpose of Socialism. It was Utopian but unfortunately "All animals are equal" turns into "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

What would you call China's current system?

 

[Roybot]

u r an idiot if you don't understand the difference between ultranationationalist and ultra statist. i am both. it is the former that expresses my fondness of pakistan but it is the latter that is talking to you.

Flase flag Pakistani

 

[Sam1980]

Only an uneducated idiot would believe the Gates Charity work is to evade taxes, he has literally spent tens of billions of dollars of his own money to help less fortunate nations, that was one of the reasons he left Microsoft. Gates achievements are backed by data, you can't just pull crap out of your asses. Bill Gates himself is an advocate for increased taxes for the rich.

 

[That Guy]

Read the whole sentence again:
"There is no simple message of goodwill. It reeks of supremacy complex, I know better than you, kind of stuff. If you lived in Canada long enough, you should know by now."

What I meant is: supremacy complex = I know better than you, kind of stuff
So "I know better than you" meant that Gates telling Chinese billionaires that he knows better than them.

You picked out 4 words, misinterpreted it out of context and jumped to conclusion, that I meant these words for your personally. Next time try to look at the whole sentence instead of words out of context.

Also, Its obvious that you are biased about Western liberal democracy, which we tried in our country with disastrous results. We may eventually loose the country in pieces because of it. You would have no idea what is currently happening in Bangladesh. So yes naturally we are looking for new models and new ideas.

I apologize, but to be fair, your sentence structure is confusing. The 'I know better than you' should be in single or double quotations in order for your comment to make sense, because the way you've written it, your comment sounds completely different.

I'd also like to point out that it's ironic that Bangladeshis are calling for a single party centralized system, when not having political and social freedoms was precisely the reasons why they called for independence. In that case, what was the point of independence if you don't have the right to choose your own government?

 

[kalu_miah]

I apologize, but to be fair, your sentence structure is confusing. The 'I know better than you' should be in single or double quotations in order for your comment to make sense, because the way you've written it, your comment sounds completely different.

I'd also like to point out that it's ironic that Bangladeshis are calling for a single party centralized system, when not having political and social freedoms was precisely the reasons why they called for independence. In that case, what was the point of independence if you don't have the right to choose your own government?

No need to apologize bro, perhaps my sentence structure was a little confusing like you said.

The people who called for independence did not understand geopolitics, in my opinion they made a huge blunder. But once the civil war took place in 1971, then it has become kind of irreversible with mutual bitterness from both sides. I personally think that it would have been better to keep the federation and have more autonomy for each wings.

We are not independent now, we have become a full on vassal state of India. Due to bickering and divisive politics inherent in third world democracy, India was able to infiltrate and now RAW, Indian intelligence, literally runs Bangladesh. Hasina is protected by and gets her orders from RAW and Indian PM. You should visit the Bangladesh section sometimes, you can start with these threads:
India may annex parts of Bangladesh
Indian backed Awami League killing of Majority Muslims in Bangladesh
Mujib Refused to Sign UDI: Tajuddins' daughter
India working to make Bangladesh a desert

What I see is that when we are next door to or surrounded by a bigger unreasonable bully nation, and we are underdeveloped, if we try democracy, they will inevitably infiltrate using the freedoms in democracy and eventually completely take over. Pakistan was able to successfully stave off this threat, because for most of its life Pakistan has been under military control, but unfortunately our leader Zia had a big thing for democracy, so he allowed Hasina in and tried to let her (and India) revive Awami League, so we could have a multiparty democracy. What happened was India infiltrated our Army, Police, media, bureaucracy everywhere and groomed Hasina to be the murderous dictator she has become today.

So Pakistan due to geography, inherent quality of people, some history was able to resist India, develop nukes and now have at least some deterrence to Indian threat, but I am sure you are not totally immune, India will and I am sure is trying very hard to infiltrate buying off politicians and media figure, and probably some of these anti-govt insurgent groups as well.

For countries like Malaysia and Indonesia, democracy is fine, because they are not under threat like we are and this is true for all countries next to India - Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan. I think all these countries should avoid democracy and follow the Chinese model and have a close mutual defense pact between us and China, kind of like Article 5 of NATO, an attack on one should be considered an attack on all.

Only when security is ensured a country can walk the path towards development.

 

[That Guy]

No need to apologize bro, perhaps my sentence structure was a little confusing like you said.

The people who called for independence did not understand geopolitics, in my opinion they made a huge blunder. But once the civil war took place in 1971, then it has become kind of irreversible with mutual bitterness from both sides. I personally think that it would have been better to keep the federation and have more autonomy for each wings.

We are not independent now, we have become a full on vassal state of India. Due to bickering and divisive politics inherent in third world democracy, India was able to infiltrate and now RAW, Indian intelligence, literally runs Bangladesh. Hasina is protected by and gets her orders from RAW and Indian PM. You should visit the Bangladesh section sometimes, you can start with these threads:
India may annex parts of Bangladesh
Indian backed Awami League killing of Majority Muslims in Bangladesh
Mujib Refused to Sign UDI: Tajuddins' daughter
India working to make Bangladesh a desert

What I see is that when we are next door to or surrounded by a bigger unreasonable bully nation, and we are underdeveloped, if we try democracy, they will inevitably infiltrate using the freedoms in democracy and eventually completely take over. Pakistan was able to successfully stave off this threat, because for most of its life Pakistan has been under military control, but unfortunately our leader Zia had a big thing for democracy, so he allowed Hasina in and tried to let her (and India) revive Awami League, so we could have a multiparty democracy. What happened was India infiltrated our Army, Police, media, bureaucracy everywhere and groomed Hasina to be the murderous dictator she has become today.

So Pakistan due to geography, inherent quality of people, some history was able to resist India, develop nukes and now have at least some deterrence to Indian threat, but I am sure you are not totally immune, India will and I am sure is trying very hard to infiltrate buying off politicians and media figure, and probably some of these anti-govt insurgent groups as well.

For countries like Malaysia and Indonesia, democracy is fine, because they are not under threat like we are and this is true for all countries next to India - Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan. I think all these countries should avoid democracy and follow the Chinese model and have a close mutual defense pact between us and China, kind of like Article 5 of NATO, an attack on one should be considered an attack on all.

Only when security is ensured a country can walk the path towards development.

Well, who knows. I completely disagree with the fact that the Chinese model will work for Bangladesh, simply because your nation doesn't seem to have the right structure in place. heck, even China has had to implement reforms (both political and economic) in order to stave off social and economic unrest. Simply having a centralized system won't resist Indian influence, a simple example would be Soviet era Afghanistan, which may have been a pro-Soviet and pro-India nation, but sometimes clashed with their benefactors.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

What would you call China's current system?

Some kind of relaxed Socialism (since it tolerates capitalism) controlled by a single party (the Communist Party).

 

[kalu_miah]

Some kind of relaxed Socialism (since it tolerates capitalism) controlled by a single party (the Communist Party).

State capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia