I think one of the best legacies of the way capitalism has developed in the US is the strong sense of noblesse oblige that became part of the capitalist culture in the early 1900s. Some of the earliest huge capitalists (Rockefeller, Carnegie) expressed views that are deeply unpleasant to us today, but they also created a culture in which it was simply not socially acceptable to be rich and not to give substantial portions of that money to charity. Because of that culture, we have great institutions of art, education, culture, and analysis that do make the country a better place.

We don't have to agree with how rich people become rich to still agree with and support that culture. I'm in the camp that believes that capitalism is by its very nature going to be unbalanced, and until we come up with something better, wealth imbalance is something that we have to cope with rather than eliminate. Given that, creating and encouraging a culture of philanthropy is valuable and helps turn those riches towards the rest of society.

If you want to encourage such a culture, start by not spitting in people's faces when they say the right things, even if you think they're only saying them for self-serving reasons and even if you don't like how they acquired the money in the first place.

As a side benefit, positive reinforcement of philanthropy regardless of the motive will mean less public speculative mind-reading of people's "real motives" by random pundits who have had no personal interaction with the people in question, which in my book can only be a good thing.

Sure, hypocrisy is lame, but I totally agree with C.S. Lewis about faking it 'til you make it, and am reminded of the case of the United States. "All men are created equal (as long as they're white, and of course not women)" rang pretty hollow for many people in the beginning, but I think having it written as an ideal helped the country move closer to making it true. Walmart and Gates should certainly be commended, and doing so won't make us any less thoughtful about how we impact the world. We should commend ourselves, as well, for pushing at least Walmart in this direction--maybe the Gateses would be doing what they're doing even without what seems to be people's rapidly growing interest in responsibility, for lack of a better term.

At some point (now, finally?) even the richest and most powerful will figure out that they can't protect themselves anymore. Their Utopian existence is threatened by the very nature of their businesses. What good is it to Bill Gate's if he dies the wealthiest man in the world, knowing his kids and future progeny will be unable to exist in the cesspool of toxicity generated by his industry?

Interesting to see the expedited interest in the environment now that even the wealthiest can't escape it. I knew the rich would take note when something as important to them as salmon sushi started being affected.

Enjoy.

I don't have the foggiest whether Gates or Wal-Mart mean what they say. The fallacy in the argument is what catches the eye. The sore thumb I see here is this dotty notion of C.S. Lewis, AA or whoever or whatever of "Fake it until you make it." C. S. Lewis ASSUMES that the boor in polite society WANTS to be part of polite society. In reality, he's more like than not thinking of hieing it back to Hazzard county where his two coondogs are waiting to be fed and where he can relax on his front porch far from all this pretentious rot (He would employ slightly different terms.) Likewise, the AA slogan ASSUMES the the party in question WANTS to cease drinking and become a part of their organisation. As it happens, the same slogan and mentality can be applied to not so politically correct, philanthropic aims and organisations as well, such as Nuremberg rallies and KKK meetings, assuming, again, that the party in question really wants to fit in and is not, secretly, disgusted by the whole thing. The point is that it's rather a faint hope than any sort of compelling logic to suggest that Wal-Mart is going to change its ways due to a "Fake it until you make it" mentality. Posturing only leads to true change in parties that are weak, insecure and malleable. Neither Gates nor Wal-Mart fit this category. The long tradition of noblesse oblige that another reviewer has brought up is a far more cogent argument for a Wal-Mart/Gates change in policy than the rather cozy notion advanced here.

I went back and read the original article and was struck by Gate's comment:

"We have to find a way to make the aspects of capitalism that serve wealthier people serve poorer people as well."

You would think, by this comment, that Gates is addressing an intractable problem that has yet to be solved. But it has. Konrad Adenauer had his "Market economic policies with a social conscience" (Die Soziale Marktwirtshaft), which were based on the ideas of John Maynard Keynes. And it worked. The post WWII era of Keynesian economics was one of the most prosperous of our history.

So in answer to Gates, yes we have found a way. It's just not a way that is palatable to the plutocrats who run our world as it involves government stepping in to ensure everyone gets a fair share of the spoils, thus lowering their profits from monstrous to merely stupendous. They advocate that The Market do this instead, knowing full well that it never can, since "the aspects of capitalism that serve wealthier people" cannot serve the poor because capitalism is about wealth and the poor, surprisingly, don't have wealth! Thus Gates and Scott are pretenders and will ever remain pretenders.

And anyway, it's not the CEOs; I imagine that they are for the most part a fairly decent lot. The real problem is that laissez-faire capitalism is systemically evil and thus cannot, even with all the best will in the world, do what Gates and Scott are claiming it can.