[quote=CA renter]Would Bill Gate’s money “not be there” if he had given his money away instead of growing his company more? Not sure about that. Maybe his competitors would have made it instead, and perhaps they would have given even more to charity. And/or, maybe his customers would have been able to buy another, equally good product for less money if he didn’t create a monopoly (which is one of the main reasons he could “build his company” to the extent that he did), leaving more money in their pockets for charity. What if he had paid his employees better, instead of keeping perma-temps, so that they could have given more to charity?
We know of Bill Gates’ charity because his wealth is so concentrated…leaving a legacy, as livin’ pointed out. Do we know for sure that this money wouldn’t have been put to better use if it had gone to other competitors, or employees, or customers?[/quote]There are way too many what ifs in your post to know for sure. But what we know is, he does give more $ to charity as a % of his total life time income/wealth than an average American.
FYI, Microsoft didn’t put a gun to their customers’ head and force them to buy Windows. Windows became a monopoly because it was the cheapest and easiest OS to use at the time. They were held back for many years because they were afraid of being broken up due to the monopoly lawsuit. Now that they no longer are as dominant, they can finally bundle more of their services together. Even if Windows gotten 100% of the market share, Android will still happen and the move to portable devices would still happen. But if they were allowed to bundle more of their services together, end user would have given a more cohesive user experience earlier, instead of having to wait till the last few years to have that.
