Actually I do agree with his statement that the standard of living is going up even if the income numbers don't reflect an increase. The things we have access to at relatively low cost didn't even exist two decades ago.

Gates and Buffet both were once men of sound mind. But after you get to be so big and the machinations of government focus on you, you get sucked into their game one way or the other. What is unfortunate is that unlike Wyatt et al in Atlas Shrugged, they compromised their principles and kowtowed to the government like James Taggart.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

Gates has gone senile. That's the only conclusion I can make. In his argument that the Internet makes the $40K now equal to the $40K of two decades ago, he is essentially arguing that the presence of gladiator combats in Ancient Rome make all the difference to the citizens of that age. It was a facade then just as it is a facade now. Gates is fiddling while American burns, thinking that his wealth will inure him of the fallout.

You do realize that Dagny was operating on incorrect premises throughout the book? Till the end when she joined the strike. Hank and Dagny represent, in the book, exactly those people of extraordinary productive ability but incorrect ethical premises. That's why they are Galt's real adversaries, not the looters and moochers.

I would be willing to bet that the VAST majority of that blowhards money is oversees, and sheltered from the US Government.

With all due respect, Gates is an idiot. In a previous interview, he said that the fact that poverty still exists in (anti-capitalist) third-world countries is a failure of capitalism. The guys is a moron and his company's software has always been the most atrocious bug-infested crap ever to be unleashed on poor unsuspecting users.

Many of these so-called "capitalists" are nothing of the sort but simply people who were well suited for success in a heavily corporatist world. It's no surprise they will be anti-capitalist, just as were the so-called "capitalists" in AS who were nothing of the sort - Jim Taggart, Orren Boyle, Eugene Lawson, etc.

The problem is that in real life, there are people with the ability of Dagny but the political/ethical beliefs of James.

You are correct...he never even mentions Ayn Ryand. The title of the article illustrates that the author is using any statement to support his agenda. This would be like entitling an article. "Bush supports Global warming", because one day he mentions..." it is hot"

Wow he looks more like Woody Allen every year.

The shot at Ayn Rand was taken by the article writer, not Gates.

Is this a real article, or a joke? It's so ignorantly done.

I read the article twice and didn't see anything where Gates actually made a reference to Ayn Rand.
Given that Microsoft's profit margin is in the 30% range I doubt that paying taxes has much effect on their ability to invest. The same should not be assumed for the rest of us. Average corporate profits are more like 7%.
As to giving away his money, I have no problem with anyone giving away their money for whatever cause is of interest to them. It's when they start giving away my money instead that I take objection.

If I had $70 billion or so like Mr. Gates does it might not be a big deal to me either. But having 50% of all I have earned for 40 years stripped from me in one taking or another by various levels of government has made a HUGE negative difference to my quality of life and what my options are.

And this is not even the primary point. The primary point is that NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT to take that money away from us by force.

Alec Hogg shows his understanding of financial matters when he compares Gates' assets to countries' GDP. Guess he fits in pretty well with the financial geniuses at CNBC.

listening, freedom...

please have the conversation on this post. I will listen and watch

Don't forget producer Ted Turner after being infected and hollowed by Jane Fondayourmoney.
Poor rich producers just wanna be loved. Rational respect for accomplishments isn't enough. They haven't enough respect for themselves. They need to take a class taught by Howard Rourke.

Gates and Buffet are hypocrites. Gates had the world by the tail and was advancing the software biz until government stepped in to stagnate it. Buffet has been a looter for decades. It doesn't surprise me if Buffet spouts the statist line that taxes and regulation are not an impediment. Buffet just wants any competition to be suppressed. Maybe Gates has Alzheimer's and can't remember the freedom he had once and how that there wasn't such a reguatory barrier to his success. Gates talks in the article like an elitist, statist moron.

One of the premises behind AS was that John Galt would be able to convince a sufficient number of producers to "go Galt". I knew that Gates and Buffett had pledged to give a majority of his net worth to charity, but right at the end of this article, I learned that Larry Ellison has done likewise. How do we fight the disease that so many wealthy people have regarding giving away their fortunes? This is not a new thing. Recall how Rockefeller and Carnegie did much the same thing late in their lives. This predilection toward charity alone would be enough to keep a small community of producers from ever being able to go back into the world.

Khalling claimed that I thought than man was irrational. I argue that many humans are irrational, but certainly not even close to all. However, I will agree with Khalling if she says that I think more humans are irrational than most Gulchers do. Talk show host Michael Savage once said that liberalism is a mental disorder, that liberalism is irrational. The tendency of many wealthy people toward extreme charity is symptomatic of this mental disorder. Rockefeller and Carnegie had a competition as to who could give the most of their wealth away. That is just sick in the head.