Help Me Write a Book

Bill Gates retires as a full-time employee of Microsoft, the company he founded, this week -- ending the most successful capitalist career of all time. He is going to devote the rest of his active years to philanthropy. He is already the world's biggest philanthropist. And even before he begins this new chapter, he is arguably the most successful in terms of the impact the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has had. (Bias alert: As editor of Slate, I was a Microsoft employee for seven years. My wife, Patty Stonesifer, is CEO of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, although she is leaving that post in September. I have good reason to be grateful to Bill Gates.)

Despite his move from capitalism to philanthropy, Gates believes that some of the world's problems -- especially the problems of the world's poorest countries -- are too big to be solved by philanthropy. Only capitalism can address them successfully. But -- as he argued in a speech at Davos in January -- capitalism is much better at serving the needs of the the prosperous than the needs of the poor. He goes on to argue that capitalism needs to be, and can be, reformed to solve this problem. He called this new system "creative capitalism."

The notion that capitalism, which is all about self-interest, can be amended somehow to be more about helping others -- and still be capitalist -- struck many (me included, at least at first) as hopelessly Pollyannaish and a little bizarre. Not only is Bill Gates the most successful capitalist of all time, but amending capitalism to serve the poor has not until recently been on his agenda. Gates' approach has been to take capitalism for all that it is worth, squeeze every penny out of it, and then take the money and give it all away. This is a much more traditional strategy, employed by the Rockefellers, Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie and other giants of industry who became giants of philanthropy.

It's hard to remember how quickly Gates' reputation as a philanthropist -- and the reality behind it -- have blossomed. A couple of years after Slate started publication in 1996, we instituted a feature called the Slate 60. Now an established and respected circulation-boosting gimmick, the Slate 60 is an annual list that ranks people on the basis of how much they give away. It derives from an idea of Ted Turner's, who told Maureen Dowd, who wrote a column about it. Turner said that very rich people weren't giving away as much money as they might otherwise because they were afraid of falling off or moving down the Forbes 400. A replacement list based on giving money away was supposed to solve that problem.

The first year of the list, Bill Gates was number ten. He was asked constantly about why he wasn't giving more of it away, and he always insisted that he would do this as soon as he had the time to do it as intelligently as he tried to "do" software. The next year he came in first, and he has remained there or close most years since.

So why isn't his approach -- make the money, then give it away; "to every thing there is a season," and so on -- the right approach? That is one question raised by creative capitalism. There are others. Wouldn't the small-d democratic approach be: make the money and then tax part of it away? When corporations start giving money away or devoting it to good works, aren't they cheating their shareholders? (That was Milton Friedman's position, you won't be surprised to hear.)

To explore these questions, I'm producing a book. And "producing" is the right word. This is a literary experiment as well. The book will be derived from a private website and a public blog in which economists and others debate whether "creative capitalism" is meaningless, dangerous, useless, maybe useful, very useful, or brilliant. Anyone interested is welcome to join in at creativecapitalismblog.com. As the project progresses other contributions to the book will be published on this site and perhaps elsewhere -- all in the spirit of web collaboration. The book will be out by the end of the year.

And in the spirit of capitalism, contributors will be paid. The amount you get will be a proportion of the advance based on the number of your words that end up in the final product (as edited by me). We hope that this will create the right balance of incentives between writing long and writing deep. No guarantees, but we expect the payout to end up around a dollar or two per word. And if you're thinking that's not much, coming from Bill Gates -- Gates has nothing officially to do with this project. Nor does the Gates Foundation (unless you count glancing at printouts left by accident on the kitchen counter as "official"). The money comes from the bounty of Messrs Simon and Schuster.

Comments

[jeskiley]

It's a good website you have there, but stopping by I already feel lost. Kind of like throwing ideas into a giant fishbowl, and you get to take what you want for your book. Everyone's comments flying in from all directions, I personally can't sort one from the other. Having arrived late, what's already been said? I hope it bears fruit for you.

Another idea, maybe a lottery of posts answering a specific question. Instead of all the comments to sift through, have people post them on their personal websites, and give you a "picture" to click on to get there. For example, "In your day-to-day life, how do you see yourself as a creative capitalist?" Or, "If creative capitalism served your lifestyle, ensuring ten percent of your earnings to go guiltlessly to charity, how would you invest that ten percent?" Then, let prejudice rule...wil­l we click on the picture of the harried housewife with macaroni in her hair, the 4 year old with black insulation tape on his face (Groucho Marx), or the economist with his degree going through a shredder. My bet, if you want creative capitalism to be collaborative, then the spirit of creativity should lead the way.

[nikto]

The answer is simple--We've known it for 100 years.

Laissez-Faire Capitalism is toxic, dangerous and should be outlawed at all costs.

The answer is lots of good, sensible
R-E-G-U-L-­A-T-I-O-N.

Just 1 example:
Removing the Glass-Steagall Act
caused the real-estate bubble.

Put it back!

Really, this stuff is not that complicated.

The key: CORPORATE REGULATION MUST
ALWAYS BE WRITTEN AND ENFORCED BY *NON-CORPORATE PEOPLE*!!!!

Ignore Bill Gates at all cost$.

We don't let criminals write criminal law, and we should never, NEVER, EVER
let Big-Business people write Big Business Law.

Any questions?
Didn't think so.

[starboymikey]

HuffPost's Pick

Not all big businesses are criminal concerns, though many engage in quasi-criminal activities ... depending of course on your definition of *criminal.­*

Our criminal justice system is quick to prosecute the guy who robs a convenience store if he's caught, but often far slower to prosecute the CEO who robs his employees of their pensions.

The truth is that there some things capitalism is very good at: making things, inventing things, accumulation, exploitation of resources, innovation and creativity in general.

There are also things that capitalism is notoriously bad at: providing health care and education for each member of a society, providing the same level of justice for the poor as for the wealthy, caring for the environment, preventing exploitation of workers, etc.

Modern society is so complex that neither socialism or capitalism provide an optimal structure for an economy that is both efficient and just. (And by *just* I don't mean that old conservative bugaboo *redistribution of wealth.* A just economy is one that offers equal opportunity for anyone to succeed or fail, regardless of family status.)

Only a mixed economy such as exists in much of Europe can begin to move us in this direction, though getting there will be highly problematic, since it won't give either the right or left everything it wants.

Let capitalism do what it does best, but do not let it keep doing what it does worst, which actually runs counter to many of the guiding priciples of capitalism itself.

[EarthToZoey]

Well said, sir. We need more compromise and less extremism.

Markets work very well in certain areas, and horribly in others. The same for regulation. The data is there, but unfortunately too many are stubborn to admit that their initial economic theory may have a few holes.

[georgiaR]

You mention Europe. Do you know that in Denmark their lowest tax rate is 38%. When I was there I talked to a taxi driver that was taxed at 50%. The liberals here would never allow the middle (or lower) class to pay that much taxes

[harriscrl3]

There is nothing wrong with capitalism except its full of capitalist. But something tells me when you have greedy people it doesnt matter if its capitalism or some other form of economic system greed will still exist thats why capitalism and other forms of economic systems needs some sort of regulatory body human beings are like fish in a tank they eat eat eat and dont stop until they die. Humans on the other hand hoarde wealth even if they have more than enough its still not enough. Not all human beings are like that but most are and hence they need some type of regulatory mechanism to say to them listen buddy you have enough. Or they will just accumulate more wealth than they know what to do with.

Carol

[Kozan]

Anyone willing to look can see what we've done to the earth in the name of capitalism in the last 200 years. The present system is unsustainable and the living biosphere (aka Gaia) is just warming up (so to speak) for the upcoming main events in which humanity receives much deserved blowback for our trashing of the planet. To hold a self-serving system such as capitalism up as the best economic system devised by man is absurd - a system based on total self-interest and growth without limits will ultimately lead to structural breakdowns and collapse, exacerbated by those very forces at the top of the heap that want to perpetuate this system at the expense of those on the bottom.

[egal]

Actually, capitalism has prospered so much not because we are devoted to it, but because it comes naturally. And we've done nothing worse in its name than we (humans) have in the name of any other form of economic/g­overnment/­societal guidelines. Nobody honestly believes it's the best economic form by itself, anymore than we believe democracy or aristocracy or so on and so forth are, by themselves, the best form of government.

There are differing needs to be addressed, and the same format can't fulfill them all. However, the reason capitalism alone has runinto such problems is basically twofold:

those who have seek to perpetuate the system and add corruption that maintains their wealth and takes power from everybody else;

and we've tried to make capitalism the catch-all for everything (from business, government, society, economics, industry, entertainment, etc. ad nauseum), and capitalism simply is not capable of filling all of these roles, making it disastrous to attempt to govern or predict these other systems under the strictures of capitalism that does one thing well and sucks at the other things we try to use it to control and organize.

[rcat99]

Rich folk in favor of a regressive tax policy and poor people wanting more hand-outs are a given, to be expected and, generally, uninteresting. The ones that might grab my attention are those that advocate positions that would seem to be at odds to their own personal situations. The conservative, well-off businessman who sees the rightness and value of a supportive and caring social and economic safety net, or the working-class individual striving against insurmountable odds but still seeing the necessity of pulling his own weight. These are the types that contribute to an understanding of what makes a healthy society. People with a larger view of the world, beyond just what seems to be good for themselves.

Once your financial security is assured (and that of your descendants in perpetuity) what else is there left but to return the fruits of your labor to their source. The consumer, the purchaser of your product or service is the ultimate progenitor of your success and attendant wealth. When you've gotten all the material goods you can think of, why spend your energy in conjuring up new and spectacular displays of vulgarity rather than merely re-seeding the soil of creative capitalism and help to make possible another capitalist success. Keep the life-giving cycle going and in the process accomplish the ultimate goal of capitalism -- no, not more goodies for the king but an incremental rise in the quality of life of a healthy, happy, peaceful society.

[Pat15]

Kudos to Gates he got an opportunity and he made good with it. He is very different breed of capatlisim and not many come close to him .... Given that take a look around now ...in the last 8 yaers jobs lost to china, India...(w­herever cheap labour can be found), wages have stagnated in US ...more % of people are below the poverty line [can you live on min wage] , middle class is having hard time getting buy, people selling their stuff just to get buy ... majoirty of us have become economic slaves & scared to say anything or lose their job & be on the street ... the Capatilistic CEO know it ... They exploit the workers to the hilt ... 50+ million people have no health insurance, many lost their pensions in scandals higher education ..now it costs plenty to go to college even when colleges have billions in endowments ...why so much to educate students [all we need is a building , teachers & some supporting staff] but hey we cant forgo football, baseball etc so the top echelons of university can enjoy the benefits free...
Folks just take a look at your life compared to 10 yeras ago ..Are you better off as republicans use to ask... we are the suckers who fall for the same crap come election time & elect politicians who are not interested in the well being of its citizens..­.. since we elected them we are part of the problem

[balthus]

HuffPost's Pick

My Personal Capitalism Myth List:

1. You Can Make It if You Try. Americans believe that if you work hard enough, you too can become one of the top-earning few. While technically true, the reality is that approx. 90% of millionaires in this country inherited the large bulk of their wealth. The single, overriding factor that makes it most likely that anyone will succeed in our society isn't their work ethic, their creativity, their belief in themselves etc.; it's whether their parents are financially well off.

2. It's Your Fault if You Don't Succeed. Often stated by those who succeeded because they had all the advantages (see #1).

3. We're All In This Together. Americans have very little sense of the great financial disparity between the few rich people in this country and the vast number of us who live paycheck to paycheck, never really able to get ahead, the threat of insolvency ever present. The wealthiest 5% of Americans own 38% of all wealth, leaving the remaining 95% of us to divvy up the rest.

4. The Wealthy Need Their Money More Than You Do. People don't need unlimited incentives and grotesque wealth in order to be "motivated" to start of invest in the businesses that provide jobs. There are many societies where investor compensation is much more in line with worker income that don't lack for capital investment.

[FogBelter]

Forgot one.

Wealth Repeals Mortality

[neoprimordial]

All excellent points, but if, somehow, the wealthy monied entities can be made to see that it's in their best interest to encourage, as much as possible, the success of the underclass and those just above it, the usual fallacies lose their punch. The trick is convincing them. I know of one woman, a friend of a friend, who basically declared that her indulging herself with her wealth was "enlightened self-inter­est." There are plenty of people who establish whatever rationale, including the ones you've outlined here, to support their greed and overweening self-interest. We can only hope they wake up before long.

[robertlockwoodmills]

Laissez-faire capitalists have created a paradigm wherein capitalism equales with free enterprise, which in turn equates with freedom. On that basis, the invasion of Iraq was O.K., because it gave Iraqis a chance to enjoy what we call "freedom..­" In reality, this is just free-market capitalism on an international scale...es­pecially where it pertains to oil.

Bush's often-repeated line of crap, "Muslim terrorists hate us for our freedom," really means, "Muslims don't go along with our equating of free enterprise with freedom." Bush isn't bright enough to know he's talking crap, but neo-cons who do know better have used him to advance their own interests. That's how Cheney became a multi-millionaire through war profiteering.

[DrPaulProteus]

I don't see what anyone's worried about. St. Obama will surely fix everything, probably within his first 100 days in office.

[seewhy]

good luck with this. i don't know much about business or philanthropy, but, seriously -- a dollar or two a word?
good grief.

[cylindar]

I do not think it is any of our business what a person does with his or her money. If they want to be nice they can give some of it to good causes, if they choose not to do so that is fine. I think people need to face their own problems with the fact that they are really green with envy when it comes to other peooples wealth. If they had the money they would not do any better or any worse with it.

[FogBelter]

Mr Kinsley, I have a title for your book:

"Cooking the Golden Goose: How Capitalism Murdered the American Dream"

[Erdgeist]

The word "capitalism" was not on the lips of the Framers. The word "moneyed" was. It was used in a pejorative sense. Capitalism is just supposed to do with getting money, i.e., capital. In this respect, we are all capitalists because we need money. The Federal government is capitalist, too. It needs capital and gets it through taxes and tariffs (mainly through taxes).

The American system of economics was never capitalistic. That is just hogwash. It was protectionistic, an economic strategy conceived by Hamilton and Clay. The American system insured the protection of infant industries. It led eventually to a booming economy like China has today (which is protectionistic, modeled after the American system). In addition, the Fed got revenues to run the entire government from the "revenue tariff" so that there was no such thing as an "income tax".

During this period in our history, America was a land of manufactures and farmers--all making good money (America only had a problem with the distribution of its wealth--never the lack of wealth). Where capitalism enters the picture is with financial institutions and markets such as banks and the stock exchange. They are truly "capitalistic" insofar as they use money to make money. They don't manufacture so much as a toothpick. However they do produce derivative balloons, and cause recessions and depressions. Oh, and they jack up the price of oil.

[HTooley]

To think that now, we need to come up with a paradigm for the capitalist model when we have already "been there and done that" is disingenuous. We can look back to the progressive era for models. We do have one problem that they did not anticipate, and that was the rise of the military industrial complex that was institutio­nalized/bi­rthed during WWII. Unfortunately for us, we have not been able to unshackle our economy from it. In fact it has become a driving force of our economy and our foreign policy. It should be viewed as a form of corporate welfare . They have disseminated their influence into almost every congressional district for the express purpose of influencing the legislative process. It is definitely not done for efficiency sake.

The products that the M/I complex creates have no intrinsic value to our economy. If the resources that we squander on guns was spent on butter, and in this case the 'butter' could be considered R&D of alternative fuels, processes to eliminate greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and oceans, mass transit, creation of processes to recycle nuclear waste. These would truly be enriching to our society and to the world at large.

So if Mr Gates really wants to change the dynamic of capitalism, he should work to change the context of the socialism created for the M/I complex to one that ultimately would have a more positive 'feedback loop' on our economy and perhaps the world.

[SisterAnn]

Nothing is wrong with those who are willing to work harder or create new products or cures ending up with more than those who don't try as hard..

There are many who due to emotional, intellectual or physical problems need help and they should be given that help, scorn free, without jumping through hoops or standing in line.

Cruel capitalism that allows a few to take most of the money and choose the lowest cost workers, leaving the rest dangling without safety nets, cannot stand. Capitalism needs to be softened with unemployment insurance, welfare, Social Security and universal health care. There needs to be a living wage and labor unions. We need regulations on essentials such as mortgage loans, utilities, and oil and gas. The investor needs checks and balances in the stock market to assure they are not being taken advantage of.

Saying words like 'welfare' and 'taxes' is like waving a red flag, so renaming those programs could help a lot.

Comparing the poor in this country to the poor in other countries isn't fair. Being poor is living below the standard of living that the average people in your country live. A poor person can buy a color TV for $99, but br unable to pay for programming. They can own a car, but can't afford to buy gas. To live in a country that offers so much, but not having the money to gain access to most of it is being poor.

[BARRISTER]

Gates didnt "work hard and create" anything Sister Ann. Dos, which gave him his start, was an IBM creation which they gave to him, and Windows is a poor, (like in "Made in China" quality) version of Apple's system. But for Stev Jobs insisting on not making his system available actoss the board, you would never have heard of Bill Gates or Microsoft. IBM was his first customer with IBM's DOS,and then they , ( now, that is smart marketing), made it avaiolable across the board.

So, dont knock people who were not as fortunate as gates,( to gave IBM give him DOS), by suggesting they dont "try as hard" as gates et. al. The teachers, Nurses, doctors, Sanitary Engineers, waiters, cleaners, farmers, farm workers etc ALL TRY HARDER THAN THE CAPITALISTS WHO EXPLOIT THEM!! Check out WalMart; check out the poor workers in China etc who"tryu as hard as anybody" to produce the goods and are paid less than living wages, while the Walton family get stinking rich off their labour. I guess the Chinese and other middle classes of the World, aint "try as hard", eh??

[Querent]

The size of your ignorance is exceeded only by the size of your mouth. Your misconceptions about the difficulty of Gates' work could easily be cleared up. Why don't you buy yourself a computer. They have this thing called "Google" . . .