blink blink Huff, huff!
Grrrr.
Woof woof!
Grrr, woof!
Bark! Bark bark bark!
7 Likes
Ya I’m the one bad posting.
3 Likes
Nobody is claiming that Gates will get a financial windfall from the vaccine. The claim is that Gates’ wealth, like most all wealth, is dependent upon the enforcement of laws that define ownership. IP is one of those things that people can own and profit from, so is owning a shit ton of stock in Microsoft, or owning a shit ton of farm land. All of those are things that Gates owns and they constitute his wealth. They are not laws of physics, they are human constructs. So, if IP law gets tossed to the side when it comes to a pandemic because unless we are sociopaths, we should be prioritizing the well being of humans over the profits of the few, then what’s next? Next thing you know we’ll be prioritizing human well-being over the rest of Gates wealth also.
Gates has a history of acting like he cares about poverty. That’s what philanthro-PR is designed to do. But because he’s one of the GOAT wealth hoarders, he has a difficult(some would say impossible) time imagining systemic change that would alleviate the root causes of poverty, because those changes would also negatively impact his wealth hoarding. So, he’s left advancing policy proposals that maintain the status quo, addressing symptoms but not the root causes of poverty.
When I chat with people IRL about Gates, general points of disagreement stem from a difference in perspective which is due to the success of his philanthro-PR, and the rest of the propaganda that attempts to justify the results of a socio-political system that creates obscenely wealthy billionaires while other humans lack basic resources.
The facts are: Gates is without a doubt one of the GOAT wealth hoarders. Knowing how people tend to view that level of greed, he has promised to give away all of his wealth (after death, ofc). He currently “gives away” portions of his wealth to his own foundation. And since he announced his intentions to do full-time philanthro-PR his personal wealth has increased, while he gets bent out of shape when people propose taxing his wealth away.
If we consider wealth hoarding to be an addiction (it is), and Gates to be an addict (he is), then we could compare him to other addicts.
Imagine if Gates was the GOAT narcotics hoarder of all time. Knowing how people would tend to view his hoarding, he promises to get clean by giving away all his drugs (after he dies, ofc). He currently “donates” some of his drugs to his own foundation. And in the past two decades Gates has actually doubled the amount of drugs that he has hoarded, while he gets bent out of shape when people propose distributing his stash before his death.
Would people credulously believe that drug hoarder Gates is anything other than an addict, who in fact is not actually committed to getting clean? I would hope not, even if people who Billy had given some of his drugs to said he was a swell guy.
Some people will still continue to listen to Gates’ comments like Mr. Show’s Worthington’s Law (more money=better than) is a real thing. Others will listen to Gates with a level of skepticism impacted by the understanding that we’re hearing the words of an addict who’s high on his own supply, and therefore can’t countenance systemic changes that would alter his GOAT-tier addict status.
20 Likes
Well that’s not true either. Gate is insanely wealthy no matter what IP does, and IP for computer software isn’t under threat whatsoever from this. Again, Gates was never fucking in charge of the oxford vaccine. It’s completely irrelevant, so can we drop it?
1 Like
sLliPpErY slOPe
I’m certainly interested in you digging through my posting history to find proof on how much I hate rich people. I’m sure you remember multiple circumstances of it happening, otherwise you wouldn’t post such a claim. I’m also certain your posting in good faith here. Or maybe your “good faith” posts are just projection🤷♂️?
3 Likes
Wealth is the ownership of property(IP, real estate, stock, etc). It is entirely dependent on the enforcement of laws that define ownership. This is trivially true. Not sure why you are disputing that basic fact.
5 Likes
It is trivially true that everyone is equally rich if there is no law defining and enforcing ownership.
But laws against theft seem like a good idea!
The idea that real estate, computer software IP, stock, or property in general is under threat from this waiver is absolutely ludicrous.
Bill Gates is a child of privilege who made his obscene wealth through monopolistic practices and the theft of the intellectual property of others. He was seen as an asshole as recently as the 90s, at which time he decided that “philanthro-PR,” as MC put it above, was a great strategy to rehabilitate his image. He then proceeded to stick his nose into public health and education, two areas in which he is NOT an expert, along with countless other things his foundation have invested in–including the very journalism outlets that often praise him! He is accountable to NO ONE. There is no democratic means of determining the best use of his money, and governments or journalists who disagree with him risk losing the very funding that Bill controls. That is not a good thing! Having one person wih an insane amount of wealth dictating public policy is not a good thing!
Who fucking cares if he’s learned a little bit about public health along the way–he is not a public health expert and should not be the one making these decisions. Stop going to bat for this man.
18 Likes
Personally, I’d like to have a vaccine patent waiver with the intention of it being the start of tearing down the current IP regime even if it does nothing to actually help the fight against COVID. I’m fine with using public health as a pretext.
Well then the guys holding the IP have nothing to lose.
3 Likes
This week, the US voiced its support for a temporary lift on the patents on vaccinations. But some countries have pushed back, insisting there are better options.
So, does this just come down to money?
No. The waiver would be temporary - and some vaccine makers like AstraZeneca are offering doses at cost.
The key argument from vaccine producers and their home countries is that waiving patents alone wouldn’t solve much. It would, they say, be like handing out a recipe without the ingredients or instructions.
The patent covers the bare bones of the blue print but not the precise production process. That’s crucial here. Vaccines of the mRNA type - such as Pfizer and Moderna - are a new breed and only a small number of people understand how to make them.
AZ already being made around the world under licence (licence includes ingredients and instructions)
It’s so frustrating how often this happens here. People are debating a very specific topic, should IP of vaccines be protected or is Gates an expert in global health policy and the specific discussion is derailed with broad personal critiques of people’s character rather than the idea.
You realize Gates can be rich asshole, global health expert and advocating for vaccine IP because he honestly thinks it’s the best way to maximize the global good?
Maybe he is wrong. I happen to think he is. However, he is not wrong because he is rich, ran Microsoft, was an asshole in the 90’s, is trying to rehab his image with philanthropy etc.
I’m so tired of people thinking “but he is a rich asshole” or “he had bad person X on his podcast” or “he once supported bad idea y” is some kind of magical rhetorical tool that trumps all logic.
If you think he is wrong say why.
1 Like
Gates is wrong because prioritizing IP or “trade secrets” and the private profits derived from them over human well-being during a global pandemic is toxic AF.
You think he’s wrong too, but I didn’t see in your post why you think that is. You seemed to be more focused on admonishing others.
6 Likes
Again, that’s not what happened. Gates prioritized production, and believed that partnering with a major manufacturer would allow for more production. Given that India is producing 90 million or so per month of that same vaccine, it makes it clear that your point isn’t supported by basic facts.
Gates was against a waiver of the IP. He has just now announced that he supports a narrow waiver.
4 Likes
I agree with this sentiment but I do think its fair to criticize billionaires a little more harshly. Not because of any intrinsic character flaws but because they have literally infinite access to all the best thinking from the worlds best experts on any subject. The question should be - is Gates using his voice to amplify the message of the world’s biggest experts, or is he using his voice to suppress their best thinking because its to his benefit?
1 Like