In a day and age where tens of thousands of well-educated college students go on demonstration to protest the disproportionate amount of global wealth held by the elite "1%," it is glad to see, perhaps a bit ironically, that the very icon of someone, at least in financial profile, leading the pack of the global "one-percenters" is, in fact, receiving a rather pleasant reception from the student population. In his quick, 3-second move from the lecture hall from which his delivered his web-broadcast address to his awaiting black van was anticipated by a massive crowd clicking away on their cameras, waving, and chanting in joy.
If there is anything that can be said of Mr Bill Gates' few-hours-long visit to the LSE, it is about just how divisive a term like "1%" really is, even for people who belong solidly in the 1% (such as Mr Gates) or the people who are very likely to belong in the 1% in the near future (the excited LSE students flanking his van and updating their Facebook status immediately after the 3-second "event.") Sure, there were a few dissident voices in the background ("say, isn't that black van a little bit too big for someone who preaches environmentalism?"), but the whole process remained remarkably calm and uneventful.
Now imagine if the CEO of Goldman Sachs, not Microsoft, was here at the LSE delivering exactly the same speech at the same place to the same people. The crowd outside the black van will still gather, and they probably would still have their cameras clicking away, but the atmosphere will not be one of "It was AMAZING, I saw a billionaire" and end of the story. There would bound to be name-calling banners, of student organizations chanting anti-corporate slogans, and plenty of post-event Facebook status updates dripping with cynicism and criticism.
...And all that would only happen if it is assumed that the CEO of Goldman Sachs would be able to deliver his speech, with LSE budging the pressure of cancelling his very appearance for fear of prolonged student protests and somehow managing to promise the CEO his personal safety while he is on the LSE "campus." For now, let's just say that the very idea of Goldman Sachs CEO appearing in the LSE for anything other than an Investment Society private event is highly unlikely. LSE grads may become 1% later on, but for now, as poor students, that still like to think they have certain ideals.
The whole scenario, then, begs the question of what, exactly, is the difference between the CEO of Microsoft and that of Goldman Sachs. Certainly not the amount of wealth they generate for themselves, their employees, and the society. And also not in terms of the social, political, or even cultural impact they bring about on a global scale. Both provide very utilized services and products to worldwide clients, and both contribute heavily to employment and tax revenue income of whatever countries they decide to operate within.
Some idealists then go on to point out what they believe to be the differences. One, they would say, created a business empire and changed the lifestyles of billions in one of the all-time greatest rags-to-riches stories. The other simply inherited a pile of cash given by a group of duped and partially informed "investors" which he went to multiply rapidly by creating elaborate mechanisms that operated based on deceiving both the public and the government. The morality, or lack thereof, behind accumulation of wealth is all that makes the difference.
Yet, the same idealist seemed to forget none of the Microsoft products were actually "invented." They were assembled from a hodge-podge of different technological breakthroughs that already existed at the time. Mr Gates and his team were clever enough to put them in a single package, and then improve upon the original package over decades of increasing usage. The ingenuous assembling of existing techniques is also exactly what investment banks have done to expand their grip on global economy, in much of the same way Microsoft created a near monopoly in operating software.
In essence, who Occupy Wall St protesters and the media labelled the "1%" is not a general term for those who control the global means of production and inflows of wealth, but entirely a social construct based on people's hatred for the existing social order. Perhaps Mr Gates was smart to foresee the breakout of such immense and irrepressible emotions over the public perceived unfairness of wealth distribution and preemptively market himself as a "man of the people" through his Foundation. But at the core, business is business, and feeding a few more of the starving and putting a few more of the disadvantaged in college is not going to change business operations, whether it is for Microsoft or Goldman Sachs.
If there is anything that can be said of Mr Bill Gates' few-hours-long visit to the LSE, it is about just how divisive a term like "1%" really is, even for people who belong solidly in the 1% (such as Mr Gates) or the people who are very likely to belong in the 1% in the near future (the excited LSE students flanking his van and updating their Facebook status immediately after the 3-second "event.") Sure, there were a few dissident voices in the background ("say, isn't that black van a little bit too big for someone who preaches environmentalism?"), but the whole process remained remarkably calm and uneventful.
Now imagine if the CEO of Goldman Sachs, not Microsoft, was here at the LSE delivering exactly the same speech at the same place to the same people. The crowd outside the black van will still gather, and they probably would still have their cameras clicking away, but the atmosphere will not be one of "It was AMAZING, I saw a billionaire" and end of the story. There would bound to be name-calling banners, of student organizations chanting anti-corporate slogans, and plenty of post-event Facebook status updates dripping with cynicism and criticism.
...And all that would only happen if it is assumed that the CEO of Goldman Sachs would be able to deliver his speech, with LSE budging the pressure of cancelling his very appearance for fear of prolonged student protests and somehow managing to promise the CEO his personal safety while he is on the LSE "campus." For now, let's just say that the very idea of Goldman Sachs CEO appearing in the LSE for anything other than an Investment Society private event is highly unlikely. LSE grads may become 1% later on, but for now, as poor students, that still like to think they have certain ideals.
The whole scenario, then, begs the question of what, exactly, is the difference between the CEO of Microsoft and that of Goldman Sachs. Certainly not the amount of wealth they generate for themselves, their employees, and the society. And also not in terms of the social, political, or even cultural impact they bring about on a global scale. Both provide very utilized services and products to worldwide clients, and both contribute heavily to employment and tax revenue income of whatever countries they decide to operate within.
Some idealists then go on to point out what they believe to be the differences. One, they would say, created a business empire and changed the lifestyles of billions in one of the all-time greatest rags-to-riches stories. The other simply inherited a pile of cash given by a group of duped and partially informed "investors" which he went to multiply rapidly by creating elaborate mechanisms that operated based on deceiving both the public and the government. The morality, or lack thereof, behind accumulation of wealth is all that makes the difference.
Yet, the same idealist seemed to forget none of the Microsoft products were actually "invented." They were assembled from a hodge-podge of different technological breakthroughs that already existed at the time. Mr Gates and his team were clever enough to put them in a single package, and then improve upon the original package over decades of increasing usage. The ingenuous assembling of existing techniques is also exactly what investment banks have done to expand their grip on global economy, in much of the same way Microsoft created a near monopoly in operating software.
In essence, who Occupy Wall St protesters and the media labelled the "1%" is not a general term for those who control the global means of production and inflows of wealth, but entirely a social construct based on people's hatred for the existing social order. Perhaps Mr Gates was smart to foresee the breakout of such immense and irrepressible emotions over the public perceived unfairness of wealth distribution and preemptively market himself as a "man of the people" through his Foundation. But at the core, business is business, and feeding a few more of the starving and putting a few more of the disadvantaged in college is not going to change business operations, whether it is for Microsoft or Goldman Sachs.
Comments
Post a Comment