While not directly related to the article's line of reasoning, an honourable mention goes to the Gates foundation - they're willing to take on some of the more "risky" high risk high reward projects that other charities that are accountable to the public can't risk.
My only question for the Gates Foundation is this: Didn't Mr. Gates make a vast amount of his incredible wealth using questionable and indeed: illegal business practices? There's the right place at the right time aspect of Mr. Gates' situation, but there's also bullish nature of it.
Can Mr. Gates now be seen on the moral high road, simply because of the way he's redistributing the wealth he attained (again: sometimes illegally) to those very less fortunate? Do we just say, "Shit Outta Luck" to his competitors?
I don't want these questions to be rhetorical, I'm actually very much interested in other people's opinions and point of view.
Irrelevant. We're talking about what he is doing while on top. There are more than enough examples of people on top that are doing nearly nothing to better the world.
