Billionaire ought to unlock gates for small businesses

Thursday, January 28, 1999

Billionaire ought to unlock gates for small businesses

RESPONSIBILITY: Microsoft tycoon’s efforts to monopolize market
should be punished, regulated

The capitalist dream assures us that anyone can become anything
at anytime. Bill Gates has become the fourth richest person in the
world. He has acquired his estimated $77.9 billion within the
guideline of the American work ethic: he earned it. Microsoft
fought its way to the top during a time when IBM dominated
technology. It was sheer determination and innovation that led
Gates to the top.

Yet, the government has filed an anti-trust suit against him for
allegedly stifling competition. Gates should not be punished for
his achievements, but he should be punished for trying to
monopolize an industry.

I do not wish to enter a debate over the efficiency or
practicality of Microsoft software. That is better left to those
who possess more technological knowledge than I do. I am not
concerned with the technical aspect of this at all. What I find
most intriguing is the parallel this case has with the differences
that exist between the haves and have-nots in society.

Those who have achieved a moderate level of success through hard
work and perseverance feel that those who have not need only to
pull themselves up by the bootstraps and they too can be
successful. In other words, these people are not giving handouts to
anyone.

On the other hand, we have those who are not able to compete
because of disadvantages in the market, whether they be social or
economic. They feel that they are not given a fair chance to
compete. These two attitudes are reflected in our politics and
legislation, and the competing positions always struggle for
dominance in these arenas.

In the case of Microsoft, Bill Gates represents that portion of
society that feels everyone has equal opportunities. He risked
leaving Harvard to start Microsoft, rivaled larger competitors, and
earned the right to control 90 percent of the world’s personal
computers.

But, his competitors claim that by adding Internet Explorer to
his product for free he was undercutting their products. Logical
people would upgrade their product as much as possible to make the
most money for themselves. Gates was not trying to eliminate his
competition; he was simply serving his own interests.

Is this wrong? Isn’t that what we Americans thrive on,
outsmarting the other guy for our own gain? In doing so it is a
testament to our strength, determination and superior
intellect.

Those who cheer on Gates aspire one day to be among the
dominators and not the dominated. In an ideal world, we would all
reap the benefits of capitalism. In reality, not all of us will
occupy the top rung of the corporate ladder. So, what will his
young proponents say when, in a few years, their delusions of
grandeur have faded and they realize how small they really are in
this world?

I am sure that they will seek the protection of the government
and anyone else who will ensure their right to free
competition.

Whether it be as a small business or as an employee, we all want
the security of knowing that our jobs cannot be lost as a result of
a monopoly. Gates’ alleged monopoly would not only have effects on
what software consumers have the option of choosing – real people
and real lives could be affected as a result of one man’s self
interest. Entire families could be hurt from lost jobs if Gates is
allowed to drive away smaller competition.

Hypocrisy is at the center of the case against Bill Gates. This
is the hypocrisy of capitalism – success is gained in the
environment of free competition, but if one’s success infringes on
the potential of another, a monopoly emerges. The freedom one man
attains quickly becomes the bondage of another.

The paradox of this case is that the government is deeming a
monopoly unlawful. The government is not necessarily concerned with
the welfare of small businesses. But, at least in this instance the
government’s false pretense of yearning for justice will actually
benefit someone.

It is unfortunate that Gates is being singled out, but such are
the breaks in capitalism. Apparently, someone has interests that
supersede the rights of Gates. Individual fairness has to be thrown
out the window. Well, life isn’t fair now is it?

I realize that capitalism is the economic system which gives the
most personal freedom. I am grateful for that. Grateful that if I
possessed his intellect, I could be as rich as Bill Gates. Indeed,
anyone can become anything at anytime. But, at what cost?

We have been taught that competition is positive, which it is.
But, the cut-throat, dog-eat-dog world mentality that accompanies
this competition is detrimental to mankind as a whole. As the
humanitarian side of me rises up, the saying, "Nice guys finish
last," echoes in my head. But is it always necessary to finish
first? Is success so necessary that we should be willing to kick,
step on or knock out anyone who steps in our way?

It is not our responsibility to carry the next guy, but perhaps
it is our duty to lend him a helping hand. We need to be willing to
sacrifice our own agendas sometimes, if it means we can help
someone else.

It is ridiculous to me that one man can accumulate $77.9 billion
in the same country where there are over 36 million people living
in poverty (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1997).

One website explained how rich he was in these terms: imagine an
endless line of $1 bills laid end to end. If you began traveling
along this line picking up dollar bills and wished to accumulate
the wealth Gates’ has since then, you would need to travel that
line of bills picking them up at 66.86 MPH, traveling from March
13, 1986, (the day Microsoft went public) to today
(http://photo.net/philg/humor/bill-gates.html#feds). In the same
country 14.4 million people have incomes less than poverty level.
The problem with capitalism is that it overlooks the many
everywhere who have nothing and can become nothing.

I am not saying that Gates should have to give his money away;
he earned it. I am saying that he should be compelled to give it
away.

I suppose he is no different from any of us. We are a gluttonous
people. We always want more, and no matter how much we get it is
never enough. Bill Gates is symbolic of the spirit of capitalism.
He represents our belief in survival of the fittest. He is the
object of our admiration for his innovation. He is the object of
our scorn because he is a reminder that not everyone can be No.
1.

Gates should not be punished for succeeding. He is not. He is
being punished for attempting to hinder the success of others. He
could have considered the negative effects his business practice
was having on smaller businesses, but he did not. Some say he
shouldn’t have to. I think he should be made to – for the common
good of all concerned.

Comments, feedback, problems?

© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]