January 26, 2014

Bill Gates: No more poor countries within 21 years, so morally okay to close borders now

Granted, Gates actually failed to publicly point out the logical policy implication of his premise, but that's what I'm here for.

From the Los Angeles Times:
Bill Gates predicts almost no poor countries left by 2035 
Billionaire and former tech mogul Bill Gates predicts that there will be almost no poor countries left in the world by 2035. 
Almost all nations will be either lower-middle income or wealthier, and most will have surpassed the 35 countries that are currently defined by the World Bank as low-income, Gates says in his annual letter for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. 
 

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

That will go down as one of the stupidest things ever said.

Anonymous said...

Bill Gates took a poll of all the kids he went to high school with and found that everyone was rich. So he concluded in twenty one years everyone else will be rich, too.

Anonymous said...

Open Borders didn't do Mexico any good. In fact places like Chile have a lot less poverty and don't go to the US as much. Open Borders has kept Mexico poor since its easy to dump the poor on the US instead of doing anything.

Anonymous said...

Region A
90% supply
10% demand

Region B
10% supply
90% demand

no more poor countries in 21 years. yeah, right.

no more rich countries in 21 years - oh yes

Nobel Nominee B. Gates said...

All Countries Will Own Above Average Wealth.

cyril said...

I'm assuming Mexico isn't poor by the standard Gates is using. Mexico, after all, has higher GDP per capita than Romania, according to the World Bank.

This hasn't stopped the Bryan Caplans and Chuck Schumers of the world from propounding a moral argument for increased Mexican immigration.

There will still be enough poor people to keep this argument vital.

David said...

According to "Popular Science," it would take the resources of about four earths to provide everyone in the world with the American standard of living.

Gates is dumb. I hate to say that - after all, who am I? - but his public pronouncements can be judged by anyone with a working knowledge of reality and logic, and so I say again - Gates is dumb.

Bert said...

If Bill Gates says it, it must be true.

I'm so glad I have wise plutocrats who can do the thinking for me.

Anonymous said...

Immigration tends to be from middle income countries though, rather than poor ones, because you need at least some means to immigrate. E.g. India, China, Philippines, Mexico, not Chad, CAR or DRC.

So don't think there's even a logical policy implication there.

countenance said...

But there will still be The Gap.

Then again, there will still be a lot of Gaps.

Anonymous said...

Mexico is not a poor country by global standards. That doesn't stop millions of Mexicans from inviting themselves to the USA.

jody said...

...something about nobody ever needing more that 640 kilobytes of RAM...

ben tillman said...

Open Borders didn't do Mexico any good. In fact places like Chile have a lot less poverty and don't go to the US as much. Open Borders has kept Mexico poor since its easy to dump the poor on the US instead of doing anything.

Mexico isn't poor.

Chicago said...

What happened to his search for the African Einstein?

Reg Cæsar said...

How many countries will have the net worth of the Gates family in 2035?

On the other hand, will Microsoft exist then , or go the way of A&P?

Portlander said...

What's it even mean to be a poor country? I might argue there'd be no poor countries today if it weren't for corrupt govt's. Does Gates have an inside line on fixing corruption the rest of us don't know about?

Harry Baldwin said...

Immigration tends to be from middle income countries though, rather than poor ones, because you need at least some means to immigrate.

Not if the US State Department decides it's important to resettle you here, as with Somalis.

When we're all working nights driving gypsy cabs, taking in borders, and subsisting on beans like Tyler Cowen advises, will we still meet Gates's definition of middle class?

Gates can't be so stupid as to believe something like this, so it's only interesting to try to figure out why he said it.

Auntie Analogue said...


Beware of Geeks bearing gifs. Or prophecies.

Anonymous said...

*it's only interesting to try to figure out why he said it*

He's an aspergery guy who spent the formative years of his life writing BASIC interpreters for now-obsolete computers. Having no greater interest in reality, he's probably just trying to buy his way into heaven, in a Pascal's wager fashion. And why not?

As an added bonus, trumpeting the current political orthodoxy with billions of dollars gets him invited to parties a hell of a lot hipper than his bridge tournaments.

Anonymous said...

mexico isnt poor. it has the 11th or is it 13th largest economy in the world.

but the gringos think the are poor because mexico keeps dumping all their garbage in the US southwest.

Anonymous said...

Immigration tends to be from middle income countries though, rather than poor ones, because you need at least some means to immigrate.

It also depends on the physical difficulty of migrating from country A to country B. If there is only a fence between them...

Anonymous said...

No more MS in 10 yrs the way it's going.

Anonymous said...

http://mindweaponsinragnarok.com/2014/01/23/dr-tim-stanley-attempts-to-trash-the-dark-enlightenment-gets-slammed-in-the-comments/

5371 said...

Easy. The CIA will simply announce it to be true in their Factbook. Hey, people believe all the crap that's in there now.

International Jew said...

"most will have surpassed the 35 countries that are currently defined by the World Bank as low-income"

Most already do, since there are well over 2x35=70 countries in the world.

Anonymous said...

"Gates can't be so stupid as to believe something like this, so it's only interesting to try to figure out why he said it."

He said it because he thinks we're all stupid.

Anon.

Jason Hops said...

In 100 years Africa will still have over fifty countries that are almost totally all Black. Same with Asia.

But there may not be one single White majority country left on earth. Am I allowed to say I don't like that?

RonMexico said...

And this guy is de facto driving public education reform

Anonymous said...

"According to "Popular Science," it would take the resources of about four earths to provide everyone in the world with the American standard of living." - Or the population in the 3rd world could have refrained from going parabolic so that only one earth would be required for that.

Anonymous said...

hyperbolic rather.

Gene Berman said...

Jason Hops:

"Am I allowed to say I don't like that?"

Sure you are--for now.

Anonymous said...

"But there may not be one single White majority country left on earth. Am I allowed to say I don't like that?"

And that means whites will never ever be able to rise up against Jewish power again. Never Again, not by good will or morality but the very structure of power. Jews are so happy.

pat said...

Jason Hops said:

In 100 years Africa will still have over fifty countries that are almost totally all Black. Same with Asia

That could be Jason, but it could also be that Africa has no blacks at all in 100 years.

The nut shell history of black Africa goes something like this:

Prior to 'The Age of Discovery' nobody paid any attention to Sub-Saharan Africa. Then in the fifteenth century China and Europe (Portugal) discovered it. China backed off rather the way America has withdrawn from space. The European powers established colonies. The European powers withdrew.

The last sentence could be - "China goes back to Africa".

I believe I read that South Africa has two submarines but neither work at the present time. The rest of black Africa has even less military capability than South Africa. If a developed or even half way developed nation chose to take over, Africa has no means to resist. Who would want to take over?

The list is short. China, Korea, perhaps Japan or one of the South East Asian countries might be interested in some latter day imperialism. In the 1930s Japan and Germany were in expansionist phases. But today the most likely candidate is clearly China.

China is already all over black Africa. Air Zimbabwe makes all its stewardess's learn Chinese. The blacks threw out the Indians and shamed away the Europeans. So they still need some other more talented people to run their infrastructure and it happens to be the Chinese.

Most people in the West who know about Tibet think the Chinese are the villains. But the Chinese think of themselves as liberators. They claim that before they moved in 90% of all Tibetans were slaves. The Chinese came - so they say - to free the Tibetans.

It's easy to see how a similar wave of compassion for the blacks might be used to justify a mass movement of Chinese people to Africa. China is subject to large scale mass movements including the Taiping revolt, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural revolution.

All that would be needed is to announce that the 'One Child Policy' wasn't true for Chinese pilgrims to Africa. Africa has natural resources but no way to use them themselves. They also have no way to defend themselves.

The Chinese already have enough people. The blacks won't be needed.

This is one possibility. Another might be India. Imin drove the Indians out of Uganda. Maybe a richer, better organized India might want some payback. Indians would be free of white guilt and charges of imperialism. They might not be as competent as Chinese warriors. But they would only be fighting Africans. How good would you have to be?

So Mr. Hops there are several plausible scenarios in which there could be a rapid change in the global prospects for black people. How would you like their chances if North Korea (a nuclear power) chose to acquire some nice warm African beach front property?

You can't predict the future.

Albertosaurus

Anonymous said...

"According to "Popular Science," it would take the resources of about four earths to provide everyone in the world with the American standard of living." - Or the population in the 3rd world could have refrained from going parabolic so that only one earth would be required for that.

That's bullshit, and very old bullshit at that. There are plenty of untapped resources still on this earth. And it's easy to say to the third world to control your population. Did the "first" world ever make a serious attempt to control its own population in the 17th and 18th centuries? The technology was there, the will was not; or rather too much of it was invested in religious lebensraum than rational quality of life.

Whiskey said...

Gates is really not very smart. He was clever in creating a software monopoly, for a while, but not so in maintaining it. Microsoft is failing in the Tablet area, failing in phones, barely holding water in a dying console market (cheaper and easier to play Angry Birds on your phone for 99 cents anywhere than 14 hours of Call of Duty: Bodyguarding Hillary! at home), etc. Long term MS faces erosion steadily of their office/OS revenues despite a stellar quarter driven by one-time cost cutting.

Already Eric Prince is talking about A. How little value it is to be an American; and B. how his new company formed with Chinese backers will do the logistics of Chinese exploitation of Africa.

There is a new book out about how wars start. The argument is that perceived strength matters most; if an enemy or group of enemies is perceived as weak (Spain in 1898 comes to mind) there will be war, if not (the USSR in 1962) there will not be war. Africa is hosed. It is weak. A turkey for the carving.

White majority countries? Yes there will be. Rivers of Blood to be sure. But its guys like GATES (not a Jew) who buy into Crystal Methodism PC/Diversity stuff. What motivates Gates is basically religious fervor. No different than say most Oligarchs of time past. His religion is just Post-Christianity (really his Wife's more than anything). Where Andrew Carnegie wanted to buy history's good opinion by creating libraries, Bill Gates does it by hugging Black people.

[Which as Dieudonne M'Bala M'bala shows, is "bad for the Jews."]

Farang said...

And that means whites will never ever be able to rise up against Jewish power again. Never Again, not by good will or morality but the very structure of power. Jews are so happy.

Jewish happiness at white gentiles' demise won't last.

Here in France, some black guys like Dieudonné (with help from white antisemite intellectuals like Alain Soral) have come up with an idea: A new French people, made up of blacks, whites and Arabs ("black blanc beur" as we say here), all united by their hatred of Jews, who are perceived as the hidden masters of the media, finance and politics and the oppressors of Arabs in the Middle-East.

French mainstream politicians elected a new people, at the native white population's expense. It took them decades, but they did it. They should have remembered the old dictum: Beware of what you wish, you might just get it.

Dieudonné is just a stand-up comedian, but smart French politicians have perceived the threat to the social order (and thence to their power) that is rising in the banlieues, separate from normal political channels. Hence the quickness and unusual brutality of the repression against Dieudonné and his sympathizers, many of whom are white.

American and European support for Israel will dwindle as non-Whites become politically influential, if not dominant, in formerly White countries. Jewish leaders know it, but they are unable to overcome their innate hostility to monolithic white gentile societies. They prefer cosmopolitan societies, where they are the smartest group among many, and able to play the other groups against each other. Germany was 99.5% white christian German and 0.5% Jewish in the 1930s. The homogeneity of the 99.5% wasn't a good thing for the Jews.

Anonymous said...

Of course, the whole world will move to Lake Woebegone. And, It'll be dense.

Anonymous said...


Harry Baldwin said...

taking in borders

HA HA, unintended pun