Bill Gates is older than me. He’s richer than me/all of us; He’s more focused that me and he’s definitely a better BUSINESS man than me, his money is allowing him to do greater good than me, he may even be a more likeable than me.
Bill Gates is painted as being the genius behind the computer industry and now he’s regarded as Saint Bill? But was/is he? Critical analysis would suggest not.

He didn’t invent much himself…He didn’t invent computers, the pc, the micro chip, the data base or the spread sheet or the word processor, DOS or the GUI (graphic user interface) what we know as Windows. One could argue that if it hadn’t been for strategic mistakes of IBM Gates his may have been an also ran.

One could argue that he/his corporation’s tactics were/are ruthless abusing his corporate power in distorted or smothering the industry and not necessarily for the better. Thereby emasculating the alleged gods of capitalism, competition and better products for his benefit.

He was/is a brilliant entrepreneur and a ruthless business man. That’s it.

Now he’s spending his ‘ill gotten gains’ on philanthropy. It has been stated his goal (after all he is goal orientated) is to win a Nobel peace prize “no matter what the cost”.

I don’t write to bag Mr Gates or business in general but to pose the question

“Are our heroes and the Nobel prize for sale (i.e. the end justifies the means) or should we be more discerning about our heroes?

It's a reasonable question and in the past I would certainly have have agreed with you. BUT (yes, big but), recently since I have had reason to delve deeper into the B&M Gates Foundation, I have certainly changed my mind. For a start, they have spent more on research for malaria than just about anybody at any time.

Seriously.

The UN researchers complained about it at one time saying that their results were affecting public policy. That's because they spent more on it than any government ever bothered to. That is definitely a noble goal as there is definitely no money to be made in malaria research. Many researchers know this, as affects mainly poor tropical countries like those found in Africa.

Lastly, if Bill Gates can get 37 Billion dollars out of Warren Buffet to spend on disease research and addressing African poverty, then I think Bill Gates deserves it.

From history, my favourite is the reason that Howard Hughes set up his Medical Institute as a tax dodge, but after his death it became the beneficiary of part of his estate and a world leader in medical research.

That was an accident, but Bill Gates has made a conscious decision to share his wealth in a targeted manner, and since he has done this within his lifetime, I think that he deserves it.

Hell, if it means that more rich @#$%s may donate to charity and perceive their dollars being spent on something real like research and disease mitigation instead of missionary work, then I for one am willing to give them any public honour they want. It's no skin off my nose.

I hear he is into some charity work, cures for malaria or something, good on him and if he does well and it’s all above board, why not give it to him. To discriminate because he is wealthy and successful is just bigoted.

I agree with Ph00_stains (and am still laughing a strong contender if they ever gave Nobel prizes for logon names)

Is it better to acknowledge a person who, through their business, contributed to the betterment of millions or to someone whose endeavours, whilst deepening academic human understanding (George Akerlof), might have made no direct or very limited, practical difference whatsoever ?

So I will echo as said previously “To discriminate because of Bill Gates wealth and commercial success is just bigoted.”

The only consideration should be the significance of the advancements made towards peace….or the greater good for humanity. Nothing else. Let’s not worry about how Bill got his money.

I fear that his aid efforts, like those of just about every other aid organisation and government, are short-sighted and lopsided. He’s not addressing sustainability!

He’s attempting to improve the quality of life for perhaps millions of people, which is honourable. But in doing so, he is promulgating constant unsustainable population growth…and ever-increasing per-capita consumption, which is going to bring humanity unstuck, starting off with the poor.

What he should be doing with his vast wealth is putting it directly into the most important sustainability factors, not least, the rapid achievement of a stable global population, followed immediately by a steady reduction.

Ph00_stains, Col rouge
Thank you for your comments but I wonder if you both missed the point.
The point was “Do their (businessmen's) ends justify the means i.e. a peace (?) Nobel. (What’s ‘PEACE’ got to do with it? Same applies to the ‘I PPC/ Gore prize).

By that I meant that a business man who didn't create anything new and was ruthless arguably limiting choice/better products and potentially greater benefits for the world as a whole for most of his life now buy his 'redemption'. What this says about the world isn't that complementary.

WEALTH ISN'T THE ISSUE.

Malaria is the single biggest disease scourge of world (I’ve had it). To cure it is a wonderful goal ...but like TB et al there is more to the story.
One of the primary causes for drug resistant is not completing drugs therapy this is often because of poverty, ignorance and access to technology.
The B&M trust will not fix those problems. Yes, something is better than nothing but real change isn’t prize winning.

There is one strategy to win a prize but another to really make a difference.

Good deeds are their own rewards. Are Philanthropists really heroes or simply glory seekers