meek-investor

I remain confounded as to why Bill Gates is not universally loved in this world. Ask people at random to name the greatest living person  and you'll get a wide variety of names. But I bet, you won't see the name of Bill Gates very much. And yet , to me, he would rank right up alongside with Nelson Mandela for that honour. Why ?;  do you ask ? here's why. There have been many incredibly successful businessmen in the world. Few can deny that Bill Gates is one of them. But he is only one of many; many preceded him, and no doubt many will succeed him. But even in the success, you should laud his lifestyle - never ostentatious, low key, with class and style and the very epitome of what a successful businessman should be. And then he gave virtually all his money to charity. In this, he is rare, but not unique. Others have donated large sums before too. The list of business tycoons, who have been major givers for social causes is an illustrious list. But he is absolutely unique, i...

Novartis claimed last week that had made the first batch of the vaccine for the H1N1 virus that is the cause for swine flu. What caught my attention was Novartis refusing the call of the World Health Organisation to give the vaccine free to poor countries. Novartis says whoever buys, must at least cover costs. Click here for FT’s reporting of the story. The issue raises a dilemma for which there are no easy answers. For both sides are right. From the WHO’s point of view, this is about saving lives. They’ve just declared a global pandemic. Many millions could die. Here’s a way of preventing the disease. In poor countries, people just can’t pay for the vaccines. So if you price the vaccines, they simply won’t use it. So is it ethically OK to let many die when you could possibly prevent it ? From Novartis’ point of view, they are a commercial organization, not a charity. There is a cost to producing the vaccine. What they are saying to the poor countries is, at least cover costs. If they...