COLUMN: Mo'money, fewer problems?

From Daniel Septimus', "I Know My Last Name is Septimus," Fall '00 From Daniel Septimus', "I Know My Last Name is Septimus," Fall '00Life had been better. I was wearing my Mr. Smiley-Face boxer shorts for the second day in a row and both of my socks had holes in them. I opened my drawer to get the five necessary coins and saw that I only had three. Had I used all of them? I didn't think so. Had my nocturnal, DP-editing roommate done a laundry? Unlikely. Either way, I was sunk, destined to wear Mr. Smiley-Face for a third consecutive day. Defeated and distraught, I turned on the television. Soon enough, the loss I felt from being half a dollar poorer evaporated. On the news was the story of a man who in one day had lost more money than would a Waterworld sequel. Bill Gates, the only man in the world who can lose $12 billion without regurgitating his breakfast, flashed across the screen. On Monday, District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled that Microsoft violated antitrust laws by bundling its Web browser, Internet Explorer, with Windows, its operating system. According to Judge Jackson's ruling, "Microsoft placed an oppressive thumb on the scale of competitive fortune, thereby effectively guaranteeing its continued dominance." The verdict caused Microsoft's stock to drop by more than $15 a share, costing Gates just under a gazillion dollars. Interestingly, the loss of Gates' "just in case I want to buy every team in the NHL" fund came during a week in which two major world leaders singled out information technology -- much of which Gates helped to develop -- as the key to fighting world poverty. Earlier this week, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan outlined a goal to reduce world poverty over the next 15 years. Currently, 22 percent of the world's 6 billion people live on less than $1 a day. Annan hopes that this percentage will be halved by 2015. Mr. Annan is particularly interested in helping struggling countries advance technologically. He announced plans to establish a group made up of international volunteers -- the United Nations Information Technology Service -- who will teach people in developing countries how to use computers and the Internet. Mr. Annan believes that the introduction of information technology will help poverty-stricken countries skip certain stages of development that usually precede economic growth. On Wednesday, President Clinton called for similar action. At a conference on the "New Economy," the president stated his belief that "the computer and the Internet give us a chance to move more people out of poverty more quickly than any time in all of human history." Clinton and Annan hope to fight poverty by strengthening the governments and economies of developing countries from the inside. They believe that the introduction of technology will facilitate this. Maybe they're right -- maybe wiring shacks in the Indian slums with DSL lines will reduce hunger. However, it is hard for me to comprehend these elaborate plans. I cannot claim to have any real grasp on the workings of the global economy, but maybe that makes me just the right guy to criticize it. I understand that redistributing wealth is not a simple thing. People like keeping the money they've got. But let's not fool ourselves -- to a large degree, the reason we need to formulate extensive plans to computerize the Third World is because people who have the financial ability to give away money don't give away as much as they could. According to the Associated Press, Gates has donated $750 million dollars to help reduce world poverty. It is certainly difficult to criticize him for donating that much money; however, it's hard not to find that sum insignificant when the man can lose $12 billion in a day and still have another $85 billion in the bank. Think about this: According to Annan, the budget for the United Nations' core operations in New York, Geneva, Nairobi, Vienna and five regional commissions is only $1.25 billion a year. Billy could fund twice this amount just by putting his money in the bank and giving the U.N. the interest. I didn't use any fancy-schmancy calculus equations to figure this out, but it makes sense. Doesn't it? Well, maybe I am being a bit of a reductionist. Maybe economists across the country would laugh their pocket-protectors off if they saw my modest proposal. Maybe it's not that simple. But it just might be. Computers are great and the Internet has made this world a better place, but let's not forget the use of good old arithmetic and the potential world-transforming power of good old charity.