Inbox

Capitalism 2.0
I am glad that people like Bono and Bill Gates are endorsing the practice of spreading corporate profits among the world's disadvantaged and helping convince the business élite that it is in their interest to care about the world's less fortunate [Aug. 11]. Both individuals have used their influence to do great things. But let's not forget that our elected representatives must be the ones held responsible for protecting the poor. Since the government must set a minimum wage for justice's sake, perhaps it can set maximums for corporate profits or individual salaries and offer incentives for the rich to give back.
Ralph Scheidler,
Fort Fairfield, Maine

Currently in capitalist economies, a new organization must be either a not-for-profit, with a particular mission or purpose, or a for-profit organization, in which the directors' first responsibility is to the financial interests of shareholders. I would suggest a third way: for-profit companies that both pursue a purpose and seek a financial return for investors. I believe there are millions like me who would prefer to place both our investment dollars and our philanthropic ones into such ventures. Investors in third-way companies could be confident that reasonable returns were being sought on their behalf. At the same time, organizations with missions would have new freedom to raise capital and engage talent, rather than begging for donations and pro-bono contributions. The real government interference that needs to be removed from capitalism is the protection of single-mindedly profit-motivated shareholders.
Andrew John Bayly,
Melbourne

While Bill Gates does a fine job outlining his creative capitalism initiative, his exclusive focus on developing nations at the expense of his own is a tremendous oversight. Corporations in developed countries certainly should feel socially responsible for those in developing ones. But if they ever want to be taken seriously as agents of social change, they need to consider their own economies as well. Gates is incorrect to brush over the U.S.'s economic woes so lightly, especially when creative capitalism could potentially solve some problems like our own oft-neglected poverty. Only when America proves that capitalism can cure social ills within its own borders should it start looking to prove so abroad.
Regina Tavani,
Nashua, New Hampshire

Gates presents a false dichotomy between self-interest and caring for others. Capitalism (meaning free enterprise, free trade and competition, and freedom of choice) is not only the most efficient way of assigning scarce resources to meet human needs and wants but is also the only way to simultaneously harness these two great forces of human nature. If capitalism does not produce results fast enough or if segments of the population seem to be left out, it is because of limits imposed on freedom by governments or by lack of competition. Rather than fixing capitalism, we should spread it. I'm grateful for all the good work the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has done in my country, Chile. However, Gates' generosity might be even more productive if it focused on promoting the virtues of capitalism without qualifying adjectives.
Nicolas Ibanez,
Santiago

Gates' article made me want to stand up and cheer. As he phrased it, "There are two great forces of human nature: self-interest and caring for others." By using his own wealth and influence to respond to world poverty in a meaningful way, Gates exemplifies the latter force. His initiatives (sharing technology, providing small- business loans, eradicating preventable diseases) make measurable differences. Thank you for providing a forum for him to share his ideas.
Rebecca E. Hight,
Penney Farms, Florida

Bill Gates can fix capitalism but he can't fix Microsoft Vista? Give me a break!
James K. Millard,
Lexington, Kentucky

Hollywood's Ticking Time Bomb
I agree with James Poniewozik's assessment that Hollywood has yet to demonize China in the same way the news media have [Aug. 11]. However, one need only look at the parallels between negative news coverage and negative pop-culture depictions of Arabs and the Middle East during the past decade, or the Japanese during World War II, to see how closely one influences the other. The current political climate suggests China is next. It may be only a matter of time before the "delightful pandas" take on a more ominous form.
Leila Cruz,
Wheaton, Maryland

Star Quality
Saying Barack Obama's celebrity is a reason he would not make a good President is like saying "Sure, Tiger Woods is a celebrity, but can he play golf?" [Aug. 11]. Woods is a celebrity because he is good at what he does: golf. Obama is a celebrity because he is good at politics. Period.
Ignacio Acosta,
Arlington, Texas

If it is one of the main duties of a free press to inform citizens of the facts as objectively as possible, then today's media are failing. We citizens don't want "enlightened" journalists presenting opinions as news, ignoring facts that don't serve their biases, and generally trying to manipulate our views. The media's liberal bias is a bigger problem than just their favoring Obama over McCain. It infects coverage of all significant issues.
Michael V. Lurski,
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

The point of Ramesh Ponnuru's commentary seems to be that Obama benefits from "plain old liberal bias" while John McCain suffers from it. But the claim that the mainstream media are "smitten with Obama" wasn't reflected in a recent analysis of nightly newscasts on ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Media and Public Affairs. It found that before Hillary Clinton dropped out of the Democratic race, evaluations of Obama expressed in the evening news were 62% positive vs. 38% negative; since then they have been only 28% positive and 72% negative. Before Clinton quit, on-air evaluations of McCain were only 34% positive vs. 66% negative; they have since been 43% positive and 57% negative.
Jessica G. Gugino,
Ayer, Massachusetts

Problems with Pelosi
House speaker Nancy Pelosi says she refused to launch an impeachment investigation into George W. Bush's many high crimes and misdemeanors because "you can't talk about impeachment unless you have the facts, and you can't have the facts unless you have cooperation from the Administration" [Aug. 11]. What a lame excuse! Did the Nixon Administration cooperate with Congress to provide the facts during its impeachment proceedings? Pelosi and her colleagues in Congress should be held in contempt for failing to uphold their oath to defend and support the Constitution when they took impeachment off the table.
Richard Notkin,
Helena, Montana

Gratit-E.U.-de
Europe's frustration with creating a binding narrative reminds me of another group of diverse people who couldn't agree on much — Canadians [Aug. 11]. Much like the E.U., Canada has constituents who pull it in different directions, wary of quick action or consolidation by any one group. I believe the heart of Canadian goodness can be found in the checks and balances that result from this interplay. I would encourage the E.U. to appreciate what it has — a collection of peacefully co-existing cultures possessing a collective voice with which to speak to the world.
Jeff Faris,
Waterloo, Canada

Reef Rescue
Congratulations to florida for be-coming a world leader in the protection of coral reefs [Aug. 4]. Many governments are taking the easy option and closing reefs to both fishing and tourism. Only in Florida has the state government had the initiative to buy the sugar industry out of the mangrove swamps. Protection of these wetlands will ensure cleaner water around the nearby coral reefs, greatly improving their health. If more governments around the world recognized the interaction between reefs and nearby ecosystems, many more reefs would have a chance at survival.
Virginia Graham,
Glen Iris, Victoria

The Diplomacy Gap
How is it that when the Bush administration declares a "diplomacy surge," the message is dutifully repeated in the mainstream press? Yet when Iranian President Mohammed Khatami offered to negotiate all outstanding issues with the U.S. in 2003, the press completely ignored Iran's diplomatic gestures.
Timothy Eddy,
Pittsfield, Massachusetts