He might have become an industry leader in a specific business sector and he might have become wealthy, but he would not have been able to accumulate the highest wealth of any men alive. And this is due to the nature of the U.S. market place, which does not condone the actions of Slim. The market is opened and the entry barriers are decreased; the market is liberated and ruled by economic principles and competition is stimulated. Part 3: Social responsibility

A final aspect to be addressed relative to Bill Gates and Carlos Slim is represented by the social responsibility revealed by each of the two businessmen. At an initial level, both of them create jobs and employ thousands of individuals. In the case of Bill Gates however, he mostly employs knowledge workers, paid with high salaries; the average developer at Microsoft earns an estimated $106,000 salary per annum (CNN Money, 2012). In the case of Slim's conglomerate of companies, these also employ thousands of individuals, yet the salaries paid by Slim and his family are as low as possible. This is possible due to the nature of the Mexican economy and labor law, but it is socially inequitable since it prologues the poverty in a country in which half the population already live below the poverty line.

Additionally, Slim does not give back to the community through the process of social mortgage and this is best revealed in terms of the products sold by his companies. More specifically, the products and services...

These high prices are inequitable and socially unjustifiable in a country of so many poor individuals.
Then, both Gates and Slim engage in philanthropic activities in a stated effort to give back to the community. Both businessmen have established foundations to fund and pursue various social agendas. In both cases, the measures help boost their image and reputation within the communities in which the live and function.

Overall, the two men come form different backgrounds, in countries characterized by diverse traits. Gates is the promoter of an open market through competition and the advent of Slim is a Mexican triumph, yet surrounded by questions of the legitimacy and ethics of the wealth (Stevenson, 2010).