| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 37862 | 2003-09-20 06:56:00 | Bill Gate's Value | csinclair83 (200) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 176609 | 2003-09-20 23:55:00 | Just be thankful that Bill has not got around to realizing that he could buy up the whole of New Zealand if he wanted to. It's what the New Right would call market forces. |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 176610 | 2003-09-21 00:08:00 | I am a bit bemused by this thread, for two reasons. First, the thread is called "Bill Gate's Value"; quite unintentionally I am sure. The word "value" connotes some actual worth, whereas the thread is about how much money he has accumulated which is another thing entirely. The latter gives no indication of his value to the world, or to anyone else really. It is a bit like saying Theresa Gattung "earned" $1m last year, when in fact she was merely paid that sum - as I have observed in another thread, no-one actually earns that kind of sum of money; they just have the power to demand that level of salary from plonkers who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Secondly, when people talk about Gates giving away "his" money to worthy causes, there is no analysis at all; merely acceptance that this is a "good thing". Think about it people - that is YOUR money he is giving away. He got it from plonkers like you and me through the price gouging policies of Microsoft. It is like an involuntary tax really. He takes it from us like the government does, and when he "gives it away" to charities of HIS choice, like US hospitals, it means that you and I are subsidising the Amerikan taxpayer. Normally we have choice about what we give to worthy causes. Are you happy that one wealthy Amerikan not only takes more of your money than his company needs to make a decent profit, but also that he is the sole arbiter of which causes are worthy and which are unworthy? And of course he no doubt gets a huge tax break from his "donations" to boot. Such are the mysteries of capitalism and our blind acceptance of the monetary system we live under. I give you these two cents for nought... John |
John H (8) | ||
| 176611 | 2003-09-21 00:43:00 | > Secondly, when people talk about Gates giving away > "his" money to worthy causes, there is no analysis at > all; merely acceptance that this is a "good thing". > Think about it people - that is YOUR money he is > giving away. He got it from plonkers like you and me > through the price gouging policies of Microsoft. It > is like an involuntary tax really. He takes it from > us like the government does, and when he "gives it > away" to charities of HIS choice, like US hospitals, > it means that you and I are subsidising the American > taxpayer. > Spoken like a true socialist...... Whether you like it or not John, everything costs. So it was our money that he got rich from - so what. That doesn't mean that he has no right to it. Actually, he earned the money by selling a service/product. Are you saying that when you go to work, you have no right to the money you earned and you should seek permission from your employer everytime you want to buy something BECAUSE you are buying something with the money he paid you? The sooner that people learn that once money changes hands for a service, then its no longer theirs. Next you are going to tell us that when you read a book and gain knowledge from it, the author owns that part of your brain because it was his words that you learned from. > I give you these two cents for nought... > > John Its a pity we can't spend the two cents John, but there is no such coin anymore |
Baldy (26) | ||
| 176612 | 2003-09-21 01:33:00 | >>Actually, he earned the money by selling a service/product. Bugger, he missed out on the Munich City authorities deal... but thats healthy competition ;\ |
Dolby Digital (160) | ||
| 176613 | 2003-09-21 01:48:00 | >Spoken like a true socialist . . . . . . Oh no! Pigeon holed again! Why does "socialist" sound like an insult instead of a badge of honour when used like this? I am proud to hold socialist values - its time will come again (or something else devised to restore equity in society) when enough people understand and resist the current market place insanity . >That doesn't mean that he has no right to it . Actually, he earned the money by selling a service/product . Two more fallacies . What is the "right" that he has to this money, and who determines that right? Is that a Christian value for example, reinforced by Biblical principles? Funny that I haven't found that "right" in the Bible, or UN Declarations of rights, for example . . . I wonder if this "right" is in the Koran? I doubt it somehow . Secondly, the use of that word "earned" again without analysis . He didn't earn it, no more than a usurer earns a high interest rate on money lent to someone who has no other source of funds, or one of our current CEO "earns" their obscene salaries . And in case it tempts anyone, please don't get on to the usual "you're jealous of success and wealth" kick so beloved of the New Right and BRT . I just think what useful purpose four fifths of Theresa Gattung's salary could be put to if it wasn't being spent on her . I think of the lower costs each of us would have to pay if these obscene salaries and profits were removed from companies' cost structures . We would all be better off if we weren't supporting these CEO parasites . I am self employed (kind of like Gates really, but on a different scale), and have been for ten years after 26 years in the public service . Like you Baldy, I have to live in this seriously stuffed capitalist system . Unlike you (I am guessing here from your post), it doesn't follow that I have to buy into its principles . Oh, and sorry about the two cents . . . Inflation rules . Not OK . |
John H (8) | ||
| 176614 | 2003-09-21 01:59:00 | www.quuxuum.org | johnboy (217) | ||
| 176615 | 2003-09-21 07:08:00 | Perhaps the all knowing one can explain why there two distinct schools of thought,the socialist,one who thinks we should live off the backs of others and the capitalist,one who thinks we should be responsible for our own actions,and never the twain shall meet. | Thomas (1820) | ||
| 176616 | 2003-09-21 09:02:00 | How can I not resist the temptation Thomas, to confess to be all knowing :) I prefer the concept of mutual support rather than "socialism", but it was a kind of socialism way back in prehistoric times, or mutual support if you like, that enabled tribes to be social, coherent and survive, whereas individuals would not have been able to. Capitalism can only lead logically to anarchy where it is everyone for themselves. We are in fact seeing that developing in society world-wide now. Criminals have learnt a lot from from their capitalist mentors ! Years ago capitalism flourished on the backs of exploited resources in far off lands populated by ignorant wogs, or subjugated races. Those cheap resources are no longer available for free. It is interesting to note that as the worlds population explodes and some form of social control is vital if the human race is to survive, that we have entered a New Right era of exploitation. Here endeth my views. |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 176617 | 2003-09-21 09:44:00 | > > > Actually, he earned the money by selling a > service/product. > Bugger, he missed out on the Munich City authorities > deal... but thats healthy competition ;\ Ah not quite :p From a site I occasionally visit: Linux desktops in Munich wil run Windows in VMWARE... Remember that story about the city of Munich choosing Linux to power 14,000 desktop computers? One aspect of this story that most people don't know about is that up to 80 percent of those Linux desktops will be equipped with VMWare, a virtual machine emulator, under which they will run Windows and Windows applications. That's right, folks: The majority of those "Linux desktops" will be used to run … Windows. I'm not a big fan of Gartner, but they've issued a report, correctly titled, "Munich's Choice Doesn't Prove Linux OK for General Desktop Use," that raises some interesting issues. First, many of the Windows desktops they're migrated are very old Windows versions like Windows 3.1, making the switch to Linux less painful (it would be equally painful to switch to XP). Gartner says the cost of switching to Linux will cost 30 million Euros, or 3 million Euros more than it would cost to switch to XP, not including any steep discounts Microsoft would have no doubt provided. And finally, because most of the Linux machines will use VMWare to run Windows anyway, Linux is really being used as a hosting environment, and not as a replacement. In other words, this isn't exactly a good business case on which other companies can base a decision to migrate to Windows desktops. And, not coincidentally, that's why we're not reading about a lot of other high-profile Linux switchers. Mike. |
Mike (15) | ||
| 176618 | 2003-09-21 09:48:00 | Thank you all knowing one;) Though I don't think you answered the question,why one is usually in one camp or the other,we know which one you are in for example. You say capitalism leads to chaos,where does socialism lead?Look at Cuba and Russia. |
Thomas (1820) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||