[Zyx]

Usually people have a point to this sort of stuff . . . are you expelling the idea that Microsoft is practicing a monopoly, yes or no? If not then while I appreciate the information it is a waste of time that I may never get back!

[Rancid]

I'm just saying, everyone likes to bash big bag Microsoft as the only company to ever violate anti-trust laws.

in fact, pretty much any large company with a long history has gotten into some sort of anti-trust mess at some point.

I'm not making an arguement for Microsoft.

This is more of a "for your information" post. I'm glad i wasted your time.

[Zyx]

FYI, I am glad that I wasted your time.

All the same, saying that everyone does something does not make it right and you should express that rather than trying to deviate the conversation towards a worthless one.

I think that we all know that corporations do this, but that does not mean that Athanas is wrong and that Goranhammer is right. Athanas is right, we are forced to purchase from Microsoft, just as we are from other corporations but again the particular statement is not a wrong statement!

[Dr House]

He isn't actually evil, but he symbolises a terrible evil - 56 Billion dollars in his pockets, whilst half the world lives on less than $2 a day. What a rotten bastard. I hope he falls down the stairs and breaks his dick.

Well if we distribute his wealth to all the good little boys and girls on the face of the earth they each get ten bucks. And they only get it once because the man does not make $56 billion a year.

Here's a little food for thought, Sploop: Right now you and me are sitting on an income share almost as disproportionately big as Mr. Gates. The top 1% of income earners around the World make 20% of the World's income, but the top 20% of the World's population makes 85% of the World's income, combined. So where does that other 65% go? It goes into the pockets of the middle class and the poor in rich countries. If you make more than $8,000 a year, you're making more than your fair share.

You know why is it that such a deep inequality is required to sustain your living standard and mine, which aren't so opulent anyway? Because the World as an aggregate is very, very, very poor. GWP per capita in 2006 was $7,800 nominally, $10,200 at purchasing power parity. And that, my friend, does nothing but confirm my suspicion that it isn't inequality that causes crappy living standards, it is underdevelopment. The United States in the early 20th century was just slightly more unequal than it is today, but in real terms workers make about ten times more. Know why? in 1900, the GDP in the United States was $4,900 per capita in 2000 dollars. That's less than modern-day China.

What's more, I recently found out that thanks to deflation, salaries for unskilled work were rising faster during the gilded age than at any point since.

Full article here.

Adjusted for CPI inflation, blue-collar wages were rising at a rate of 1.27% a year from 1840 until 1890. From 1950 until 2000, they were rising at a real rate of 0.99% a year, even though nominally they were rising five times faster.

[sploop!]

I'll just pick up one point for now...

Well if we distribute his wealth to all the good little boys and girls on the face of the earth they each get ten bucks.

If they pool resources and invest it sensibly in their future, that $10 per person could be a big help to them, little though it is.

Right now you and me are sitting on an income share almost as disproportionately big as Mr. Gates.

That doesn't feel good.

[Rancid]

If they pool resources and invest it sensibly in their future, that $10 per person could be a big help to them, little though it is.

What would be a sensible investment?

[sploop!]

What would be a sensible investment?

That's a big question. I guess it depends on the circumstances, but maybe sorting out clean drinking water, or a school, or some sort of medical facility, or maybe some sort of agriculture orientated something - seedstock, maybe? I was thinking of the sort of low-risk thing that leads to permanent positive change rather than stocks and shares...

[Dr House]

That doesn't feel good.

I know it doesn't. What I'm saying is that American liberals live in a bubble. That because they consider themselves "middle" class, they think that they are not rich and that if everything was spread equally there would be no poor people, while the fact is that if everything is spread equally the result is everybody would be poor. The same can be said of any place or any epoch where slums exist/ed, including 19th-century America. The key to ending poverty is producing more, and finding more efficient ways to do it so as to not annihilate ourselves in the process. Free markets, coupled with deflationary specie-backed currencies and anti-pollution policies, are the way to the future.

[Rancid]

That's a big question. I guess it depends on the circumstances, but maybe sorting out clean drinking water, or a school, or some sort of medical facility, or maybe some sort of agriculture orientated something - seedstock, maybe? I was thinking of the sort of low-risk thing that leads to permanent positive change rather than stocks and shares...

Everything you just suggested is not low risk.... except the seedstock thing

[Zyx]

Dr House would make an excellent totalitarian; 'YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO USE MONEY. WHAT I CAN GIVE YOU IS LITTLE AND SO YOU ARE BETTER WITH NOTHING.'



'You are already rich, quit whining.'

'You are richer than he, so shut up about he that is richer than you!'



Dr House, either make an argument as to why Bill Gates is better with money than the whole world or quit with your long rants on nothing!!!

[Nets]

Dr. House has a point. Redistribute your own wealth and then demand it of others.

[Zyx]

Dr. House has a point. Redistribute your own wealth and then demand it of others.

Hardly though, the better sequence may actually be 'demand others to redistribute their wealth and then redistribute your own yourself.'

I mean, even I think that the US should be the last to disarm nuclearly. Well sometimes I do.

[Rancid]

how much money is considered too much, and thus should be redistributed?

Or should all money earned be distributed?

[QatzelOk]

Well if we distribute his wealth to all the good little boys and girls on the face of the earth they each get ten bucks. And they only get it once because the man does not make $56 billion a year.

Listen, House, your math is as weak as your Economics. There are only about 2 billion "good little" boys and girls on the planet. You are counting adults and bad children in your figures. So in reality, each good little child receives 50 bucks. That would eliminate illiteracy all over the planet and ensure proper vaccinations so kids in poor countries can grow up to post opinions on the Internet.

[Dr House]

Listen, House, your math is as weak as your Economics. There are only about 2 billion "good little" boys and girls on the planet. You are counting adults and bad children in your figures. So in reality, each good little child receives 50 bucks. That would eliminate illiteracy all over the planet and ensure proper vaccinations so kids in poor countries can grow up to post opinions on the Internet.

Shit, man, it was a figure of speech.

If it makes you feel better, I'll say "good and evil little boys and girls and adults", but it doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

[sploop!]

Dr. House has a point. Redistribute your own wealth and then demand it of others.

The problem with redistributing your own wealth is that you end up with $10 like all the other poor people, and you effectively disempower yourself. You might help a few thousand people, but then it's game over. It's a rubbish strategy for trying to create equality in the world.

The best strategy is clearly to find out who the very wealthy people are, and redistribute their wealth. This way, you get to help millions of people, and retain enough power to make further changes in the world.

Ideally, because you can be trusted with power and money, you will redistribute your resources last of all, thereby ensuring that no-one can undo your good work. Hopefully, at this point everyone in the world will have a secure home of their own. Once they have that, living on an income of $7000 a year becomes easier.

I think this might be called 'Revolution'. It's well cool!

[Zyx]

Or should all money earned be distributed?

I hear that money itself is a problem; fools like to point to Africa's problems due to XYZ and ABC but these same fools forget that the Europeans of the past had been aggravated at the African lifestyle of not having to work, clothe, and pay mortgages; even though they had ate, schooled, loved and smiled. The failed African state of today is the Africa that was taught about European 'money.'

If and only if 'money' is necessary then it should all be redistributed, but really, 'money' is the problem!

I would gladly let Bill Gates keep his money; heck, print off another seven hundred trillion dollars to give around to everyone. [Get it? Make money worthless?] But, as it is today, if you must fight within capitalism then the fight is for equal distribution.

[Nets]

Kumatto, are you suggesting we go back to a barter economy?

The failed African state of today is the Africa that was taught about European 'money.'

Almost every society that has progressed beyond a certain level of size and sophistication (whether European or not) has had money. Money makes sense, it makes trade efficient and possible.

[Zyx]

Kumatto, are you suggesting we go back to a barter economy?

I do not think that I am.

Almost every society that has progressed beyond a certain level of size and sophistication (whether European or not) has had money. Money makes sense, it makes trade efficient and possible.

The Native Americans actually lived a decent lifestyle, and 'money' was not a necessity then. Much the same as 'money' is not necessary within one's home or among one's family; 'money' makes sense only when we quit regarding each other as family or friends.

[Nets]

The Native Americans actually lived a decent lifestyle, and 'money' was not a necessity then. Much the same as 'money' is not necessary within one's home or among one's family; 'money' makes sense only when we quit regarding each other as family or friends.

First, your generalization across all native Americans is silly. One cannot compare a "primitive" * society like the native Americans found in NY/NJ with the gold centered central American natives.

The Aztec economy was an example of a commercial economy. Several types of money were in regular use. Small purchases were made with cacao beans, which had to be imported from lowland areas. In Aztec marketplaces, a small rabbit was worth 30 beans, a turkey egg cost 3 beans, and a tamale cost a single bean. For larger purchases, standardized lengths of cotton cloth called quachtli were used. There were different grades of quachtli, ranging in value from 65 to 300 cacao beans. One source stated that 20 quachtli could support a commoner for one year in Tenochtitlan. A man could also sell his own daughter as a sexual slave or future religious sacrifice, generally for around 500 to 700 beans. A small gold statue (approximately 0.62 kg / 1.37 lb) cost 250 beans. Money was used primarily in the many periodic markets that were held in each town. A typical town would have a weekly market (every 5 days), while larger cities held markets every day. Cortés reported that the central market of Tlatelolco, Tenochtitlan's sister city, was visited by 60,000 people daily. Some sellers in the markets were petty vendors; farmers might sell some of their produce, potters sold their vessels, and so on. Other vendors were professional merchants who traveled from market to market seeking profits. The pochteca were specialized merchants organized into exclusive guilds. They made lengthy expeditions to all parts of Mesoamerica, and they served as the judges and supervisors of the Tlatelolco market.]

Like I said, every economy that has progressed beyond a certain size has used some unit of account/value in trade. It lubricates trade, it is necessary.

Second, you are falling into the soft-racist trap of romanticizing Native Americans. This is most common in the environmental movement. No doubt, we have much to learn from Native American culture, but always presenting them as the "good, gentle savages" who lived in complete harmony with each other and nature ignores history.

* Not derogatory, tech/society wise, I could not find another word

'money' makes sense only when we quit regarding each other as family or friends.

A nice sentiment, but useless in a modern context.