Is it good that Bill Gates controls 58 billion dollars? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Is it a good thing that Bill Gates controls all that capital?

Yes, it's a good thing for everyone
20
27%
No, it would be better if that money was in more hands
31
42%
Other
22
30%
User avatar
By Goranhammer
#1486882
I have no idea why 56 billion dollars should even be considered fulfillment of the American dream. Instead it demonstrates the gross discrepancy between the wealthy and poor and ultimately the greatest weakness of rampant unchecked capitalism.


No, it shows the "gross discrepancy" between producers and consumers. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy a damn thing from Microsoft. Gates and his corporation provides a product, and another wants it. Whether or not he's worth tens of billions is irrelevant. He acquires wealth legally and the "poor" spend it legally. Who are you to dictate interference in bilateral agreements?

What does one man or family have use for 56 billion? Is not 1 billion sufficient to live luxuriously?


That's not the point. Him having 56 billion does not impede your wealth potential.

Instead many would uphold an economic system above the lives of the poor and continue to praise its instabilities as testimony to its success.


Sure would, because changes to the economic system, in the long run, have a much higher chance of hurting them than helping them.

At the very least acknowledge that no single person deserves this much wealth and that such a person can continue living in luxury with a fraction of his wealth.


Fortunately the free market trumps your perceived morality. Thank God we can't oppress people with your views on the world.

If these little fucking socialists and communists worried about their own financial well-being than other people's, they'd be a whole lot better off.
By sploop!
#1486886
Sure would, because changes to the economic system, in the long run, have a much higher chance of hurting them than helping them.


Arrant nonsense. The right changes to the economic system would do them some major good. The current system robs the poor blind. That's why they're called 'The Poor'.
User avatar
By NoRapture
#1486889
People who constantly use the term, "...throwing money at..." as in squeeze your dime until it liquefies in your hand, are idiots. Nobody wants to throw money at anything. Nobody does throw money at anything. Public schools, health care programs, social welfare, government scholarships, roads, law enforcement, civic needs, etc. are approached through government to try and enhance the lives of the society it serves. Ignoring the fact that the most tax money, by far, granted any constituency of society is awarded on a welfare basis in the billions of dollars to private, corporate enterprise. Throwing money, over and above exonerating their taxes, at G.M., Monsanto, G.E., American Airlines, over, and over, and over again never warrants a complaint. Only when the coins somehow fall into the hands of a child in a poor public school or hospital does "throwing money at" become an unforgivable sin. (puke)
By sploop!
#1486901
Throwing money, over and above exonerating their taxes, at G.M., Monsanto, G.E., American Airlines, over, and over, and over again never warrants a complaint. Only when the coins somehow fall into the hands of a child in a poor public school or hospital does "throwing money at" become an unforgivable sin. (puke)


QFT. Amen...
User avatar
By Rancid
#1486909
People who constantly use the term, "...throwing money at..." as in squeeze your dime until it liquefies in your hand, are idiots. Nobody wants to throw money at anything. Nobody does throw money at anything. Public schools, health care programs, social welfare, government scholarships, roads, law enforcement, civic needs, etc. are approached through government to try and enhance the lives of the society it serves. Ignoring the fact that the most tax money, by far, granted any constituency of society is awarded on a welfare basis in the billions of dollars to private, corporate enterprise. Throwing money, over and above exonerating their taxes, at G.M., Monsanto, G.E., American Airlines, over, and over, and over again never warrants a complaint. Only when the coins somehow fall into the hands of a child in a poor public school or hospital does "throwing money at" become an unforgivable sin. (puke)


i agree with the corporate thing, however giving schools and health care more money is throwing it away. The only way it won't be throwing it away is if you have accountability in the system. There is never accountability within government because they have no incentive to do well. They will get their money one way or another. Usually, they end up increasing taxes after money has been squandered away. Then they feed you with the bullshit line of "it's only a 1% increase, you can afford." People like you, lap it up like it's shit on a silver platter.

As I've said before, in Europe less money is spent per student, yet our students are way dumber than European students. You're telling me we really need more money in education. School systems do throw away money. What we need is some serious reform in the form of adding serious accountability in the system.

but Noooooooo! people like yourself resort to rhetoric like "if you don't give schools money, then you don't care about kids" as opposed to really looking at what's wrong with the system. Your type is too proud to admit it, your system is broken, and it needs fixing, not money.
User avatar
By Athanas
#1486986
Goranhammer it would be wise of you to pay attention to all of the contributions of the thread, I already mentioned the deliberate manipulations and exploitations of Microsoft under the embrace, extend and extinguish strategy. Like I said before if somebody wants a certain franchise game like Halo they are forced to buy it from Microsoft because 3rd party developers like Bungie were bought out in the intention of controlling the market through popular choice limitations.

The free market issue is not so much about morality as accountability. Many of the 'legal' principles and guidelines underplace in the market are not just and therefore can be perceived as corrupt.

Also your idea that people should only worry about their gross wealth in comparison to others is akin to the employer who insists that employees not discuss wages. In both cases it is justification of greed and exploitation under the pretense of law.
By Zyx
#1486992
Lone Gunman wrote:I mean I can't even think of a time when Gates has tried to buy people's opinions or tried to meddle with politics etc.


This actually may be a problem; I would not mind a class-conscious proletariat sympathizing billionaire; one who simply exploits and hoards is not one that I can truly approve of though . . . especially when it exploits, hoards, and deludes the proles into viewing him as powerless even though he promotes violence, racism [Halo has Terrans fighting Aliens] and whatever else one can read in his line of products approved by him.
User avatar
By Rancid
#1487063
Like I said before if somebody wants a certain franchise game like Halo they are forced to buy it from Microsoft because 3rd party developers like Bungie were bought out in the intention of controlling the market through popular choice limitations.


This has been done since the beginning of the video game industry though. Microsoft isn't the only party guilty of it. Nintendo, and Sony have done the same shit in the past. In fact, Nintendo did much worse back in the super Nintendo days. I'm not justifying any of their practices. I'm just pointing out that it isn't just big bad microsoft
By Zyx
#1487067
RancidWannaRiot wrote:This has been done since the beginning of the video game industry though. Microsoft isn't the only party guilty of it. Nintendo, and Sony have done the same shit in the past.


RancidWannaRiot, try to understand Athanas before responding to it . . . the failure of many pofoites is their will towards not understanding others.

How in the world does your response address Athanas' comment? What is the point of responding to it if you will not even understand it?

Athanas had mentioned on how Microsoft IS forcing others to purchase its games in response to Goranhammer's 'it is not forcing others to purchase its games' and so my question is how does 'so does Sony and Nintendo' or 'that's business practices' work against Athanas or even build upon it?

Honestly RancidWannaRiot, I was ashamed to read this from you.

You should maybe have justified how that was not 'forcing people' although very clearly the argument is that for those who would want to purchase from Bungie they were forced to purchase macroscopically from Microsoft; I would say that this is 'forceful,' no? Why not?

** To wit, my family has a loyalty (or had) towards Final Fantasy and in order to play a FF game they will need to purchase a playstation, just as if they would want to play a MGS, or they would need a Wii for the latest Zelda or Smash brothers yadda yadda. The point is that there is some merit to being 'forced' to purchase something because of their monopolistic tactics. Yes, one can say that others have the same practices but again, one cannot argue that it is not monopolistic tactics. Right?
Last edited by Zyx on 25 Mar 2008 18:42, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Rancid
#1487073
RancidWannaRiot, try to understand Athanas before responding to it . . . the failure of many pofoites is their will towards not understanding others.

How in the world does your response address Athanas' comment? What is the point of responding to it if you will not even understand it?

Athanas had mentioned on how Microsoft IS forcing others to purchase its games in response to Goranhammer's 'it is not forcing others to purchase its games' and so my question is how does 'so does Sony and Nintendo' or 'that's business practices' work against Athanas or even build upon it?

Honestly RancidWannaRiot, I was ashamed to read this from you.

You should maybe have justified how that was not 'forcing people' although very clearly the argument is that for those who would want to purchase from Bungie they were forced to purchase macroscopically from Microsoft; I would say that this is 'forceful,' no? Why not?

** To wit, my family has a loyalty (or had) towards Final Fantasy and in order to play a FF game they will need to purchase a playstation, just as if they would want to play a MGS, or they would need a Wii for the latest Zelda or Smash brothers yadda yadda. The point is that there is some merit to being 'forced' to purchase something because of their monopolistic tactics. Yes, one can say that others have the same practices but again, one cannot argue that it is not monopolistic tactics. Right?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nintendo

This wiki entry is actually incomplete, they got into a lot of anti-trust trouble during the SNES days in the 90's in the US as well.

By the end of the 1980s the courts found Nintendo guilty of anti-trust activities because it had abused its relationship with third-party developers and created a monopoly in the gaming industry by not allowing developers to make games for any other platforms[citation needed]. They changed this rule during the Super NES era, allowing Sega to start a massive console war against Nintendo with the Sega Genesis and Game Gear. This would occur once more in 1996, when Sony released the PlayStation.


During the same year, Nintendo's aggressive business tactics in Europe would catch up to them. The European Commission determined that Nintendo had engaged in anticompetitive price-fixing business practices dating at least as far back as the early 90s. This resulted in a heavy fine being laid against the company- €18 million, one of the largest antitrust fines applied in the history of the commission.[2]


That's all i was trying to point out. All these large companies get into anti-trust problems.

EA is also getting into Anti-trust problems as well. I"m not talking about companies striking deals to have exclusive games like MGS, or sonic.
By Zyx
#1487076
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!
User avatar
By Rancid
#1487088
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.
By Zyx
#1487091
RancidWannaRiot wrote:FYI, I am glad that I wasted your time.


:eh: :lol:

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!
User avatar
By Dr House
#1487208
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.
By sploop!
#1487234
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.


:hmm: That doesn't feel good.
User avatar
By Rancid
#1487237
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?
By sploop!
#1487244
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...
User avatar
By Dr House
#1487247
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.
User avatar
By Rancid
#1487248
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
By Zyx
#1487398
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.'

:roll:

'You are already rich, quit whining.'

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

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

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!!!
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@Tainari88 @JohnRawls Trump is an extraordi[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

International relations throughout history has bee[…]

@Scamp Bombing Mexico is the STUPIDIEST idea I[…]

No one is more manly than me. We know there is […]