Sir william gates

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Your arguments against socialism are to the extreme and I cannot imagine that extreme capitalism is any different - it's called a "monopoly".

No, monopolies aren't capitalism. Entrepreneurs are the backbone of capitalism, as they start all of the new businesses.

Quote[/b] ]The idea is to eliminate that top (current)10% of wealthy because of the large gap there is.

Oh, that sounds wonderful. Let's all "eliminate" the top wage earners . That kind of eliminates the number of people who want to establish businesses. Who wants to go through an enormous amount of effort establishing a business if most of the money you earn is taken away by the government?

Quote[/b] ]I cannot and will not believe they would have worked less for $200 million than for $20 billion.

You want to bet? If the government jacks up taxes, then businessmen have to earn even more cash in order to afford the perks that are supposed to come after you create a large business. $200 million spread over a number of years and taxed ferociously is not enough to afford many luxuries.

[denoir 0]

It's the never ending debate how to get cash to the state.

Socialism: Get it through high taxes.

Capitalism: Lower the taxes and stimulate the economy. A good economy gives a high income to the state, even with low taxes. A good economy also makes less people dependant on the state.

The problem with those two models is that they were designed by people with smaller brains than my left testicle.

Both work on the idea of an infinitely stable or growing market. That's not the situation. Taxes won't help you much if your people don't have any income. Equally cutting taxes helps business only when there is business to be made. In economic downturns both systems fail and result in a budget deficit faster than Michael Jackson takes his pants off in a boy scout camp.

So, what's the problem? It's the little thing that makes a steam-engined moon rocket seem like a brilliant idea: the stock market. Basically to get loans and investments a business has to earn more profit then they did the year before. As those mathematically challanged people that designed the system obviously weren't aware of is that you can't have a stable positive-feedback loop when you don't have unlimited resources. The system crashes sooner or later. And then the stocks drop and nobody wants to inves and the stocks drop furhter down. Instead of a positive feedback loop, it switches to a negative one.

So what's the soultion? Apart from removing the stock market, I don't see how.

[bn880 5]

Hehhe, yeah good point, actually more what I have in mind is more less balancing the two types of systems out. I suppose you do this in Sweden quite a bit, but in the States, like you say it's very much centered on the Capitalistic system.

[Stag 0]

I am not even picking on Bill, i talk of Bill to meet everyone here on the same playing field, I have other experiences with wealthy people.  The whole point is, I am stating facts, being when you create people with that much capital, you will also create a gap and a bunch of poor guys.

No. those poor will exist and always have, despite the existance of billionaires. Like I said before; it would take far more than the money of the top 10% to solve that problem.

So I would like to see how one person can have say 40million bucks, or 40 billion, and at the same time how everyone in Asia in Africa can be fed if this money is invested in large corportations interested in more profit?

There DEFINITELY isn't enough money in the world to solve the third world's problems. Where the hell would you start, even with the capital?

Assume you have enough cash to dump into a poverty-stricken country. First, a sizeable amount gets stolen by the administration, more gets blown to shit by the opposition who suddenly find they are about to lose whatever influence they had, and finally, get this, because we live in the real world, not Oz, the will of the First World population drops off when results begin to be seen. Why? because you are using their money to set up an industrial infrastructure which will grow to be in direct competition with the donors. The public will be the first to reach into their pockets in time of emergancy in the Third World, but once they hear that jobs which were theirs are going to a country who's infrastructure their tax money helped set up, they will be far less sympathetic. Cynical? yep, but also probably true. Although nobody will say it, and if you spoke to any individual they would deny it, they don't want to share what they have with the Third World, because the way things are set up now, somebody in the First World will miss out.

Something needs to change, and one thing I do know; wishful thinking about a political theory which after a century has been unequivocally proved to be bollocks is not the solution.

The problem is Us, and it always will be.

[bn880 5]

I am not talking of solving such a problem immediately and like an idiot, I am saying it will never be solved if billionaires (and stock markets) exists. It makes no logical sense that someone should have that kind of wealth, do you think people in China would be fed today with a shitty capitalistic system of the US? No, and what do they have in common with the rest of the world? A huge population... so you can't feed everyone if you have 1% living like emprerors and 10% like princes. It is not possible mathematically.

[Stag 0]

I am not talking of solving such a problem immediately and like an idiot, I am saying it will never be solved if billionaires (and stock markets) exists.  It makes no logical sense that someone should have that kind of wealth

It's very logical. Enough people want the item he's selling.

do you think people in China would be fed today with a shitty capitalistic system of the US?  No, and what do they have in common with the rest of the world?  A huge population... so you can't feed everyone if you have 1% living like emprerors and 10% like princes.  It is not possible mathematically.

If the Capitalist system of the USA were dropped into China tomorrow, the consequences would undoubtably be disasterous. If, on the other hand Chana had been allowed to EVOLVE it's own capitalist system, a far more stable situation would exist. But if you're talking about "Capitalism" of the kind which brought about the Chinese revolution in the first place, well we know what happened to that.

But I wonder what would have happened if the revolution had followed the French model, rather than the ramblings of a niave prick of a political theorist?

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]A huge population... so you can't feed everyone if you have 1% living like emprerors and 10% like princes.  It is not possible mathematically.

If this "royalty" creates more jobs (Which it must in order to gain more money), then more people will be fed. It's worked pretty well in the US, a place where our rich people are thin and our poor people are fat .

[crashdome 3]

I am not talking of solving such a problem immediately and like an idiot, I am saying it will never be solved if billionaires (and stock markets) exists.  It makes no logical sense that someone should have that kind of wealth

It's very logical. Enough people want the item he's selling.

In the capitalist economic model, the prices should fall accordingly and generate new businesses to compete against and all that other "invisible hand" bull-crap.

If that supposedly happens, why did MS get slapped with a court order for being a monopoly and prices for Windows continue to rise?

Quote[/b] ]If the Capitalist system of the USA were dropped into China tomorrow, the consequences would undoubtably be disasterous. If, on the other hand Chana had been allowed to EVOLVE it's own capitalist system, a far more stable situation would exist. But if you're talking about "Capitalism" of the kind which brought about the Chinese revolution in the first place, well we know what happened to that.

But I wonder what would have happened if the revolution had followed the French model, rather than the ramblings of a niave prick of a political theorist?

Capitalism promotes greed and (of course) it promotes success, but when you have limited resources you are bound to take away from one and give to another unfairly. Especially with things like mass-marketing and advertising. You need to balance it out with things like higher taxes for rich. It's not simply socialist propaganda but a mature balance.

Your concepts of economy are all theory I've read and heard before. All-in-all economics is one of the most theoretic sciences because there has been no stable concept of how economies are driven. It changes every decade lately. Ask any CFO what he thinks of MicroEconomics and they'll all tell you it's the biggest bunch of bologna. What drives a company..? the bottom-line and thats it.

If this "royalty" creates more jobs (Which it must in order to gain more money),

Not necessarily. They could reinvest the money into loans which get repaid with interest. So the borrowers only see the value for a short term. They eventually work off the amount they owe (which was used to purchase something) and pay more money back to the lendees. The work they did generated more profits for the lendees company (this example assumes standard business wages and practices). So in reality the rich get richer both off of the amount they lent (in form of interest) AND in the work the laborers did for their company (profits). The laborers only received what they wanted (or in some cases what they are ALLOWED to borrow - based on their worth as estimated by the lendees)

And back to the original argument that the rich work hard for this money -- as you can see they didn't work very hard at all in that example.

[Stag 0]

In the capitalist economic model, the prices should fall accordingly and generate new businesses to compete against and all that other "invisible hand" bull-crap.

If that supposedly happens, why did MS get slapped with a court order for being a monopoly and prices for Windows continue to rise?

Maybe because despite it's flaws, nobody has come up with a real contender to knock Microsoft off its perch? If anything cried out to be designed by a committee, it would be a standard computer operating system. Where are they? still working through DOS For Dummies?

Capitalism promotes greed and (of course) it promotes success,

Bollocks! Life promotes greed. If it didn't there wouldn't have been such an elaborate black market in the USSR. People wanted more than the State was prepared or capable of giving. Entrepreneurs filled the gap; the fact that their actions were illegal in "Utopia" only drove the prices up.

but when you have limited resources you are bound to take away from one and give to another unfairly. Especially with things like mass-marketing and advertising. You need to balance it out with things like higher taxes for rich. It's not simply socialist propaganda but a mature balance.

There's nothing unfair about it. At a National level, entrepreneurs take what they work for. Anybody has the opportunity to start a business and do their best to make a living out of it. It's Socialist Bollocks to blame those who ARE successful for the lack of will of others to go out for their slice of the pie. Others may just be satisfied with what they have, and couldn't give a toss about Bill Gates, or especially, Karl "I've got a great idea let's fuck half the planet up" Marx.

But there are those who for no fault of their own are unable to contend. And for them capitalist system must be counterbalanced, not with Socialist, but with humanitarian ideals.

Your concepts of economy are all theory I've read and heard before.

Funny. I thought I was just observing what had happened in the past. "Theorys" give me a headache and do sod all for my sense of humour.

What drives a company..? the bottom-line and thats it.

Now You're getting it! But not quite there yet. It should be: "What drives a person to work harder?"

If this "royalty" creates more jobs (Which it must in order to gain more money),

Not necessarily. They could reinvest the money into loans which get repaid with interest. So the borrowers only see the value for a short term. They eventually work off the amount they owe (which was used to purchase something) and pay more money back to the lendees. The work they did generated more profits for the lendees company (this example assumes standard business wages and practices). So in reality the rich get richer both off of the amount they lent (in form of interest) AND in the work the laborers did for their company (profits). The laborers only received what they wanted (or in some cases what they are ALLOWED to borrow - based on their worth as estimated by the lendees)

And back to the original argument that the rich work hard for this money -- as you can see they didn't work very hard at all in that example.

True, except for one thing: as far as I know, Gates or Branson are not money-lenders. Banks make those rules.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]You need to balance it out with things like higher taxes for rich. It's not simply socialist propaganda but a mature balance.

The last time I looked, the top 1% of wage-earners here were paying around 37% of the total tax.

[bn880 5]

Quote[/b] ]A huge population... so you can't feed everyone if you have 1% living like emprerors and 10% like princes. It is not possible mathematically.

If this "royalty" creates more jobs (Which it must in order to gain more money), then more people will be fed. It's worked pretty well in the US, a place where our rich people are thin and our poor people are fat .

It does not work so well, you have quite a few people living below the povery line.

[crashdome 3]

Bollocks! Life promotes greed. If it didn't there wouldn't have been such an elaborate black market in the USSR. People wanted more than the State was prepared or capable of giving. Entrepreneurs filled the gap; the fact that their actions were illegal in "Utopia" only drove the prices up.

Life promotes greed yes.. but so does capitalism - I never said life didn't.

Quote[/b] ]There's nothing unfair about it. At a National level, entrepreneurs take what they work for. Anybody has the opportunity to start a business and do their best to make a living out of it. It's Socialist Bollocks to blame those who ARE successful for the lack of will of others to go out for their slice of the pie. Others may just be satisfied with what they have, and couldn't give a toss about Bill Gates, or especially, Karl "I've got a great idea let's fuck half the planet up" Marx.

But there are those who for no fault of their own are unable to contend. And for them capitalist system must be counterbalanced, not with Socialist, but with humanitarian ideals.

I still don't know why you cling to this idea that they have worked "harder" for their money. Until I see hard evidence that they have put in more hours of physical AND mental work load than their employees, I'm not agreeing to their income levels. If you think entrepreneurs only take what they work for you are sadly mistaken or a fool who has led himself to believe in a business dream world. I'd like to hear some hard examples of these richer folk who actually "work" for a living, because I can list off hundreds of examples of individuals that work extremely hard in extremely vicious conditions that get squat for pay.

Quote[/b] ]Now You're getting it! But not quite there yet. It should be: "What drives a person to work harder?"

You are lecturing the wrong individual. You have no idea what I do for a living. Ever see a company lay-off 50+ employees because of "labor costs" withhold all raises for over two years to all active employees, yet vote to increase administrative raises? I have(Midland Plastics). Ever see a company shut down a plant and move to another country and all employees that were apparently "too lazy" by your definition lose their jobs AND opportunity for pension/retirement income? I have(AC Delco).

Quote[/b] ]True, except for one thing: as far as I know, Gates or Branson are not money-lenders. Banks make those rules.

EGNNNNNT!!! Wrong again. Do you think their money is in a safe or under their bed? And no banks don't make those rules.

The last time I looked, the top 1% of wage-earners here were paying around 37% of the total tax.

It was about 25% in 2001 and that is useless information. It is only because of the amount of money in the Top 1% (again because of the huge gap) that they account for that much. It still was only 35% of their income versus 24% for middle class. Even if taxes were equal they would still account for over 20% of taxes because of the gap. So in effect, if you want to see that number reduced... close that gap.

[Stag 0]

Life promotes greed yes.. but so does capitalism - I never said life didn't.

So Capitalism alone promotes greed? So the black markets in the Eastern bloc are what, Supply and Demand? Singling out Capitalism is as fatuous as the statement "All men are potential rapists."

I still don't know why you cling to this idea that they have worked "harder" for their money. Until I see hard evidence that they have put in more hours of physical AND mental work load than their employees, I'm not agreeing to their income levels.

Richard Branson started Virgin Records from his garage around 1970. Unfortunately this left little room for properly trampling upon the necks of the Proletariat, so I guess we know why he went on to become a multi-billionare. If he had it so easy, why don't you give it a crack? A few years, and you'll never see a P45 with your name on it again.

If you think entrepreneurs only take what they work for you are sadly mistaken or a fool who has led himself to believe in a business dream world. I'd like to hear some hard examples of these richer folk who actually "work" for a living,

The previous sentance is enough to prove to me that you have a lot in common with "Le Petomaine"

because I can list off hundreds of examples of individuals that work extremely hard in extremely vicious conditions that get squat for pay.

See Branson, above, although perhaps "Worked" would be more apt. If he did nothing else (Which I very much doubt) he supplied the drive which made Virgin the name it is today, with employees in retail, rail, aviation, communications, and God knows what else. But hey, it's easy, right?

I almost missed this; you're saying that anyone who creates successful business is a thief? Man, you need professional help.

You are lecturing the wrong individual. You have no idea what I do for a living. Ever see a company lay-off 50+ employees because of "labor costs" withhold all raises for over two years to all active employees, yet vote to increase administrative raises? I have(Midland Plastics). Ever see a company shut down a plant and move to another country and all employees that were apparently "too lazy" by your definition lose their jobs AND opportunity for pension/retirement income? I have(AC Delco).

And you know nothing about me either, sonny. My work experience started in the seventies, when the then Labour/socialist Government pissed off the unions so much that they went on strike against them. I was made redundant the first time in 1982 because it was uneconomic to keep the place (Phoenix Tubeman) open. The next job I had I stuck out for three years. once I saw two people go into the bosses office to ask about a pay rise; they had their P45s within an hour. Next I tried self employment, which lasted two years before I had to jack it in; Do you know how I know Branson and Gates flogged their nuts off? Because I tried it, and I couldn't make a go of it. and another thing; I never said anybody was "Too Lazy." Not having the will, the drive or even the ability necessary to create a successful business does not make anybody lazy. You said it was easy, GO FOR IT! Of course, the downside is you soon run out of people to blame for your situation. BTW when the unions brought down the Labour government in 1979 and the Tories got in, the Socialists proved just how out of touch they were by producing one airhead policy after another. Britain suffered nearly twenty years of unbridaled Capitalism because of those clueless fucks, but I digress.

Redundant again, and then 10 years in a place I thought was stable; until the company we sub-contracted to decided it would be cheaper to run ther own people directly and overnight 99% of our business disappeared.

Now I'm in a steady job which gives me enough money to provide for my family and even gives a bit extra. But the company I work for has just been bought out, and this time next year I have no idea if I'll still be employed by them.

Blame who you like. I don't point at the rich and say they are to blame for EVERYTHING. One thing I do know; if I still have a job this time next year, it will be no thanks at all to a Socialist. The market will go the way it goes, but a Socialist will really fuck things up. Life is hard boy. DEAL WITH IT.

EGNNNNNT!!! Wrong again. Do you think their money is in a safe or under their bed? And no banks don't make those rules.

You count investment as Lending? fair enough. So the banks don't make the rules eh? Don't tell me, let me guess; it's the Bavarian Illuminati?

To the members of those European countries which do have apparently viable Socialist governments and think I'm being over the top, let me give you an example of what we're dealing with; Last year, the BBC held a competition where the public would vote for the person they thought was the greatest Briton of the previous thousand years. Antony Wedgewood-Benn, a leading socialist put forward as his candidate; Oliver Cromwell. Why? Because He transformed Parliament? Because he created a standing professional army, basically, The British Army Army as it is today?

Nope. Because he was a Regicide.

During his time catholics were ruthlessly persecuted, something which if he didn't actively support, certainly he did nothing to stop. But it's okay, he lopped the King's head off so he must be a cool dude.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]It does not work so well, you have quite a few people living below the povery line.

For starters, a large amount of people "below the poverty line" are students with college loans and modest jobs. For instance, a med school graduate who is working as an intern will be counted as "being in poverty", even though he's going to be a doctor.

[bn880 5]

No way, you have thousands of people living in severe povery, and they are not listed there because htey are students. Same deal in Canada, also a pretty pure Capitalistic system, well less so than the US by a long shot.

What do you think people in the forums are stupid? Almost everyone knows the severe problems with povery and/or lack of healthcare in the US. Survival of the luckiest businessman.

EDIT: if you have 5,000 very poor people in the states you already have an obvious problem, since you also have at least that many millionaires.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov19.html

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Almost everyone knows the severe problems with povery and/or lack of healthcare in the US.

What, the people might actually have to *Gasp* pay some of their healthcare bills? You don't need any money to get treated, just go into the ER.

Quote[/b] ]EDIT: if you have 5,000 very poor people in the states you already have an obvious problem, since you also have at least that many millionaires.

Then you provide them with basic services, you don't start grabbing cash from millionaires to hand out.

[bn880 5]

Quote[/b] ]Almost everyone knows the severe problems with povery and/or lack of healthcare in the US.

What, the people might actually have to *Gasp* pay some of their healthcare bills? You don't need any money to get treated, just go into the ER.

Oh yeah? So if someone needs heart surgery and they start out with a net worth of 500USD. Tell me how they will live the next 30 years? Below the povery line, since they will be 40,000USD in debt.

Screw that. Health insurance in your lovely Eden is what tens of thousands USD per year I hear.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]EDIT: if you have 5,000 very poor people in the states you already have an obvious problem, since you also have at least that many millionaires.

Then you provide them with basic services, you don't start grabbing cash from millionaires to hand out.

Ok then why don't you?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common....00.html

[crashdome 3]

So Capitalism alone promotes greed? So the black markets in the Eastern bloc are .......

......something which if he didn't actively support, certainly he did nothing to stop. But it's okay, he lopped the King's head off so he must be a cool dude.

First: I'll apologize by saying that I, sticking to topic of Bill Gates and Higher Taxes for the Rich, was refering to U.S. policies, business laws, and common business practices. I understand in this global community sometimes that can be mistaken and I will state that while I know of Britain's economy, I am far from understanding it. One country's laws and policies are enough for me. With that, you may or may not be correct in any of your previous statements, but as applied to the U.S. I hold firm in my beliefs.

Second: I am leaving this discussion. I never once in any post mentioned socialism except to defend that higher tax for rich is not simply a socialist ideal. Also, of all accusations you display in your last post NONE of them have any basis and are completely removed from any statement I made. I never mentioned any theives, black markets, nor did I express any hatred or disdain for capitalism as a whole. You accuse me of needing professional help, yet all I can do is suggest we agree to disagree and respect that each other is not of sufficient knowledge of the other's current political and economic situation to continue.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]It does not work so well, you have quite a few people living below the povery line.

For starters, a large amount of people "below the poverty line" are students with college loans and modest jobs. For instance, a med school graduate who is working as an intern will be counted as "being in poverty", even though he's going to be a doctor.

The poverty line is an absolute international standard . USA has 12.7% percent of the population living under it. For comparison, Albania, the poster boy for poverty has 30% of the population living under it.

That means that you have 36 million Americans living in worse poverty than 70% of the Albanian population.

Of course, it's your country, so you're free to distribute the wealth the way you please

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]The poverty line is an absolute international standard.

That doesn't change the fact that our poverty rate is inflated by people who are temporarily poor and then work their way up. I use doctors as an example because while they're a student (Which is for a number of years), if they don't have parents supporting them then they're counted as being "under the poverty line" (School plus piss-poor salary as an intern). Who cares that once they become a doctor, they'll be paid over $100,000 per year? They're in poverty .

[denoir 0]

Although I seriously doubt that theory, it doesn't matter any way as they are replaced by new poor people. The fact is that at any time you have 36 millon Americans living under 3rd world standards.

[WhoCares 0]

Not to forget, that not every student graduates or that every graduate gets a job...

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Not to forget, that not every student graduates

Too bad for them. They were given the opportunity.

Quote[/b] ]Although I seriously doubt that theory, it doesn't matter any way as they are replaced by new poor people.

Why? It's too hard for your mind to believe that our number of poor people is inflated?

[denoir 0]

Why? It's too hard for your mind to believe that our number of poor people is inflated?

It's not being inflated - those are US statistics. 12.7%, roughly 36 million people in the US live in severe poverty. It doesn't matter if they're students or not. You have a significant part of your citizens living in worse conditions than the average third world country.

I think you have a grave misunderstanding of the word "poor", here. It's not like "poor - have to save for months to buy a DVD player", but "poor" as in "not having food to eat". Yes, people are dying of hunger in the US.

Incidentally the percentage of poor black people is twice the percentage of white people while the percentage of white people with higher eduction is about four times the number of black people. So that blows your "student" theory out of the water.

We're talking about inner-city ghettos and trailer parks here, not students.

[bn880 5]

Quote[/b] ]Not to forget, that not every student graduates

Too bad for them. They were given the opportunity.

You can't really go by that, people have various issues often during the years when they must study... so it's not like everyone is on the same playing field of opportunity, that is an American illusion. Furthermore the way lectures/assignments are given does not suit some peoples learning style, and even though they may be intelligent they can not get through some key junctures.

So anyway, survival of the fittest, or survival of the "norm" is a very bad assumption to work by, you don't know what benefits the 36mil poor people could have for your country if they were not that poor.