An example of wicked capitalism.

[Clarence]

Charles Barkley tips well, pays busboy's tuition to Temple - Ball Don't Lie... - NBA - Yahoo! Sports

chuck has always been my favorite b-ball player. People will always remember that jordan scored 50+ points nightly in the finals between bulls/suns. Barkley was scoring 40 himself every night along with having more bounds and assists and stuff.

[Clarence]

Charles Barkley tips well, pays busboy's tuition to Temple - Ball Don't Lie... - NBA - Yahoo! Sports


always liked chuck

[Columbia]

Quote by: sdbest Sure, people deserve financial compensation for their achievements. The question is to what extent? And to what adverse affect on the rest of the world's people? Moreover, few of today's uber-wealthy attained their wealth by means of achievement. They are wealthy because of hereditary position as in Saudi Arabia or because of family.

Agreed. One consideration has to be the control that large corporations (wealth) have on society - sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. An example of the worse could be where tobacco companies kept the propaganda machine going to sell more products that harmed society. Sure, the consumer can stop buying their product and there is the court system to get compensation - but quite oftern the damage is already done before the thing is fixed (i.e. people die).

The point is, that for problematic industries, increased redistribution of wealth (thru higher taxation) and increased government regulations are required, if that wealth was generated by causing mid to long term health or other negative consequences to society.

However, just taking $ from the rich because they are rich, I can't go for (except to ensure they pay their taxes, without the loopholes I hear about).

[ironeagle]

Quote by: sdbest For entrepreneurs, inventors, and investors who are not the fortunate beneficiaries of wealthy families making the first million is really difficult. Making the second million not as tough. And so on. Each subsequent increase in fortune is easier and easier. You can be sure that today Jobs, Buffet, Gates, et al make billions with little risk and by applying little skill. Sure, people deserve financial compensation for their achievements. The question is to what extent? And to what adverse affect on the rest of the world's people? Moreover, few of today's uber-wealthy attained their wealth by means of achievement. They are wealthy because of hereditary position as in Saudi Arabia or because of family. How is that someone with a billion dollars deserves--let alone needs or could spend--a second billion or a tenth billion?

Ok but here's a thought for you what about all the work he did for free before his product made it. Mabey the ease of his future earnings was to give him back pay for all the time he spent not being paid. Besides it is the average everyday person who actually builds the wealth for these companies by buying their products and services. If you do not believe the should make anymore money then don't buy their products or services.

[Rog]

Quote by: nerdvincent I said Bill Gates, but the same can be applied to many not-that-philantropic multibillion dollars dude.

And? what is wrong with people trying to make money? aren't you? tell me you give all your money to charity and volunteer on the weekends.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Rog And? what is wrong with people trying to make money? aren't you? tell me you give all your money to charity and volunteer on the weekends.

What do you pretend to know know about me? I'm 16. I can't gather large amounts of money yet, and yes I volunteer on the weekends in summer. I aslo record solo albums, which I sell and keep only one buck to pay the recordable cd while I put the rest in a safe place to give to charities. I plan to do the same with the books I'm writting. Happy?
Now, I don't care for people making money. What's bothering me are those "money pits" where money fall and never comes out. What's bothering me is that it is allowed in the capitalist system to screw people to make money. What's bothering me is that money doesn't depend on the amount of work given, but on a complex tree where the highest people are unproductive if we doesn't count the action of leeching money to the working class.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: ironeagle Ok but here's a thought for you what about all the work he did for free before his product made it. (...) If you do not believe the should make anymore money then don't buy their products or services.

What about all the work people are doing for him right now? He did perhaps the equivalent of 10 years of nice job, then he sat down and waited and received the equivalent of 5,000 years of hard work.
For the rest, I'm a Linux user.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: nerdvincent Did Bill Gates actually earned 60 billion dollars? No. I think a man's work cannot worth more than 2-3 million dollar in a lifetime.

How do you figure?


I find this entire thread to be a ridiculous notion, as well as the concept of a "maximum wage"...

So we set the maximum allowable personal wealth at what, $10 million?

Just out of curiousity, how many paychecks do you think Bill Gates has signed in between the time his net worth became more than $10 million and today? How many more people has he employed? How many more jobs has he created? If he had zero incentive to earn more than your stupid "maximum wage", how many thousands of people would never have earned any money at Microsoft?

The possibility of wealth invites innovation, investment, business expansion, and a whole host of other things that hugely benefit the economy. Of course, it also invites jealousy and envy, which is what this thread smacks of.

People who support a maximum wage are abject failures when it comes to economics.

[Columbia]

Quote by: tivodan1116 The possibility of wealth invites innovation, investment, business expansion, and a whole host of other things that hugely benefit the economy. Of course, it also invites jealousy and envy, which is what this thread smacks of.

A problem can exist when the wealth is in the wrong hands. There are likely many extremely wealthy individuals that made their furtunes by damaging the environment or social fabric (knowingly or unknowingly) that do not "give back" to society. Although that is their free choice, in the end game - they may be doing way more harm than good.

Society has some curbs on ensuring that poor practices are not rewarded by wealth - but for the most part we are still marching along to the old mantra of growth is good, and more is better. Some individuals abuse wealth because they regard it as a commodity belonging to them, rather than a privilege to be managed with respect. I think Bill Gates is doing some good things in his own way. Most others anywhere near that position are likely not.

[xyzer]

In all the complaining about some people amassing greater fortunes than others, it seems to me we lose sight of some facts?
First. Gates and other wealthy individuals don't just store their profits in bags in a vault. They invest in other ventures in the free enterprise capitalistic system. This creates jobs and other innovations that drive the economy.
Second. The so called evil corporations are in the minority vastly outnumbered by small business and individuals. Thats where most of the jobs are as individuals use(borrow) the invested profits for their own purposes and innovations.

Thus in a free capitalistic economy job creation, innovation and the like are stimulated by the reinvestment of profits. The government should stay out of the picture because it in itself does not create jobs and wealth. Thats why communism/socialism usually fail in an economic sense. Governments should legislate safety and health concerns but not curtail or limit free trade and investment.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: sdbest For entrepreneurs, inventors, and investors who are not the fortunate beneficiaries of wealthy families making the first million is really difficult. Making the second million not as tough. And so on. Each subsequent increase in fortune is easier and easier. You can be sure that today Jobs, Buffet, Gates, et al make billions with little risk and by applying little skill. Sure, people deserve financial compensation for their achievements. The question is to what extent? And to what adverse affect on the rest of the world's people? Moreover, few of today's uber-wealthy attained their wealth by means of achievement. They are wealthy because of hereditary position as in Saudi Arabia or because of family. How is that someone with a billion dollars deserves--let alone needs or could spend--a second billion or a tenth billion?

Why should anyone really know what he makes fortune-wise? Nobody's business.

You take away the incentive for very smart, industrious people to make as much money as they can, and you'll have a shit economy and no good jobs.

Hasn't anybody taken a look at the former USSR? Everything was government controlled and those people had shit can lives. This is why they are all alcoholics.

Not all people in a society are smart, most of us aren't, so we have to live off of what the smart ones create. This is a fact of life.

There should be no limit to what anyone can make whether it's inherited or gotten the old-fashioned way in a democracy. Now in non-Democracies that's probably a different story. These comparisons of societies aren't equal.

[ironeagle]

Perhaps Nerdvincent when you are able to earn money you will realize how upsetting it is when other people try to take that money away. Again you miss the point Bill Gates invented his software millions if not billions of other people now benefit from good high paying jobs because of his inventions. They make money off his invention, not the other way around. Again if you do not think bill gates deserves to have money for his great inventions, then get rid of your computer, stop using windows of you use it now and stop buying things from companies with lots of money. Go buy things at the local flea market and stop handing over you money to the people you think make too much otherwise stop complaining. Perhaps no one needs that much money and perhaps these types of people can buy our government, but that is the fault of the goivernamnt and the people for not stopping it. Instead the people would rather be complaicant the government. it's not rich people who destroy the freedoms of others it is us who do not protect those rights to the death.

[HelioPrime]

What I so love about socialist is their love of mid level mediocrity or humbleness. They seem to be on a vendetta to get every person to live similar middle class lifestyles with no rich and no poor. As if having wealth is in itself an evil and spending more more than other people might make is a crime.

Seems to be an extended Robin Hood mentality, take from the rich so that everyone has the same amount in the end.

[GHook93]

Quote by: nerdvincent I just thought about it. Bill Gates' personal fortune is $58,000,000,000. Microsoft got 90,000 employees. What if Bill Gates' personal fortune was equally distributed to every employees? Every employees would receive $644,000. What would you say? Bill Gates is the boss, he has the right to be richer than his employees? We may or we may not agree. But let's say he just keeps $20,000,000, which is way more than what he needs to feed his family for a few century, and give all the rest to his employees, would that make everyone happier? After all, does the the PDG works about two million time more than the coffee-addicted night-shift programmer, as he got a 60 billion dollars bank account while a typical employee is lucky to get over $30,000 when it is time to retire? What to say about what I call "money pits"?

You are demostrating a fundamental flaw of the socialist (and communist mindset). Microsoft didn't come out of thin air, it was created and built up. It had to be created and build up. Where is the incentive to take those steps if the creator receives equal pay to the people who came on board after the fact? What would be the incentive to the workers to move up if they get the same compensation as their bosses? In fact in a socialist/communist world that you described Microsoft would never have been created (at least under that society) and many other great America companies also.

Microsoft employees 95,000 employees! Wow that is a great example of greatness of corporations and the greatness of capitalism. Many people hate on them, but in the end they are the ones that employee most of us and keep food on the table!

[ironeagle]

Amen

Quote by: GHook93 Microsoft didn't come out of thin air, it was created and built up.

Actually, Microsoft did come out of thin air-well almost. In the early 80s, IBM needed an operating system for its personal computer and the owners of the best OS at the time CP/M turned them down. Dumbest decision Digital Research ever made. IBM's second choice was Bill Gates. He too turned them down initially because he'd never written an OS. After subsequent requests Gates agreed to write on OS for IBM on condition that IBM could have PC-DOS and Bill could market MS-DOS, the rest is history. So Microsoft is, in fact, a creation of IBM and Bill Gates is the luckiest university drop out in the world.

[Gods_Mercenary]

No, Bill chose the OSwisely, if the OS had been crap, Nobody would have bought his marketable version and IBM would have gone begging CP/M next time it wanted an OS.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary No, Bill chose the OSwisely, if the OS had been crap, Nobody would have bought his marketable version and IBM would have gone begging CP/M next time it wanted an OS.

Did somebody say Bill's OS was crap, not that was really his OS in the beginning. The fact is that Bill was given a serendipitous opportunity by IBM. Without IBM, it is unlikely Bill would have built Microsoft into the company it is today. Gary Kildall was given the same opportunity but failed to capitalize on it. FYI, "The largest Digital Research licensee of CP/M was a small company which had started life as Traf-0-Data, and is now known as Microsoft. In 1981, Microsoft paid Seattle Software Works for an unauthorized clone of CP/M, and Microsoft licensed this clone to IBM which marketed it as PC-DOS on the first IBM PC in 1981, and Microsoft marketed it to all other PC OEMs as MS-DOS." [Source].

[ironeagle]

Ok so what's your point IBM makes money too and if they wanted profits form MS they should have protected it then shouldn't they.