Sir Bill Gates...a Knighthood ?

TS,

You greatly under-estimate me if you think I don't know anything about economics..or if you want to argue charity with me...I am a Charity Co-ordinator...

If you knew what egalitarian means you would understand that that was just what I was suggesting ... that he sell off his assets and distribute the wealth...I at no time said that the greedy parasite would...just that he should...your argument that he worked hard to get where he is and deserves it doesn't take into account how he got there or the thousands of people that made it all possible and who worked as hard if not harder than he did...they don't deserve it any less, they are not worth less than he is..he's not an icon to be looked up to...as a person or because of his wealth.

The Dali Lama, Mother Teresa, are the people I admire...not the filthy disgusting rich who get there on the backs of other people...you're admiring and defending the wrong people...you should be defending the workers that made him rich.

I support wage caps..in every situation whether it be sports or business...I know it would never get passed...that in this society it could never be implemented or inforced...but in principle that is what I personally agree with...that there is such a thing as too much money.

Just because you call me a dummy and believe it yourself doesn't make it so...! I was raised that you didn't call people names if you had any respect for them...I'll assume from this point that you don't and work from there.

And.... You are a Canadian....

I _used_ to respect the Canadians... _immensely_. But I have to say that in recent years I have found them to be unrespectable with their regard to their world view and political leaning in general.

Yes, there are exceptions but:-

Quote:

---

If you knew what egalatarian means you would understand that that was just what I was suggesting ... that he sell off his assets and distribute the wealth...

---

That is all but communism..... That has never, and will never work.... Egalitarianism is similar in that it takes the effort, hard work and intellect of the few and gives it to the weak, the lame and the lazy.... If you wish to proscribe to such unadulterated crap that is your right.... And I would fight for you to have that right... OTOH.... when you try to force that garbage on me you will have to fight me for the right...... good luck!!!!!

BG did it.... You want to ride on his back with no effort involved.... There are plenty of people that worked for Gates or invested in him that are now millionaires... PLENTY.... You weren't there.... See if you can pick the next Gates and be there to make yourself a few million in the process..... Again, good luck..... It requires a similar foresight to the foresight Gates had in the first place.....

Quit trying to have everone else pay for your lazy ass and do what you need to for yourself.... Don't whine about someone elses money.... You're smart, you live in Canada, (which, according to Canadians is just peachy), do it for yourself!!!!!! Is that so hard?

I respect those who garner respect by their logic and good sense. I disrespect the rest. Place yourself where you wish. That's not my problem.... You show yourself as knowledgable with computers.... You get my respect for that.... Other than that.... You need to work some..... Fair?

TS,

For one thing you are way off if your understanding of egalitarism has any relation to communism at all...it is more closely associated with ethics and civil rights, in fact it was the backbone of the civil rights movement for racial and gender equality...and virtually every other civil rights or liberties movement...and I was not proposing to give the money to just anyone...especially the...

Quote:

---

weak, the lame and the lazy

---

as you put it..I said those who WORKED to make him rich...without whom he would have NO MONEY. I, having never worked for Gates, or been a victim of him, would get nothing...so I fail to see how my " lazy ass " , as you so richly put it, would profit from this.

Quote:

---

for your lazy ass

---

I'll have you know I've worked very hard all my life...you obviously don't know anything about me. Case in point...

Quote:

---

You show yourself as knowledgable with computers

---

I don't know anything about computers...and have said so many times...it's not where my training lies.

If you feel the need to insult people in order to get your point across or to make your words sound more important or have more meaning...it doesn't impress me or intimidate me.

EDIT...By the way...I haven't insulted you have I...because I don't have to.

EDIT2...and as far as my personal beliefs go...I'm not asking you to acknowledge them, respect them, understand them, or have anything to do with them, I am just expressing them...that is, presumably, what COSMOS is for.
As I've said before...there are over 6 billion people on this earth...I don't expect they're all going to agree with you or me.

Eg

I gotta throw my Capitalist 2 cents in here..

Quote:

---

I said those who WORKED to make him rich...without whom he would have NO MONEY.

---

Those who worked to make Gates rich are rich themselves. The entire board and startup crew of that 'little backroom company called MicroSoft' from back in the 80's are all mega-rich themselves, mostly from owning stock in the very same company. They had faith in their abilities and the abilities of their leader, and it paid...it paid and paid and paid some more, and when everyone thought it was done paying, it came back, split 10 dozen times and started paying treble.

I like poking fun at Bill every now and then, because I view what his software has evolved into as half-finished. Frankly, were I him, I'd wad up the whole MS campus, tell the US government to take it's antitrust lawsuits and the tax revenue it expected from me, fold it until it was all sharp corners and stuff it squarely up their arses - then move the whole shooting match to some nice banana republic.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, since I'm just an ignorant country boy, but Egalitarianism is much like Communism, yes? Everyone owns everything equally, everyone shares everything equally?
If so, then read on...

[Rant]I cannot tolerate those who wish to enrich themselves by taking from the hard work of others - there is a point when welfare becomes 'too much welfare, get a job you bum.' In this I radically disagree with your Egalitarian standpoint. Like Communism, it depends on everyone staying honest all the time, which by human nature and human actions is a completely assenine concept. It discourages initiative, creativeness, or anything higher than 'status quo'.

Which would you rather do? Stand in line for hours at the collective community state-owned store in order to have a chance to buy a roll of half-baked, half-soggy toilet paper and paying $5 a roll for it IF you get it at all, or pop over to the local Wal Mart, spend that same 5 bucks on a dozen rolls of quality name-brand toilet paper, waiting in line only long enough to check out?

Would you like it if your government suddenly decided to decrease the amount of living space allotted to families and arbitrarily moved 7 other people into your household, you having no say whatsoever as to which seven? Remember, it's YOUR Government - and in your Egalitarian eyes it's collective property and you're all equal from the bum in the street to the Prime Minister... Or are some more equal than others? [/Rant]

If you read this as a lesson and not a slam (I'm seriously not trying to slam ya here Egal), you'll see exactly why it's a paper-oriented concept and won't work for a large nation in real life. Bill earned his money by perserverance, belief in himself and his colleagues, and a strong use of his own initiative and sales skills. Quite frankly, I'd give my left nut to get a day or two to spend with him and learn some of his techniques - It must've been one hell of a presentation to convince Big Blue to put 'his' operating system on every PC out there and begin to set the standard for the next 3 decades... and it must've taken a hell of a lot of savvy to manipulate the market and get his softwares well known enough where anyone can use them and is already familiar with them...

In the days back when we rode dinosaurs to school, we all learned on Apple II+'s. MS was unknown, MS Dos was unknown. From there to now is one hell of a leap.

Hi l3lacklce,

Quote:

---

Correct me if I'm wrong here, since I'm just an ignorant country boy, but Egalitarianism is much like Communism, yes? Everyone owns everything equally, everyone shares everything equally?
If so, then read on...

---

No...it's not like communism...it's basic civil rights. As I edited above. I disagree with the basic concept of communism too.

The principles that spawned virtually every civil rights movement evolved from the principles of egalitarianism.

The natural next step or evolution from racial, gender, political ( democracy is a form of egalitarianism ) etc...equal rights will be monetary rights...and you are already seeing it come about. There is and has already been talk of equal pay for work of equal value, the monetary value of raising a family, etc...
it is not about giving people money or giving to those who don't work...it is about valuing the work that people do...giving them their FAIR share according to what they PUT IN.
For instance...if I work for you and in one week I make you $8000 profit...as my share according to the value of my WORK...how much of that $8000 should be mine? Unions have been arguing this for decades.

In simplistic terms...it's already happening in some respects..some companies call it Profit Sharing.

There are factories in Canada already that are OWNED by the employees....and who hire management...the management works for them....and they share the profits of their hard work. In fact it has been proven that companies that are owned and run by the employees are more profitable after they take over the company because they are working for themselves.

This will take years before all the details are worked out...but it's already started...and it is the natural evolution of the civil rights movement.

Eventually every factory and every business will be owned by it's employees...who will then finally benefit from all their hard work...instead of feeding the pockets of the few.

Basically it's a change of ownership...instead of the owner and shareholders getting rich...the employees will be the owners and the shareholders and will get rich off their hard work.

It has nothing to do with Soviet or Chinese versions of government involvement or control or government distribution of funds.

It is democracy and civil rights taken to the next logical step.

P.S. I know you weren't trying to slam me :D

I hope this explains it better.

Eg ;)

Instead of you working for GM...you'll own GM and be working for yourself...and you're money would not go to bail out Ford...your factory...your money.

Unions...if you work for one or have worked for one...again...founded upon egalitarian principles of ensuring the workers get a fair shake.
Child labor laws...egalitarian....and virtually every other advance we've made in civil rights.

Egalitarianism...the belief in social, political, and economic equality and advancement of all people...which is the backbone of the civil rights movement.

So the employees unite and own everything...

/me looks at a hastily found copy of the Communist Manifesto and reads the first line, which he quoted in his previous post.

Yep, Communism, just packaged differently. Thanks for confirming.

Hi l3lacklce,

How is employees running their own company communism ? Are you telling me that ONLY guys like BG are allowed to own a company...that if the employees of a textile mill want to buy out a company or a group want to start and invest in their own company that they must be commies...?

Then...unions must be communist concepts...etc...that logic makes no sense to me. Why are Americans so wrapped up in their McCarthyism that they can't see the forest for the trees ...just another form of commies hiding behind every bush mentality.

Every sports franchise players association and all other unions who negotiates a contract based upon revenue sharing must be commies...or didn't you know that revenue based contracts are based upon an assumption that the employees deserve a fair share of revenues...as opposed to wages.

If this is communism in your mind then you and the last contract you negotiated with the help of your union, had a communistic agenda. By your definition if you work for a company that offers profit sharing in it's negotiations or if you are a member of a union...you're a communist. That the only way you can not be a communist is if you work for the man in an un-unionised sweat shop. If I agree with your definition...then you are a communist...you do work for a union don't you ?

Eg

Oops. That one missed - no union card here, but I don't necessarily oppose unions either, in some instances they're necessary to get workers fair treatment. I fail to see how a union is communist in that respect, until things start getting extremist with it - read up on Pittsburg steel and the US Auto industry of the 1970's for good examples of extremism and unions.

What you have stated in your meandering is a policy of shared ownership of companies by the united workers, and that no one person has control of said entity - back to your thoughts regarding BG I pose these questions:

What if One person started the company, was the prime motivator for making it successful, and with the help of precious few others was the prime financial backer of said company? Is it fair to him that you're wanting to hand his proprietary rights to the workers in his employ?

Those workers ventured nothing - if they had done so, they'd be as rich as others who did take said risk. Each and every person in the United States has and had the opportunity to own MicroSoft - it's a publicly traded company, they simply need only call their broker and buy a chunk. Moreover, to my understanding, MS has a 'profit sharing' plan amongst their employees - it's a part of the employee retirement benefits - which gives them the option of investing their retirement money and their company matching funds back into the company's own stock at current market value. Frankly, I've never worked for a large corporation that didn't have that option, so I'd be surprised to find that MS didn't have it - I'm so sure they do I went out on the limb and claimed it here.

Sorry Egal, but in this particular discussion I am wholly against your train of thought, and in complete agreement with TS - Bill earned where he is today. He risked everything to get there, worked the long hours to make it happen, was the prime motivator behind his product, his staff, his marketing plan, the whole shooting match. It's only fitting he should reap the fruits of his labors.

There's another reason why your 'divide the plunder' plan just won't hold water - each employee of a company agrees to his salary or wage at the time of his hiring. In accepting employment with a business, the wage that's set for that employee may be more or less than the employee himself is worth, but is quite equal to the value of the task he performs. I won't hire someone to sweep the floors of my shop at $35 an hour, and I won't kid myself into trying to hire a SysAdmin at minimum wage, nor do I know of a good SysAdmin who'll do a janitor's work at a janitor's pay, or a janitor who's capable of doing the quality of SysAdmin work that would be necessary. It's not the worker we pay for, it's the job he performs. By your own statements here you'd overpay for the jobs you could hire any monkey off the street to do, and underpay for the skilled positions.. This equivocates into 'status quo' and takes us circularly back to my original post, so I'll end this here and leave you to chase your own tail.

Hi l3lacklce,

Let me try to explain this...

Quote:

---

no union card here, but I don't necessarily oppose unions either, in some instances they're necessary to get workers fair treatment. I fail to see how a union is communist in that respect,

---

That's one of my points.

Quote:

---

By your own statements here you'd overpay for the jobs you could hire any monkey off the street to do, and underpay for the skilled positions..

---

First...I never said that and, I am not suggesting that people make the same wage....like in any profit sharing or revenue sharing contract there are variables...seniority, type of employment, skills, value, profit/loss, etc...it is not an equal distribution of wealth...it is the " fair " distribution of revenue.
Nor did I, or ever have, or am I, suggesting that you can't have rich and less rich...obviously someone who's been at a company for 30 years would make substantially more in an employee owned company than the guy who was hired six mths ago and just completed his probationary period. You still have one guy making more or less than another based upon those variables.
This is not about equal distribution...it's about fair allocation.

I'm sure you've heard of sports revenue sharing...where one team has to share the wealth with other teams in minor markets...soft markets...now that is based on a communistic ideal...and it is not what I am suggesting...there would be no cross-pollination...where the profits of your employee owned company would be used to bail out a less profitable company. The company is still an independant entity...the only thing that's changed is who owns it...in an employee owned company there are no need for unions...nor am I suggesting the take-over of companies by employees...there would be both types...those that are owned by the employees ( as already exist ) and those owned by others, like BG...which would be based upon profit-sharing contracts that are equitable.

Quote:

---

What if One person started the company, was the prime motivator for making it successful, and with the help of precious few others was the prime financial backer of said company? Is it fair to him that you're wanting to hand his proprietary rights to the workers in his employ?

---

In communism there are no rich and poor...in egalitarianism there is.
I never said that BG shouldn't be rich...that he shouldn't profit from his involvement...all I said was that no one needs 50 billion dollars...that there should be a trickle down effect once someone reaches an obscene point.
And I estimated that at, for BG 10 billion, I hardly think that capping a persons assets at 10 billion dollars is unreasonable or can even be construded as communism.
Obviously, as with any civil rights measure, change takes time and can't be forced upon people...but the effects are already showing.
Salary and asset caps are not a bad thing when you are talking about obscene gaps between those who start a company and those who's work make it profitable.

Quote:

---

Each and every person in the United States has and had the opportunity to own MicroSoft - it's a publicly traded company, they simply need only call their broker and buy a chunk.

---

That's just not economically true...I'm sure there's alot of people who work as hard as anyone else in lower paying jobs who would disagree with you about having the ability to invest...in fact probably at least 65% of the workforce. But that's another topic.

Quote:

---

Moreover, to my understanding, MS has a 'profit sharing' plan amongst their employees - it's a part of the employee retirement benefits - which gives them the option of investing their retirement money and their company matching funds back into the company's own stock at current market value. Frankly, I've never worked for a large corporation that didn't have that option, so I'd be surprised to find that MS didn't have it - I'm so sure they do I went out on the limb and claimed it here.

---

This is, as I already stated, the beginnings of egalitarianism...profit sharing is one aspect...if MS does have a contract based profit-sharing package then they are already beginning to understand and implement the fundamentals of egalitarianism.
Every company that has a profit-sharing package has agreed, in principle, that the profits would not be there without the employees.
It is not about paying everyone the same, or distributing the wealth across the board, it's about bridging the gap between those who invest and those who make the profits which make the investment worth-while. You can invest millions of dollars into a company but if you can't find people to work for you your investment isn't going to mean crap now is it ?
It's the employees that make the profits.

I hope this explains it a little better.

Eg ;)

I think Bill Gates is wonderful. I am poor as dirt, but there's no reason bleaming one man for everyone's woes. Of course, he is stinky rich, but hey, he earned it. Whether by luck or genius or not, it doesn't matter. The man is a competitior, and he does whatever it takes(in a honest way) to win. I don't see people crying and whining about Michael Jordan because he always wants to win. Please, leave the guy along---he already have enough problems and stress with the feature of the world's computer technology on his shoulders.