Printable View
What is this...he's not even British...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3428673.stm
from one multi-millionaire to a multi-billionaire...guess one hand washes the other...what's next...pope ?...supreme ruler of mankind ?
I thought it was sad when McCartney and Jagger got Knighthoods...at least Lennon had a World Peace agenda.
When you're rich enough to buy a country, it's only fitting said country should honour you.
Besides, Her Majesty needs some good press - we've heard nothing of late other than the foofaraw surrounding Chuckie and his bride.
So what. Considering the arseholes who get honours for totally ridiculous reasons, good luck to him. But I'm sure the vast majority could'nt care less. Hopefully Bill will be Bill, and not let the gong change him :DQuote:
No...let's hope it does change him...I don't applaud his charity work at all...tax breaks for the rich and infamous...it doesn't take charity to give from your excess...charity comes from the poor who give from their need.Quote:
Hopefully Bill will be Bill, and not let the gong change him
Nobody needs that much money...he's a greedy parasite who got rich off of the back of other people's ideas and efforts.
Hey...I've got 50 billion dollars...I know what I'll do...I've give a bunch of CD"S to charity and not even charge them full price ( you thought they were free ? )...put a few million here and there...take a few free photo ops of my generousity...write it off on my taxes...and the world will love me and give me medals and titles...gee...ain't I special.
Hopefully he will one day realize he can make a change. Take Carnegie, he built beutiful libraries all across the nation in small towns that could not afford them.
I hope you're right RoadClosed,
Carnegie is a good example of when the filthy rich realize that they can't take it with them, and the only thing people will ever remember after you're gone is what you did while you were here.
Personally, I have nothing against the rich...but if you've got more than what you can comfortably spend in three lifetimes...let's say 300,000,000 dollars...everything beyond that should start to filter down to the people who put you there.
Gates could filter 40 billion dollars down to his employees, staff, people he stole from, and his customers in the way of rebates...and still have over 10 billion dollars left over.
Eg ;)
Yes he could, he has more wealth then entire global corporations.
//EDIT .... and he's not up there alone, there are close contenders.
Look here, the financials are impressive.
Here is a more personal view of his giving.....
You people just can't stop whining about other's success can you? If you are clever enough to make a company the size of M$ do so.... If you have the drive and the work ethic and the stamina to do it..... If you don't, STFU, and keep working for "the man" like the rest of us that lack the ambition to be working 20 hours a day every day. I don't hear you whining about all the money Ted Kennedy has, none of which he worked for.... Or John Kerry, none of which he worked for...etc. etc. etc.... Yeah, just the "evil" Bill Gates.... Sometimes you whiners are just pathetic.....Quote:
First place on the 2004 list goes to Bill and Melinda Gates, with a total $3.4 billion pledged to their eponymous foundation, of which $627 million was paid out,” Slate.com reports. “The Gates pledge sets a new record of committed generosity, topping even last year's $1.91 billion bequest by McDonald's heiress Joan Kroc.
Get off your arse and do something or shut up about those that did!!!!!!! :rolleyes:
He can't... dummy..... It's all tied up in M$ stock... If he sells it he loses control of the company.... That would be counterproductive really wouldn't it? 'Cos then he'd have no employees to give the money to.....Quote:
Gates could filter 40 billion dollars down to his employees, staff, people he stole from, and his customers in the way of rebates...and still have over 10 billion dollars left over.
To me that would be very productive...to step down and give someone else a chance to step up...you hear about these people winning big lotteries who say they're going to keep their job...step down and let someone else who needs it would be the practical thing to do.Quote:
He can't... dummy..... It's all tied up in M$ stock... If he sells it he loses control of the company.... That would be counterproductive really wouldn't it? 'Cos then he'd have no employees to give the money to...
As far as your " dummy " comments go...I thought you were smarter than that...I guess I was wrong.
And who's whining ? I believe in a fair allocation of wealth ... that's not whining... that's called fair distribution. Are you claiming that the people who work for him deserve it less? Without them he wouldn't have any money.
Egal:
In Bill gates position... Would you "step down"?
Of course not.... It's 30+ years of your life....
It's easy to sit and bitch about the success of others as if it simply dropped into their lap.... It didn't... really.... they worked their ass off for it. But you want them to drop it and give everything away......
Tell you what... Take your _entire_ worth... Everything you own, everything you ever worked for, do the math and take 80% of it and send it to charity.... any charity, your choice! You won't will you? Because there is a lifestyle issue isn't there.... If you did it, you'd have to change your lifestyle and you aren't prepared to do it..... Bill Gates is in the same situation you are.....
As to calling you a dummy..... You talk like BG's money is cash money... That's so naive.... If BG has $1M cash lying around I would be _very_ surprised... That's why I called you a dummy... because he's no different than you except in magnitude. You have some cash... He has some cash.... His pile is bigger... whoppee ****.... His bills are bigger too!!!! C'mon, think....
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:-
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!!!!!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...
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...
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:
weak, the lame and the lazy
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:
for your lazy ass
I don't know anything about computers...and have said so many times...it's not where my training lies.Quote:
You show yourself as knowledgable with computers
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..
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.Quote:
I said those who WORKED to make him rich...without whom he would have NO MONEY.
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,
No...it's not like communism...it's basic civil rights. As I edited above. I disagree with the basic concept of communism too.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...
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...
That's one of my points.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,
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.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..
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.
In communism there are no rich and poor...in egalitarianism there is.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?
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.
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:
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.
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.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.
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.
Simo,
Nobody is blaming BG for anything...he's just as much a product of his society and upbring as anyone else.Quote:
bleaming one man for everyone's woes
That's debateable.Quote:
he earned it.
That's debateable too.Quote:
whatever it takes(in a honest way) to win.
That's a whole different issue...Jordan, as a player, negotiated contracts with owners for fair market value of his services...a better comparison would have been the Rothchilds or the Kennedy's.Quote:
I don't see people crying and whining about Michael Jordan because he always wants to win.
Do you really think he is that involved in the business ? You ought to read about the history of Microsoft...he made his money getting other people to do the work for him...he's a shrewd businessman and entrepreneur like Walmart but a technological genius he's not.Quote:
computer technology on his shoulders.
Whether you like it or not, or agree with it or not, we live in a contradiction...democracy is, in theory, the rule of the majority...yet our financial livability is in the hands of the minority...what Plato terms an aristocracy...in theory, pyramid schemes are against the law because they only benefit the top few...yet that is how our business structure is applied...as an aristocracy...and the list goes on...it wasn't too long ago that women and african-americans fought the system for equal rights under the law and for economic equality...this is the basis of a democracy...to change for the better...
without such change we would still have children working in mines, african-americans would still be in servitude, and women would still be second-class citizens ... and you would still think there's nothing wrong with that...the ignorance of the status-quo...
if you think we've achieved democracy...you're wrong...democracy is ever-changing...it's a work in progress
Gates is far more deserving of a knighthood than Elton john, Paul McCartney or Mick Jagger.
A mockery has been made over the 'knighting system' in the UK by giving some of them the title of 'Sir' because of their social status.
Gates' extremely generous contributions to charity over the years definately mark him as a deserving candidate; much more so than some of the Pop and Rock stars that he is catagorized with.
Not sure on Mick and Paul IC, but Elton is quite charitable with his money and regularly provides his services gratis in addition to monetary contributions. I believe he was quite deserving of his knighthood.
My fault then about Elton ............ If he's reading this - Hay El, I apologize .........lol
There will always be the sight and sound of jealous envy surrounding peoples success.
I'd like to add that Bill Gates three children would not inherit all his riches only .3% including the company Microsoft. The rest is pledged to almsgiving. The Bill Gates foundation like America I believe is the world leader in philanthropic giving.
Imitation,
You're right...the U.S. is the world leader in individual donations based upon pre-tax income...Canada is second.
As far as jealousy goes...my argument has nothing to do with jealousy...our economc stucture is still based upon antiquated monarchist and aristocratic systems of lords and land barons and not upon the much touted democracy that everyone seems to shout about without taking into account we're not there yet...there are still many things that need to be shed before we are.
If our purpose was to maintain the status-quo and keep an aristocratic-democracy as our final goal...then we would not be having this argument...but since the goal is a democracy then we are.
As for the BGF...sorry...it doesn't impress me.
Democracy is not something we have obtained...it is something we are trying to achieve...every advance is met with resistance...by people who want to keep the status-quo.
Eg
Rust, just for you I'm jumping ship for a second from my 'support Bill' stance :
.3 percent of 50 billion.
/me whips out his handy IT calculator
$150 MILLION DOLLARS. A nice petty sum for his kids to live on...and more money than they, their kids, their kids' kids, etc could ever spend in their collective lifetimes. The interest alone from such a sum would ensure a wealthy lifestyle.
It's a good thing he's giving the rest away though - and fitting. Maybe if the US would stop the antitrust bullshit against him, he'd leave it to obliterate a chunk of the National Debt instead...
Hah!
The Greaeco/German bitch will get to hold a sharp instrument close to the junkie's neck?
:eek: :D
Yes.............Billy Windows got done for drugs :D
I'd just like to take a minute to say that I think that the human species lives just like any other species in nature. It's called "survival of the fittest".
The great thing about the country (America) that I live in is that I have the same opportunity to make a difference as everyone else does. What I do with that is my own decision...and I really have to ask myself can I be happy with what I've done? If not, then it's up to me to change my current situation and my future.
I also believe that depending on what I do or how I contribute (being work or charity) to society will ultimately depict on what I get out of society. Bill Gates, some would think, has contributed limitlessly to society in both his charity and his productions. Lets face it...the guy that digs ditches for a living is doing a service for man...but his service is no where near the greatness of what others (Einstein, Gates, Edison)...have done for man.
This is just my opinion on the matter...I'm new...and thought it was a good thread to get my feet wet on....
Oh, don't forget the ass-raping Billy and MS get by Uncle Sam in form of the Internal Revenue Service.
When did people grow up and one day say, "I don't have much, everybody who has more than me, owes me and all of us"? Yeah, that's not called Egalitarianism, that's called Amazon rainforest economics. That's where wealth is distributed, and everybody under the crown canopy gets his or her fair share.
In the real world that **** doesn't fly, what would be the incentive to make "wealth"? Hell, why have currency? Nothing would get developed, people would suffer because I would get "my rightfully deserved new found king's ransom", when in the real world there are people a lot more needy. The more people that are born the more poor everyone gets, yay this is way better!
Hey, you'd be a great village leader or village economics mediator. ;)Quote:
You greatly under-estimate me if you think I don't know anything about economics
Hope that wasn't too pungent!
In America if you can't make money you're a reject, all the tools for getting wealthy are handed to you and paid for by taxes. If you didn't hit the books hard in high school and college, well you're a degenerate. (Not talking about the impaired)
Imitation,
It always amazes me when I encounter obviously well-educated and apparently intelligent people who are so closed-off in their way of thinking that even when you don't say something they still think you did.
You're arguments are baseless simply because you don't even know what the argument really is.
You keep saying that egalitarianism is to want the wealth evenly distributed when I've repeatedly said and explained that that is not the case...but you are so far gone in your own ideology that if I told you the moon was round you'd still swear it was square.
This is not taking cash and spreading it around...it's about not working for the aristocratic few. Don't you see the benefits in owning a piece of the place you work in both production and financial awards. Employee based ownership produces better productivity, increases longevity, has higher financial awards, is less of an economic risk in terms of lay-offs and closings, etc...and you definitely would not be seeing the great exodus of jobs going to foreign markets, if employees were running the factories.Quote:
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.
Eg ;)
You know I'm just breaking your balls! I read into it but to tell you the truth, I have no desire to read anymore.Quote:
Originally posted here by Egaladeist
Imitation,
It always amazes me when I encounter obviously well-educated and apparently intelligent people who are so closed-off in their way of thinking that even when you don't say something they still think you did.
Too often entrepreneurs are forgotten heroes. ~ Ronald Reagan
Which planets moon or moons and near which galaxy? :halo:Quote:
Originally posted here by Egaladeist
Imitation,
I told you the moon was round you'd still swear it was square.
Hi Imitation,
I know you're just breakin' my balls. As much as I like arguing believe me when I say I wouldn't even waste my breath if I thought you couldn't at least see what I'm saying...the rest is just jousting for fun. :D
I realize that alot of my veiws are going to be questioned and argued with because they go against the conventional ways of thinking.
To me it's like sitting around a card table playing a game of 5 card drinking a brew and arguing over whatever...it's not about who wins the argument, it's about how fun the game is.
Eg ;)
Hey I think this is a good time to let everyone know that Conservative states are more generous(aKa Liberal in giving or sharing) than liberal states.
Generosity Index http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.....php?year=2004
Mississippi 1
Arkansas 2
Oklahoma 3
Louisiana 4
Alabama 5
Tennessee 6
South Dakota 7
Utah 8
EG are you impressed by US Conservatives or are you impressionless.
Hi Imitation,
I'm always very impressed with American generousity...I would love to break into the US market...but that's not possible...as for conservative generousity, well what can I say, it's a known fact, and I do speak as a kind of expert in the field of charity, that conservatives account for the majority of all giving...
just as a for instance: the overwhelming majority of donations are given to religions and their sponsored charities in both our countries ( and conservatives make up the bulk of religious givers )
liberals, generally, have a lot to say but are unwilling to put a price on how much they're willing to donate to have a right to say it...read: cheap little _ _ _ _ _ _ aren't they :D you can quote this at a conveinient time
Personally I think it has to do with years of torture by the church over tithes and the immense guilt trip placed upon them ( conservatives and conservative values ) by the church to attone for their evil greediness :D
Eg ;)
Fidel is spreading the wealth in Cuba. He recently televised a 5 HOUR, speech and he generously anounced that he will subsadize pressure cookers to elevate the kitechens of his people. They will only cost 5 dollars, which is around half the monthly salary of the workers. Last time I checked that was 11 bucks a month. Viva La Cuba!
Hi RoadClosed,
Good ole' Fido...the congenial and charismatic leader of the people's republic of cuba...apparently he's one of these guys who can make you feel relaxed, comfortable, as if you were at home, completely at ease. then bite your head right off like a Tyson vs Godzilla movie.
Gotta give the guy credit though...he's outlived everyone who's ever stood against him, and even survived the breakup of the Soviet Union which was Cuba's major ally and supplier.
Word is the devil's scared that if he ever does die he'll take over hell so Lucyfer ( you did know the devil was a woman...right ) is keeping him alive hoping he'll convert and go to heaven. :D
Eg :D
That guy is like his holiness, the pope. UNSTOPPABLE as in seemingly imortal. 5 hours? Can you imagine Bush speaking for 5 hours? Gadz.
They love him down there. The man must have utterly amazing charisma.