Does the name "Warren Buffet" mean anything to you, sunshine?
Yep, made his money on the short term view, turning over stocks every three months, and dumping entire country's currencies when they go bad (like he recently dumped the dollar). That's why the stock market is an evil to stay the hell away from.
Some managers take a short-term view, some take a long term view. The market offers a myriad of choices to the investor, and we can pick the companies whose managers are doing what we want them to do.
Managers who take the long term view, and whose companies are in the stock market, find their stocks worth pennies because everybody shorts them.
Exactly right- which is why I said missing data. The one article we CAN get to only says there was a CD, not how many tracks there were or the length of said tracks. But this is equal opportunity missing information- for the person who wrote the article summary also has no clue how many tracks there are; I'm just stating that $1.8 million seems rather LOWBALL given the other numbers.
The blog postings seem to be missing, and I can't figure out how he reached a number as low as $1.8 million. If we assume an average of 5 minutes per song, and an 80 minute CDR, that comes to 16 tracks, which at $150,000/track comes to $2.4 million.
I thought about switching to a web-based voicemail for just this reason, but 1xRTT data coverage is much spottier than voice coverage - if I'm roaming data is useless.
Hate to say it, but iPhone's visual voicemail feature requires data coverage- otherwise you just get the voicemail indicator bit & count, not the message envelopes.
Oh, they're using the words in a different fashion than I'm used to. Yeah, web-based voicemail boxes have been common on T-Mobile and Verizon for a while now, with downloadable MP3 copies of your voicemail. I personally haven't used it becuase I think it's a waste of bandwidth- you need either a good data plan in an EDGE/3G supported area, or a local wifi hotspot for it to actually be usefull.
I thought you meant REAL video voicemail- sending VIDEO MP4 files as voicemail. Boy, what a rip.
To put it another way, for a million pounds I'd take my phone (and I actually have a phone I don't wanna smash, a nice Moto L6) and boil it in fetid elephant dung, run it through a meat grinder, and feed it to a goat.
I'd do the same for about $500- the cost of replacing the phone.
No, I meant a reference to the old joke about the best part of sex for a woman is lying together talking afterwards. Since you can talk on a mobile phone.....
OK, try this one- going public automatically destroys any entrapreneur's long term goals for a company, because he has now lost ownership in that company, even if he keeps 51% share of the stock, he now has to answer to the investors as dictated by the SEC.
This makes a company effectively a psychopath- with one goal in mind, increased quarterly profit, regardless of what that does to the rest of society.
Cool, point me at one that has visual voicemail - I could really use that and Cingular has poor service here. Is it on a Verizon-supported phone?
T-Mobile supports it- I'd think that the Cingular 8125 would be able to send Video Voice Mail, as it is essentially the same phone as my T-Mobile MDA, unless Cingular has actively blocked that for some reason. Most of the HTC Windows Mobile Smart Phones should be capable of it, regardless of what the carrier has rebranded them to. All of them are capable of taking 1.3 Megapixel MP4 Video- and all of them have Pocket Outlook, but it's up to the individual carrier to actually hook up MMS to Outlook, so I'm not sure for other carriers than mine.
I'll agree that having GPS is nice on vacation, especially to be able to map your hiking routes before hand, and see where you actually went afterwards. But the cell phone, not so much. I do carry it on vacation, especially when out hiking or camping. It's rather amazing how many out of the way places get good signal. And in an emergency, that phone could be a life saver. Still, I don't exactly cry (or notice even) when I'm in a place without signal. I just turn it off, and throw is somewhere (lakes are especially tempting).
Heck, most of the time when I'm on vacation I switch off the phone part to save battery. The more radios you turn off on a Windows Mobile device, the more battery you have.
And the rest of the gadgets? Leave 'em at home. Now, part of this is that most of my vacations involve camping (drive up camping, I'm too fat and lazy to backpack anymore, and the only one of the people I go with who would consider doing it); and the last thing I need, when I am trying to get away from civilization, is some idiot blaring a reminder of that crap a few hundred feet away. The forest/desert have very nice and interesting sounds if you just stop and listen to them. And anyone bringing a laptop/TV/DVD player deserves a beating with a stick. I enjoy sitting around a camp fire watching the flames and hearing the sounds of the sap popping and good conversation with friends, music detracts from that.
With a Windows Mobile Phone, I have no need for any other gadgets. Got the laptop/Windows Media Video/MP3/MP4 player built in. But I still agree with you- turn the damn thing off, save your batteries, listen to nature.
Either they aren't getting it anyway, so it's not a loss for them; or they only asked prudes. If my choice in High School had been talking on the phone or sex, I'd have been pants-less before they finished asking the question.
Either that or they were female, and realize that you can get the best part of sex out of a phone (at least for women).
Many people have said that, and here's my answer to it- my companies will NEVER go public. Going public is *ALWAYS* a mistake for any company, it changes the planing from long term (and my companies plan CENTURIES ahead) to short term (Quarterly report to satisfy the investors). The closest I've ever come to issuing stock was The Oregon Project- and that stock is restricted from being resold (though it can be gifted and inherited), and the only thing it grants you so far is access to the message board of the investing club to suggest what to put pooled money into. Even that is looking centuries ahead- by the charter we only put money into retail companies that are using technology to gain an advantage over the competition by reducing headcount.
Profit isn't the point of The Oregon Project- nobody will ever see a dime back from their investment in it- the point is to buy up land and natural resources so when human labor is no longer required in a couple of centuries, our kids will have land to live on and a bargaining chip with the multinationals that will replace government.
It's not only just a phone, at least 3 other operating systems and 20 other manufacturers have delivered EXACTLY the same functionality in their high end phones over the last 5 years. I would not want to go without mine, even on vacation, but then again I actually USE mine on vacation (as I've got a bluetooth GPS module and iNavigator installed on my Windows Mobile Smart Phone- it's amazing what that database calls a "Point of Interest" under Entertainment). Some of my best stops and side trips have come from that.
To answer the question in TFA (which is just a repeat of the Register's finding that teenagers would rather give up SEX than their phone for a month) is when you are with another human being and fail to put the phone on vibrate/let everything go to voice mail. Voice Mail, SMS, and E-mail are SUPPOSED to be asynchronous forms of communication- that means you can put the phone down and drive, or actually talk to other people once in a while. USE the technology, don't let the technology ABUSE you.
I had the same thought- Snapstream or TitanTV ought to come out with a *paid* MythTV plugin at this point. It's not like they don't already have the listings.
No, because you assert it's state's rights to govern corporations- thus shouldn't the corporation's corporate papers be limited to the issuing state?
My, you are thick, aren't you? Steve Jobs is compensated with my full consent, and that of an overwhelming majority of my fellow shareholders. He's done an incredible job, and we shareholders are considerably richer as a result.
Yes, but you'd be even richer if you paid him the same wages as the lowest factory worker in China. Or did that not occur to you?
Incorporation is a matter of state law, and the constitution doesn't prohibit the states from creating corporations, as they had been doing for quite a long time before the constitution was ratified.
Yes, but in that case, shouldn't a corporation be limited to doing business in the state in which it was incorporated?
Your statement presumes that the earnings of a company belong to the state, rather than its owners,
Look at your money sometime- it's signed by the Tresurer of the United States, not the CEO of a company or it's owners. Earnings are only LENT to citizens to make economic transactions more efficient- money is ultimately owned by the government.
For my part, I'm quite happy with the results I'm getting from the management of the companies in which I've invested. In fact, I'd love to see how much more I could make if Apple had given Steve Jobs *two* airplanes.
Interesting. So you don't mind that Steve Jobs is stealing from you?
People are of course working longer hours, and many more women work today, largely because of the increased tax burden that comes with a government that's growing out of control. I'm not sure that our standard of living has in fact been falling for forty years, but it's certainly below where it could be if we cut the government back to its constitutional powers.
Would that include cutting out the completely unconstitutional act of creating artificial people through incorporation of businesses?
Very glib, but completely inaccurate. If you have a social security card, then you're someone who has been forced to pay into a bankrupt pyramid scheme. This is completely orthogonal to what the owners of a company choose to pay its executives.
The Social Security Trust Fund (bankrupt pyramid scheme to you) is partially invested in Treasury Bonds. Treasury Bonds are based upon the ability of the Federal Government to tax, which in turn is based on the ability of the Federal Government to regulate incorporation. So therefore, yes, each and every American is an "owner" of any company incorporated in America, and we should have a say in what companies "choose to pay their executives". In reality of course, neither shareholders nor the American public have any such say- CEOs are a closed society who serve on each other's board of directors and continually vote themselves largese from the treasury.
How is it fraud? There is no deception involved. They are making no claims, merely offering a lower price than their competitors.
A lower price based on a lie- then once the competitors go out of business, the prices go back up. That's the Wal-Mart way.
And even then, the customers have no obligation to shop local.
They do if they want to be masters of their own economy- masters of their own destity- instead of giving it away to foreigners who just want to make a profit.
You think it would be better if they did but that doesn't justify forcing them to do so.
I don't think it would be better- I KNOW it would be better. It's always better to do business with the guy you can kill if he cheats you- because it prevents him from cheating you.
It is the customers choosing to shop elsewhere that is allowing your business to fall.
And in so doing, they're cutting their own throats- because the multinational doesn't give a shit whether they live or die.
They aren't putting you out of business, they are merely no longer supporting it.
And in not supporting it, they're choosing to sell their very freedom to the multinationals.
The business that is now out competing yours is not doing anything to you.
Bullshit. They're lying to my customers.
Any regulation you want to put in to prevent it would be interference with the competing corporation or the customers. The only thing you actually have a legitimate right to do is change your own business practices.
In other words, the only legitimate right I have is to do what the multinationals have done- send my business overseas and say goodbye to any concept of a local community. They've taken away my right to have a local community, to have a local say in the laws of my own city.
Failure to help is not the same thing as causing harm. You appear to be conflating the 2 with the language you have chosen.
That's because implicit in the idea of a local community is citizens who help each other. Take that away, and you've killed the community. But that doesn't matter to the free traitors; they never cared about community to begin with, only profit.
I'm not sure if this discussion will be very productive. I think we have belief systems that are partially based on incompatible axioms, so it will be difficult to come to any sort of rational agreement. We seem to agree that we want to be left alone, but if you don't agree with the above line about harm and failure to help, we are guaranteed to come to different outcomes on everything else.
That's because you don't understand community- and the value of local community. Doesn't really matter, because concentrated wealth just creates violent revolution anyway.
Dude, which is why is should be totally illegal for anyone to buy from, or sell from any other city. It should be illegal to leave the city you are born, because you could buy and sell while you are gone! Only when we are living in tiny economicly isolated enclaves like people did in the 1600, can our economy survive!
Close- I'm definately a distributionist. Though it was more like 1300 when a man last had the right to own his means of production and followed moral law to treat customers and apprentices fairly.
If you start supporting government rights to interfere with other people, you have ceded your right to not have them interfere with you.
So a multinational corporation has more rights than a citizen in your point of view- because if you try to use the government to interfere with them, they'll just use the government to interfere with you right back. And if you don't try to use the government to interfere with them, they'll just interfere with you right back anyway.
What utter nonsense. Concentration of wealth in a free market is a result of finding out what your customers want, and supplying it.
If you were only doing that, and charging a fair price, and paying fair wages, your profit would be zero. The price would cover labor+parts, and you'd make your customers VERY happy supplying it....but you wouldn't get rich. Concentration of wealth requires *overcharging* for what your customers want while *underpaying* to supply it.
The real problem is that word "Steal". In no way have they stolen something. Stealing implies taking something that someone else owns. You do NOT own your customer's money, and them withdrawing the voluntary support they previously provided is their action, not the fault of the competitor.
Depends upon if the competitor commited fraud or not to gain that business. Certainly using profits from one region to put people in another region out of business is a form of fraud.
Sorry, but no it isn't. Consider the Wilt Chamberlain paradox. First, everything is spread evenly among everybody. This gives everyone say $10,000 to with as they please. Now consider a million people want spend a dollar to watch Wilt Chamberlain play basketball. Mr Chamberlain now has a million dollars, and all the people that paid him the money are only short a buck. An amount they probably could have lost in thier sofa cushions. What if Wilt then decides to build a place for his fans to sit comfortably while he plays? A stadium of sorts. Now the contractors he hires to build the statium have more money than thier fellow citizens. This attracts more fans, and Wilt is even richer than before. But no-one is out more than a handfull of dollars, and Wilt is the richest person on the planet. The point being, that there is a concentration of wealth with no exploitation. No parasitic behavior. No enslaving your fellow man. Wilt just wanted to play basketball, the others saw a value in that and chipped in some money. The ones that didn't care, didn't give any money.
Well, let's say then that Wilt was actually charging a *fair price* to play basketball. He's only getting that (for the sake of argument) $10,000. Now everybody who pays to see him play are only paying $.01 for their ticket instead of $1. Which gives them $.99 to spend elsewhere in the community. Now Wilt builds the Stadium. He figures out what it cost to build (the contractors only get their $10,000 each also), and figures the Stadium will last 20 years. Divide cost to build by number of seats by 20, and that's the amount to add to the ticket price. FAIR pricing does not include profit. Profit is proof of parasitical behavior.
Also, economics isn't a zero sum game. For instance we can turn worthess dirt into valuable bricks or earthenware. Combine the non zero sum with that Wilt Chamberlain thing and we can be free, and have rich people.
Dirt that you can turn into bricks or earthenware isn't worthless- and you owe the citizens of the country you dug it out of for it's worth, if you are being FAIR and not a PARASITE. You can't have freedom without eliminating profit.
I'm not saying that exploitation doesn't happen, but the getting rich doesn't necessarily mean robbing the poor.
Find another example then- because profit is the difference between paying a fair wage and charging a just price, and being a parasite.
Slashdot Mirror
Does the name "Warren Buffet" mean anything to you, sunshine?
Yep, made his money on the short term view, turning over stocks every three months, and dumping entire country's currencies when they go bad (like he recently dumped the dollar). That's why the stock market is an evil to stay the hell away from.
Some managers take a short-term view, some take a long term view. The market offers a myriad of choices to the investor, and we can pick the companies whose managers are doing what we want them to do.
Managers who take the long term view, and whose companies are in the stock market, find their stocks worth pennies because everybody shorts them.
Exactly right- which is why I said missing data. The one article we CAN get to only says there was a CD, not how many tracks there were or the length of said tracks. But this is equal opportunity missing information- for the person who wrote the article summary also has no clue how many tracks there are; I'm just stating that $1.8 million seems rather LOWBALL given the other numbers.
The blog postings seem to be missing, and I can't figure out how he reached a number as low as $1.8 million. If we assume an average of 5 minutes per song, and an 80 minute CDR, that comes to 16 tracks, which at $150,000/track comes to $2.4 million.
I thought about switching to a web-based voicemail for just this reason, but 1xRTT data coverage is much spottier than voice coverage - if I'm roaming data is useless.
Hate to say it, but iPhone's visual voicemail feature requires data coverage- otherwise you just get the voicemail indicator bit & count, not the message envelopes.
Oh, they're using the words in a different fashion than I'm used to. Yeah, web-based voicemail boxes have been common on T-Mobile and Verizon for a while now, with downloadable MP3 copies of your voicemail. I personally haven't used it becuase I think it's a waste of bandwidth- you need either a good data plan in an EDGE/3G supported area, or a local wifi hotspot for it to actually be usefull.
I thought you meant REAL video voicemail- sending VIDEO MP4 files as voicemail. Boy, what a rip.
To put it another way, for a million pounds I'd take my phone (and I actually have a phone I don't wanna smash, a nice Moto L6) and boil it in fetid elephant dung, run it through a meat grinder, and feed it to a goat.
I'd do the same for about $500- the cost of replacing the phone.
No, I meant a reference to the old joke about the best part of sex for a woman is lying together talking afterwards. Since you can talk on a mobile phone.....
OK, try this one- going public automatically destroys any entrapreneur's long term goals for a company, because he has now lost ownership in that company, even if he keeps 51% share of the stock, he now has to answer to the investors as dictated by the SEC.
This makes a company effectively a psychopath- with one goal in mind, increased quarterly profit, regardless of what that does to the rest of society.
Cool, point me at one that has visual voicemail - I could really use that and Cingular has poor service here. Is it on a Verizon-supported phone?
T-Mobile supports it- I'd think that the Cingular 8125 would be able to send Video Voice Mail, as it is essentially the same phone as my T-Mobile MDA, unless Cingular has actively blocked that for some reason. Most of the HTC Windows Mobile Smart Phones should be capable of it, regardless of what the carrier has rebranded them to. All of them are capable of taking 1.3 Megapixel MP4 Video- and all of them have Pocket Outlook, but it's up to the individual carrier to actually hook up MMS to Outlook, so I'm not sure for other carriers than mine.
I'll agree that having GPS is nice on vacation, especially to be able to map your hiking routes before hand, and see where you actually went afterwards. But the cell phone, not so much. I do carry it on vacation, especially when out hiking or camping. It's rather amazing how many out of the way places get good signal. And in an emergency, that phone could be a life saver. Still, I don't exactly cry (or notice even) when I'm in a place without signal. I just turn it off, and throw is somewhere (lakes are especially tempting).
Heck, most of the time when I'm on vacation I switch off the phone part to save battery. The more radios you turn off on a Windows Mobile device, the more battery you have.
And the rest of the gadgets? Leave 'em at home. Now, part of this is that most of my vacations involve camping (drive up camping, I'm too fat and lazy to backpack anymore, and the only one of the people I go with who would consider doing it); and the last thing I need, when I am trying to get away from civilization, is some idiot blaring a reminder of that crap a few hundred feet away. The forest/desert have very nice and interesting sounds if you just stop and listen to them. And anyone bringing a laptop/TV/DVD player deserves a beating with a stick. I enjoy sitting around a camp fire watching the flames and hearing the sounds of the sap popping and good conversation with friends, music detracts from that.
With a Windows Mobile Phone, I have no need for any other gadgets. Got the laptop/Windows Media Video/MP3/MP4 player built in. But I still agree with you- turn the damn thing off, save your batteries, listen to nature.
Either they aren't getting it anyway, so it's not a loss for them; or they only asked prudes. If my choice in High School had been talking on the phone or sex, I'd have been pants-less before they finished asking the question.
Either that or they were female, and realize that you can get the best part of sex out of a phone (at least for women).
Many people have said that, and here's my answer to it- my companies will NEVER go public. Going public is *ALWAYS* a mistake for any company, it changes the planing from long term (and my companies plan CENTURIES ahead) to short term (Quarterly report to satisfy the investors). The closest I've ever come to issuing stock was The Oregon Project- and that stock is restricted from being resold (though it can be gifted and inherited), and the only thing it grants you so far is access to the message board of the investing club to suggest what to put pooled money into. Even that is looking centuries ahead- by the charter we only put money into retail companies that are using technology to gain an advantage over the competition by reducing headcount.
Profit isn't the point of The Oregon Project- nobody will ever see a dime back from their investment in it- the point is to buy up land and natural resources so when human labor is no longer required in a couple of centuries, our kids will have land to live on and a bargaining chip with the multinationals that will replace government.
It's not only just a phone, at least 3 other operating systems and 20 other manufacturers have delivered EXACTLY the same functionality in their high end phones over the last 5 years. I would not want to go without mine, even on vacation, but then again I actually USE mine on vacation (as I've got a bluetooth GPS module and iNavigator installed on my Windows Mobile Smart Phone- it's amazing what that database calls a "Point of Interest" under Entertainment). Some of my best stops and side trips have come from that.
To answer the question in TFA (which is just a repeat of the Register's finding that teenagers would rather give up SEX than their phone for a month) is when you are with another human being and fail to put the phone on vibrate/let everything go to voice mail. Voice Mail, SMS, and E-mail are SUPPOSED to be asynchronous forms of communication- that means you can put the phone down and drive, or actually talk to other people once in a while. USE the technology, don't let the technology ABUSE you.
Incentive can be achieved with *any* difference in salary. It doesn't take a 400% increase to achieve incentive- a 10% increase will do just as well.
I had the same thought- Snapstream or TitanTV ought to come out with a *paid* MythTV plugin at this point. It's not like they don't already have the listings.
Why, just to assuage your fear and ignorance?
No, because you assert it's state's rights to govern corporations- thus shouldn't the corporation's corporate papers be limited to the issuing state?
My, you are thick, aren't you? Steve Jobs is compensated with my full consent, and that of an overwhelming majority of my fellow shareholders. He's done an incredible job, and we shareholders are considerably richer as a result.
Yes, but you'd be even richer if you paid him the same wages as the lowest factory worker in China. Or did that not occur to you?
Incorporation is a matter of state law, and the constitution doesn't prohibit the states from creating corporations, as they had been doing for quite a long time before the constitution was ratified.
Yes, but in that case, shouldn't a corporation be limited to doing business in the state in which it was incorporated?
Your statement presumes that the earnings of a company belong to the state, rather than its owners,
Look at your money sometime- it's signed by the Tresurer of the United States, not the CEO of a company or it's owners. Earnings are only LENT to citizens to make economic transactions more efficient- money is ultimately owned by the government.
For my part, I'm quite happy with the results I'm getting from the management of the companies in which I've invested. In fact, I'd love to see how much more I could make if Apple had given Steve Jobs *two* airplanes.
Interesting. So you don't mind that Steve Jobs is stealing from you?
Looks like your mysterious 632 area code is really Manila, probably an outsourced call center in the Philipines.
Your topic is a Dupe, but a simple google search turned up these guys.
People are of course working longer hours, and many more women work today, largely because of the increased tax burden that comes with a government that's growing out of control. I'm not sure that our standard of living has in fact been falling for forty years, but it's certainly below where it could be if we cut the government back to its constitutional powers.
Would that include cutting out the completely unconstitutional act of creating artificial people through incorporation of businesses?
Very glib, but completely inaccurate. If you have a social security card, then you're someone who has been forced to pay into a bankrupt pyramid scheme. This is completely orthogonal to what the owners of a company choose to pay its executives.
The Social Security Trust Fund (bankrupt pyramid scheme to you) is partially invested in Treasury Bonds. Treasury Bonds are based upon the ability of the Federal Government to tax, which in turn is based on the ability of the Federal Government to regulate incorporation. So therefore, yes, each and every American is an "owner" of any company incorporated in America, and we should have a say in what companies "choose to pay their executives". In reality of course, neither shareholders nor the American public have any such say- CEOs are a closed society who serve on each other's board of directors and continually vote themselves largese from the treasury.
How is it fraud? There is no deception involved. They are making no claims, merely offering a lower price than their competitors.
A lower price based on a lie- then once the competitors go out of business, the prices go back up. That's the Wal-Mart way.
And even then, the customers have no obligation to shop local.
They do if they want to be masters of their own economy- masters of their own destity- instead of giving it away to foreigners who just want to make a profit.
You think it would be better if they did but that doesn't justify forcing them to do so.
I don't think it would be better- I KNOW it would be better. It's always better to do business with the guy you can kill if he cheats you- because it prevents him from cheating you.
It is the customers choosing to shop elsewhere that is allowing your business to fall.
And in so doing, they're cutting their own throats- because the multinational doesn't give a shit whether they live or die.
They aren't putting you out of business, they are merely no longer supporting it.
And in not supporting it, they're choosing to sell their very freedom to the multinationals.
The business that is now out competing yours is not doing anything to you.
Bullshit. They're lying to my customers.
Any regulation you want to put in to prevent it would be interference with the competing corporation or the customers. The only thing you actually have a legitimate right to do is change your own business practices.
In other words, the only legitimate right I have is to do what the multinationals have done- send my business overseas and say goodbye to any concept of a local community. They've taken away my right to have a local community, to have a local say in the laws of my own city.
Failure to help is not the same thing as causing harm. You appear to be conflating the 2 with the language you have chosen.
That's because implicit in the idea of a local community is citizens who help each other. Take that away, and you've killed the community. But that doesn't matter to the free traitors; they never cared about community to begin with, only profit.
I'm not sure if this discussion will be very productive. I think we have belief systems that are partially based on incompatible axioms, so it will be difficult to come to any sort of rational agreement. We seem to agree that we want to be left alone, but if you don't agree with the above line about harm and failure to help, we are guaranteed to come to different outcomes on everything else.
That's because you don't understand community- and the value of local community. Doesn't really matter, because concentrated wealth just creates violent revolution anyway.
Where did I say that if you don't use the government to interfere with them, it would be ok for them to interfere with you?
What else can stop them? After all, the multinational corporations ARE de facto governments.
Both sides have a right to be free from interference, if and only if they respect that right in others.
Trouble is, one side is a de facto government bent on it's own profit- and thus will NEVER respect that right in others.
Dude, which is why is should be totally illegal for anyone to buy from, or sell from any other city. It should be illegal to leave the city you are born, because you could buy and sell while you are gone! Only when we are living in tiny economicly isolated enclaves like people did in the 1600, can our economy survive!
Close- I'm definately a distributionist. Though it was more like 1300 when a man last had the right to own his means of production and followed moral law to treat customers and apprentices fairly.
If you start supporting government rights to interfere with other people, you have ceded your right to not have them interfere with you.
So a multinational corporation has more rights than a citizen in your point of view- because if you try to use the government to interfere with them, they'll just use the government to interfere with you right back. And if you don't try to use the government to interfere with them, they'll just interfere with you right back anyway.
What utter nonsense. Concentration of wealth in a free market is a result of finding out what your customers want, and supplying it.
If you were only doing that, and charging a fair price, and paying fair wages, your profit would be zero. The price would cover labor+parts, and you'd make your customers VERY happy supplying it....but you wouldn't get rich. Concentration of wealth requires *overcharging* for what your customers want while *underpaying* to supply it.
The real problem is that word "Steal". In no way have they stolen something. Stealing implies taking something that someone else owns. You do NOT own your customer's money, and them withdrawing the voluntary support they previously provided is their action, not the fault of the competitor.
Depends upon if the competitor commited fraud or not to gain that business. Certainly using profits from one region to put people in another region out of business is a form of fraud.
Sorry, but no it isn't. Consider the Wilt Chamberlain paradox. First, everything is spread evenly among everybody. This gives everyone say $10,000 to with as they please. Now consider a million people want spend a dollar to watch Wilt Chamberlain play basketball. Mr Chamberlain now has a million dollars, and all the people that paid him the money are only short a buck. An amount they probably could have lost in thier sofa cushions. What if Wilt then decides to build a place for his fans to sit comfortably while he plays? A stadium of sorts. Now the contractors he hires to build the statium have more money than thier fellow citizens. This attracts more fans, and Wilt is even richer than before. But no-one is out more than a handfull of dollars, and Wilt is the richest person on the planet. The point being, that there is a concentration of wealth with no exploitation. No parasitic behavior. No enslaving your fellow man. Wilt just wanted to play basketball, the others saw a value in that and chipped in some money. The ones that didn't care, didn't give any money.
Well, let's say then that Wilt was actually charging a *fair price* to play basketball. He's only getting that (for the sake of argument) $10,000. Now everybody who pays to see him play are only paying $.01 for their ticket instead of $1. Which gives them $.99 to spend elsewhere in the community. Now Wilt builds the Stadium. He figures out what it cost to build (the contractors only get their $10,000 each also), and figures the Stadium will last 20 years. Divide cost to build by number of seats by 20, and that's the amount to add to the ticket price. FAIR pricing does not include profit. Profit is proof of parasitical behavior.
Also, economics isn't a zero sum game. For instance we can turn worthess dirt into valuable bricks or earthenware. Combine the non zero sum with that Wilt Chamberlain thing and we can be free, and have rich people.
Dirt that you can turn into bricks or earthenware isn't worthless- and you owe the citizens of the country you dug it out of for it's worth, if you are being FAIR and not a PARASITE. You can't have freedom without eliminating profit.
I'm not saying that exploitation doesn't happen, but the getting rich doesn't necessarily mean robbing the poor.
Find another example then- because profit is the difference between paying a fair wage and charging a just price, and being a parasite.