This isn't as silly as it seems; it's standard corporate behaviour.
The flaw that you fail to realize rests with your 'seasoned admin' vs 'trained money' distinction. Most corporations, let alone management, can't tell the difference. Furthermore, the vast majority of employees in any field are more closer to 'trained monkey' than 'seasoned admin' category--this goes for any job in any field.
In addition, certain businesses do not have the expertise. The modern trend is to outsource everything and only worry about your core competence. In such a case, you cannot expect your employees to be able to solve things as easily as the vendor.
I've had the pleasure of working with experienced sysadmins who know the drill and can resolve problems more quickly than the vendor. I myself have figured things out where the vendor was flailing.
That doesn't mean anything. If anything, that's what corporations expect of their employees. Obviously your first approach is to attempt to solve it with internal resources (i.e. company people). The vendor should only be contacted as a last resort.
The employees should try their best to resolve problems, and often they themselves can solve it quicker than an external entity. However, having a support contract mitigates risk. It's all about risk.
I think if open-source software is to gain popularity (particularly in the enterprise environment), they must all provide corporate support.
Regardless of what you think, corporations are all about minimizing risk and shifting blame onto someone else. Having a support contract is almost a minimum at many large corporations. If there is a problem, management would like to have the confidence that some specialist outside the organization will be helping--or more likely, blamed for the problems. It is much easier for management to blame another company than themselves. Which seems more easy to defend:
"hmm... my team is working as much as they can on it. It'll be resolved soon"
OR
"The problem is being dealt with. Our vendor (insert name; say Novell) is providing a resolution."
I don't think anyone is questioning The Independent; people are only wondering about Rense. Everyone pretty much knows that Rense is a pro-fascist website (one just needs to peruse a few of their articles on the main page and people's commentaries). So, the mainstream crowd (who are not aligned with Rense's econopolitical stance) DO have a reason to question it.
Why would the submitter of this story not cite The Independent directly (even though it requires subscription)? When was the last time you quoted an indirect website to justify something. Something is amiss...
BTW, this is not the first time rense has been linked. It was referenced before too but I found that previous time more relevant (the story was over some conspiracy theory of aliens on Mars--search slashdot if you missed that story). I still would be sceptical of rense in any circumstance but the previous story was "better".
India, like most developing countries, is highly corrupt. It is nothing more than a kleptocracy. This pretty much means that families are what matter. If your parent, or their relative, or whatever, was popular, you are sure to be considered. If you are a nobody, tough luck.
People just blindly trust a person due to their family history... it could also be due to culture. In most Asian cultures, family is more important than the individual. You'll get a free pass if your family is renowed; whereas in European cultures, family isn't so important.
As a side note, the name Gandhi is very popular. So that is also one reason many people have that name. The politicians named Gandhi are not related to Mahatma Gandhi...
With that line of thinking, why not have one party state? One "centrist" party will solve the problem all together, no?
The flaw with your opinion is that you fail to realize that the more parties you have, the greater the number of opinions, and hence dissent. The more the dissent, the more likely something will be thought out and debated.
Even though goverments may fall apart under British-style systems, it is much better. Isreali government, for example, might fall apart but that is actually a good thing. The reason it happen is because the issue at hand is very important (at least from their perspective). In a one party, or two party state (like USA), such important debates will be watered down. I'm sure the two parties will "agree" and just end up passing a bill. For instance, consider how the existence of only two parties (that get more than 1% vote) means that something like war (say the Iraqi war) has zero dissent. Both the Democrats and the Republicans "agree" on everything. There might be some rhetoric one way or another but in the end it's all the same. In contrast, countries with more viable parties are far more democratic. Things like wars won't get a free pass with everyone "agreeing" on everything.
(SIDE NOTE: I put agree in quotes because parties never agree in words. However, they do agree in practice under two party systems. For example, Kerry doesn't agree with Bush's Iraqi war if you just listen to his rhetoric. But in reality, he agrees with everyting Bush has done. In fact, he even voted for nearly all of Bush's decisions).
Well by that definition hardly any institution is capitalist. The Central Banks, for instance, always manipulate currencies. Are you saying they are not capitalist either?
I'm not a capitalist so you need to ask the capitalists who control earth;)
My view is that the world will shift towards pure capitalism (assuming capitalism doesn't collapse). This will mean that everything will be privatized, including the moon. My impression of capitalism is that you can privatize names, concepts, ideas, etc. This is why you can patent scientific discoveries, genetically engineered plants, books, brands, etc.
You took the standard capitalist line of thinking; I'm going to take the standard socialist line of thinking.
Actually, it's the exactly other way around. What created a middle class was having a surplus of goods for that middle class to buy. If you tried creating a middle class during, say, the middle ages, the surplus that the middle class could buy would have just made everyone else starve.
Actually, you COULD have had a middle class in the Middle Ages. The existence of the middle class is mainly driven by politics and distribution of wealth. The reason you didn't have a big middle class in 1500's (Europe) is because the monarchs and the aristocrats hoarded all the wealth. In contrast, some other areas of the world (Middle East and to some degree China and India) had a sizeable middle class (although still nowhere near modern levels).
Another example to refute your point is Industrial Europe (particularly Britain). If what you were saying were true, a large middle class would have automatically popped up during the 1800's (during Industrial Revolution). Goods production ramped up, productivity increased, etc. Instead, the middle class during that period was tiny. The middle class only materialized (1900's) when wealth distribution was flattened, so that lower classes shared more wealth.
The primary problem was, is, and always will be, distribution of wealth. As long as a small segment of the population controls everything, the existence of a middle class is not possible. If Britain still had monarchy*, I am pretty sure there wouldn't be such a big middle class. Same thing with USA, and others.
In the global scheme of things, it's just a means in the circulation of products and resources. No more, no less. What counts is how much stuff can your population buy, not how money do they earn.
Money (aka capital) is the most important thing under capitalism! No if's or but's! Seperating the quantity purchased from disposable income is pointless in my opinion. They are both related to each other. If real income increases (adjusted for inflation), the greater the quantity consumption; and vice versa. I don't see the point of seperating the two.
Don't believe me? Some of the communist regimes tried fixing prices without regards to the salaries and production capacity. The only thing that resulted was a shortage of goods. There just was less stuff on the market than the people had money for.
True but the opposite was true as well: too many goods and too low consumption. The problem with the "communist" countries was that they messed up their allocation. This, unfortunately, resulted in shortages and excesses (sometimes resulting in massive deaths or goods spoilages/waste). I don't think you can really use the "Communist example" for your argument since these governments did not optimally allocate resources. The "Communist example" neither proves nor disproves your argument.
And I fail to see how a worldwide increase in goods production is a bad thing. On the whole, the number of tons of consumer goods produced worldwide is raising. Someone has to buy those. Salaries will increase or prices will drop, but either way, someone will afford to buy more stuff out of their salary.
It can always be bad for non-economic reasons (for example, consumption increase results in massive pollution--wait 50 years and see what will happen to oil consumption, CO2 emissions, sulfur emissions, etc). However, let's ignore all that since many here aren't environmentalists...
Worldwide increase in consumption is good--I have no problems with that. However, if this comes at circumventing worker rights/environmental regulations/etc, and if this results in impoverishing the middle class in developed countries**, it cannot be a good thing. In the short term, people may benefit. But in the long term, it will not be good.
(* I don't think the modern monarchy can truly be con
Argentina did have corruption problems and so forth. However, they were not its biggest problem. Capitalists simply screwed up. Argentina's entire economy was run by capitalists in USA (and IMF). Some economist in USA had more control of Argentina than even an Argentinian politician.
Argentina was the poster boy of capitalism in the 90's. If you don't believe me, check out some articles from the popular business press at that time. But when things unravelled, the blame was pinned on corruption and other factors which had less impact than the capitalist policies.
I don't think there can be any true capitalist. That's nothing more than an oxymoron. Since capitalists are driven by profits (i.e. money), they'll do anything for it. For instance, nearly all capitalists attempt to manipulate politics. It is not a coincidence that politicians receive more funding from corporations (and other capitalist entities) in a country like USA (which is more capitalist) than in a country like Mexico (which is less capitalist).
In other words, no capitalist in real life would accept losing money. Therefore, they will do whatever is necessary to prevent the market from "working against" him/her.
Capitalism calls for privatization of EVERYTHING (except courts). If you are a (pure) capitalist, you would be in favour of privatizing anything. This can include electricity utilities, schools, hospitals, roads, parks, rivers, trees, animals, etc ( simple principle regarding environment here).
The world is not practicing pure capitalism so all of it hasn't happened. However, the world is shifting towards pure capitalism. So things like parks are being privatized (check out Bush's plan to privatize American parks), schools are being privatized (applies to almost any country), animals are being privatized (genetic rights allows corporations to own newly created biological beings--so far it has only applied to simple organisms (like plants--look up the Monsato controversy) but it will likely include mammals in the future). Owning the moon may seem ludricrous to you but capitalism calls for privatizing it. It's just that it hasn't happened right now. However, I will guarantee you that the moon will be ownd by some private entities in a few hundread years (assuming capitalism is around--I think it will collapse).
Under capitalism, everything is supposed to be privately owned. That's a result of capitalism, just like how under socialism, communism, and anarchism, everything is supposed to be owned by the "common good" or society (usually represented by government or communes).
I have just talked about physical entities so far. The same applies to intangible things like "intellectual property", "thoughts", styles, fashion, etc. There is no difference between physical and mental entities--at least according to capitalism. For example, you will be sued in a similar manner whether you steal a company's (private) financial statements or its (private) computers. The courts--and consequently societies under capitalism--see no difference. Everything is private property according to capitalism.
Under capitalism, patents, copyrights, IP (intellectual property) rights, etc are just as strongly protected as tangible property like buildings, capital/money, or houses.
You may think what I am saying is a bunch of nonsense. You might think that capitalism has nothing to do with privatizing mental concepts. You are mistaken.
Perhaps a very good example that is similar to the IP/copyright/DRM stuff is stock market indices. Financial institutions are the heart of capitalism so you can be sure that anything that they support is due to capitalism. How many of you know that a stock market index, like S&P 500, is owned by some corporation? An index is just a collection of stocks and anyone can make it up. But the fact that these things are owned essentially means that it is plausible for anyone to own IP, patents, DRM rights, etc. So it is actually a result of capitalism that mental constructs are owned.
Based on your thoughts you don't seem like a capitalist to me. Or perhaps you are not a pure capitalist. You may be a quasi-capitalist who supports some non-capitalist ideals. For instance, your comment "I just don't think there should be artificial government decrees that say people can own ideas beyond the right of recognition and the right to protect personal privacy" essentially implies that you are not a capitalist. Capitalism actually calls for governments to protect rights, however arbitrary, and capitalism has nothing to do with privacy. Things like privacy, human rights, environmental rights, etc have nothing to do with capitalism.
I never said it wasn't capitalist. Of course it's capitalist. I don't know of many nations still using barter and trade.
Capitalism can still use barter & trade (it can be free market after all).
Why am I not out protesting? Who the heck wants to be one of those freaks getting nailed with a rubber bullet? Peaceful protests? My butt. Society doesn't have many circuses left. Modern society has protests for entertainment.
By refusing to protest, you have given up one of the few ways you can influence the plutocrats. We didn't get to where we were without taking action. The freedom of speech that you take for granted did not come from just hanging around doing nothing. Having said all this, there is a cost to protesting (on top of the bullets and beatings, you might get blacklisted by the govt). If you don't want to accept those costs, that's fine BUT you must admit that nothing is going to change.
As for this being my government. All I have to say is,"Hardly." Democracy is rigged. You do know that, don't you?
Precisely why you need to protest, convince others, etc. When the system is flawed, you have to consider other strategies...
Corporations are not the result of capitalism. Even barter and trade systems had corporations. They existed mainly in shipping and distributing because that's all there really was for business back in that era.
Corporation as a type of ownership has nothing to do with capitalism (it's just a type of ownership that is even permissible under socialism). However, what people call corporations nowadays, with the wealth, power and influence, is a direct result of capitalism. It is not a coincidence that a country like USA, which is one of the most capitalist in the world, has more powerful corporations than anywhere else. For instance, US corporatiosn contribute more to politicial parties than in most other less capitalist countries. There is a reason why this is so. Obviously you disagree with the implications.
If you're trying to blame the existence of greed on the presence of a trade system which uses capital known as "capitalism", well, you might as well tie the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks on the position of the moon and stars on that particular day.
Capitalism rewards greed! I don't know how you can think otherwise. Again, it is not a coincidence that people in USA are more materialistic and greedy than less capitalist countries. It's the system!
Greed happens, bub. Don't blame me or say I'm wrong because of it. I'm just trying to find my next meal in this mess.
I'm not blaming YOU for the greed. All I'm saying is that greed is a manifestation of capitalism. It will exist under other systems but won't be as worse (or it can also be worse eg. monarchy). My disagreement with you is that you blame government when the problem is the system and all its actors...
Microsoft doesn't sell servers as far as I can tell, they sell software that runs on other people's servers. Sun sells servers.
I meant to say server software. Solaris vs Windows 2000/XP Server.
I've been working in a server industry in a while, and I've never heard of anyone describe those three products as being very comparable. People buy Oracle or DB2 because they need a more serious DB. That said, I'm doing my part to get postgres on that list.
Well this depends on a lot of factors. I agree that high-end stuff pretty much requires Oracle and others. For medium and low-end stuff, MS SQL Server is arguably better than others.
This is just uninformed. I was using free browsers before I ever heard of Internet Explorer.
This point is harder to prove. Mosaic? Lynx? I still think web browsers wouldn't be free and where they are today if MS or another company didn't enter the market. Yes, you can use Mosaic or whatever you want but it never would have been as good.
If monopolies generate the highest profit, why aren't people wanting to have their companies eaten by Microsoft? Monopolies generate high profit for the monopoly, and little profit for those it has swallowed.
Actually, a large number of start-ups and small companies are hoping to be bought out by larger ones. In general, it IS in the interest of the smaller company to be bought out. It all depends on details though. For instance, if someone is trying to rip you off (i.e. buyoug premium is low) then you clearly wouldn't sell your company.
As far as why all companies haven't merged together to form super-corporations, well there are a few reasons. First of all, what I am saying will generally transpire under (pure) capitalism. The world is not really a capitalist society yet. There are a lot of socialist ideals in place (for example, anti-trust regulations). However, the day WILL come when a few companies dominate.
In addition, a new market starts off as perfect competition. If you can create a market selling sand from Iraq for hundreads of dollars, there will be lots of competition (as soon as the market is established and word spreads). So at this early stage it may not be a monoploly or oligopoly. However later on, it's end up as an oligopoly or monopoly.
Lastly, it is also possible that certain small markets (niche markets) are not attractive to large companies. Small companies in these markets won't be taken over. BUT I do think that these markets will be monopolized and oligopolized in the long term (say hundreads of years).
It's not, and I didn't say that. It's 'merely' the primary human trait exposed where business and economy is concerned.
I don't know about business and economics but when it comes to humans as living entities, I say cooperation is the primary trait. Like I said, we wouldn't have developed religion, courts, schools, and libraries, among others, without cooperation playing the major role. If competition was the primary trait, we would have had privatized schools, privatized libraries, and so forth.
...it is there for the good of the people (whatever happened to government for the people, by the people?:( )...
Well that was always a fantasy more than reality. Elites have always controlled governments. I claim that the people have never really controlled goverments. Nowadays, instead of the elites and the aristocrats, replace them with plutocrats, capitalists, and corporations.
...and not for the good of the corporations (who really gives a ____ about the corporations, anyways)...
I think the corporations themselves do;) Since I claim that corporations heavily influence and control goverments, it only follows that these governments defend corporations.
Legally, yes.:(
Physically, and in all other respects, no.
Since the legal system is what rules people, perhaps if the corporations were physically people but not legally, it would be a better scenario;)
Their employees? You mean Steve Ballmer? Or does somebody besides Bill and Steve work at M$? Not that we've ever heard of anyway.
I don't think highly of Ballmer... but Bill Gates, regardless of what you think, is a visionary! He has innovative ideas, and tries pushing MS in intersting directions. It doesn't always work but he does a much better than many in the tech industry. Companies like IBM, Sun, Oracle, etc lack visionaries.
Their marketing is straight from the Heinrich Himmler school of Social Development.
Well that's a good thing in the business world, I suppose. Marketing is nothing more than brainwashing the consumers and if MS is doing as good a job as one of the top propagandists of all time, I think that's a good sign for Microsoft. Perhaps companies like Apple need to follow the same strategies...
Their products suck. It's true, no matter how much the M$ Certified suckers might scream.
Most of the MS certified professionals likely care less about MS or its products. Most of these guys are just in it for the money.
In any case, MS DOES make good products. Stop laughing; I'm serious. Here are some of MS' top products:
DOS/Windows: Both DOS and Windows are/were inferior to the competition. DOS is a total joke compared to UNIX and Windows was worse than Apple Macintosh and OS/2. However, they both were better for consumers. Both of these were easy to use, quick to boot up, and simple. Those were the reasons why they dominated. I mean, someone could have introduced another OS instead of DOS at that time (even IBM could have) but they never did. Windows, for all its shortcomings, is an easy to use OS that supports a ton of hardware devices. Even linux does not compare to Windows on the desktop (for servers linux is better IMO).
Office: MS Office is FAR better than the competition. Wordperfect and Lotus Suite had the advantage but why did they lose? It's because Office is far superior to those. In particular, Excel and Powerpoint were far better than its competition. If Office isn't superior to the rest why did so many people/businesses buy it? You could have easily went with Lotus or Wordperfect yet people did not.
MS Encarta: MS Encarta is the best encyclopedia bar none. There is just no comparison. It is way beyond the rest. It is such a good product.
MS SQL Server: SQL Server is a pretty good database. MS went from 0% to capture around 30%(?) of the marketshare. How did they do this? If SQL Server wasn't good, do you think enterprises would spend hundreads of thousands of dollars and depends on it for critical data?
Visual Studio: This is a total joke. Visual Studio is FAR better than any other IDE. It was such a good product that programmers, perhaps for the first time, started basing the language decisions on the IDE (i.e. Visual Studio's C++ and its MFC was decided upon simply because of Visual Studio). Even now, many programmers avoid developing for Apple, Linux, Playstation, etc because Visual Studio isn't available.
Internet Explorer: IE sucks. I never liked it. I used Netscape in the early days and Firefox now. However, IE did accomplish something: it made web browsers free. Without IE, it is unlikely that web browsers would be free.
MS Mouse, MS optical mouse, MS Sidewinder joystick: All of these were decent products. If they weren't how come they are so popular? Why were MS optical mouse the most popular at one time?
So there you have it... some superior products from MS. Of all these, if I had to pick 3, I think the best MS products are Visual Studio, MS Office (especially Excel), and Encarta.
Wal-mart is going to be sued by the US government within 15 years. Wait and see... Wal-mart is pretty bad but it's a different industry. So, Wal-mart doesn't really prevent products from interoperating with others, etc.
The reason other companies haven't been sued is because they are more corrupt and hence influence government more directly. For instance, ever wonder why Arthur Anderson (accounting firm that helped Enron hide its illegal activities) got off without any serious penalty? In case you haven't figured it out, it's because the accounting lobby has massive influence over the US government. In contrast, Microsoft is much cleaner. It became rich by being lucky and developing a good product. Bill Gates, as much as you may hate him, hasn't been known to be involved with US politicians. Therefore, MS is an easy target.
USA is practicing capitalism. It may not be (pure) capitalism (or a perfect free market) but it is closer to it than any other sizeable country.
Besides, it is YOUR government. Why aren't you out there protesting and influencing the government? Why aren't you tryin to change policies?
Also, why don't you move to a more capitalist country*? Why not move to Bahamas, Monaco, or Switzerland (like all wealthy people do)? Check out what it means to live in a low-tax country that you dream.
I'm not going to get into your anti-government argument. Suffice to say, I completely disagree with your view**. In any case, it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, which is monopolies and oligopolies.
(* Obviously I'm not asking you to move to another country per se. USA is your homeland so if you want to stay that's fine. However, if taxes are so bad, why don't you go and live in Bahamas for a short while to see how it is? Low taxes and capitalism is what you desire no?)
(** You also fail to realize that corporations, which are the result of capitalism, are hte ones that heavily influence and control governments like USA. Too bad you don't realize it. Your free market has created these "monsters" which are even more powerful than you are. Stop coming up with excuses regarding government and admit that your free market benefitiaries, namely corporations, have enslaved you).
Except for Microsoft, the only monopolies that still exist in free markets are those that started out as a monopoly in their market. Can you name any company besides Microsoft that has emerged into a monopoly by taking over a free market?
There are many markets which are being monopolized and oligopolized. For example, there are less media companies now than ever. Around 10 media companies control 90% of US media! If that isn't an oligopoly, I don't know what is. It never started out that way. And don't bring up the capitalist excuse of government intervention.
Another example is the auto industry. Due to the mergers in the 90's, there are fewer car companies now than, say the mid 1900's. It would not surprise me if all these companies merge again and end up with 3 or 4 large companies. Such an oligopoly has nothing to do with government intervention.
Airplane manufacturers is yet another example. Boeing and Airbus control pretty much all the commercial manufacturing of airplanes. Throw in McDonald-Douglas, Bombardier, etc and you have less than 10 companies responsible for the vast majority of commericial and industrial airplanes (military is still an exception due to government restrictions). Around a 100 years ago, you had tens to hundreads of airplane manufacturers. How come you only have a few now?
The same thing is happening in retailing. Wal-mart is pretty much driving everyone else out of business. Wal-mart, in my opinion, can destroy any retailer out there. In 20 years, there will be less retailers and they will resemble an oligopoly, or perhaps even a monopoly (although I don't think a monopoly will materialiaze).
You can also look at the financial sector. There are only a few accounting firms that are responsible for everything. Only a few brokerages that dominate the world. Even when it comes to banks, a few dominate*. If anything, these banks are calling for governments to deregulate them and let them merge (this is definitely the case in Canada). I will bet you that there will be 3 major banks in Canada that are responsible for 95% of the assets. Eventually, you'll end up with a few for the whole world.
You, my dear capitalist friend, are living in a fantasy. To you, goverment is the evil that creates monopolies and oligopolies. Unfortunately, you don't realize that ALL BUSINESSES attempt to monopolize their markets. They do this because monopolies generate the most profits for the business (basic economics; the opposite, perfect competition, generates the least profits). Government is not what creates monopolies and oligopolies; it's the corporations themselves!!!
(* In USA this is not really true. But the rest of the world is dominated by a few banks)
Why do you say Windows rips off people? Last time I checked, Apple is charging more than Windows. Also, SUN charges way more for its servers than MS does for its servers. And how about MS SQL server vs Oracle vs IBM DB2? Also, let's not forget that internet browsers would not have been free if it weren't for Internet Explorer.
Wal-mart is worse because it bullies everyone. The prices may be cheap but it exploits workers all over the place. It forces its suppliers to cater to its wishes, and so on. Wal-mart can also put any other retailer out of business more easily than MS can.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't as silly as it seems; it's standard corporate behaviour.
The flaw that you fail to realize rests with your 'seasoned admin' vs 'trained money' distinction. Most corporations, let alone management, can't tell the difference. Furthermore, the vast majority of employees in any field are more closer to 'trained monkey' than 'seasoned admin' category--this goes for any job in any field.
In addition, certain businesses do not have the expertise. The modern trend is to outsource everything and only worry about your core competence. In such a case, you cannot expect your employees to be able to solve things as easily as the vendor.
I've had the pleasure of working with experienced sysadmins who know the drill and can resolve problems more quickly than the vendor. I myself have figured things out where the vendor was flailing.
That doesn't mean anything. If anything, that's what corporations expect of their employees. Obviously your first approach is to attempt to solve it with internal resources (i.e. company people). The vendor should only be contacted as a last resort. The employees should try their best to resolve problems, and often they themselves can solve it quicker than an external entity. However, having a support contract mitigates risk. It's all about risk.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think if open-source software is to gain popularity (particularly in the enterprise environment), they must all provide corporate support.
Regardless of what you think, corporations are all about minimizing risk and shifting blame onto someone else. Having a support contract is almost a minimum at many large corporations. If there is a problem, management would like to have the confidence that some specialist outside the organization will be helping--or more likely, blamed for the problems. It is much easier for management to blame another company than themselves. Which seems more easy to defend:
"hmm... my team is working as much as they can on it. It'll be resolved soon"
OR
"The problem is being dealt with. Our vendor (insert name; say Novell) is providing a resolution."
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't think anyone is questioning The Independent; people are only wondering about Rense. Everyone pretty much knows that Rense is a pro-fascist website (one just needs to peruse a few of their articles on the main page and people's commentaries). So, the mainstream crowd (who are not aligned with Rense's econopolitical stance) DO have a reason to question it.
Why would the submitter of this story not cite The Independent directly (even though it requires subscription)? When was the last time you quoted an indirect website to justify something. Something is amiss...
BTW, this is not the first time rense has been linked. It was referenced before too but I found that previous time more relevant (the story was over some conspiracy theory of aliens on Mars--search slashdot if you missed that story). I still would be sceptical of rense in any circumstance but the previous story was "better".
Sivaram Velauthapillai
India, like most developing countries, is highly corrupt. It is nothing more than a kleptocracy. This pretty much means that families are what matter. If your parent, or their relative, or whatever, was popular, you are sure to be considered. If you are a nobody, tough luck.
People just blindly trust a person due to their family history... it could also be due to culture. In most Asian cultures, family is more important than the individual. You'll get a free pass if your family is renowed; whereas in European cultures, family isn't so important.
As a side note, the name Gandhi is very popular. So that is also one reason many people have that name. The politicians named Gandhi are not related to Mahatma Gandhi...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
With that line of thinking, why not have one party state? One "centrist" party will solve the problem all together, no?
The flaw with your opinion is that you fail to realize that the more parties you have, the greater the number of opinions, and hence dissent. The more the dissent, the more likely something will be thought out and debated.
Even though goverments may fall apart under British-style systems, it is much better. Isreali government, for example, might fall apart but that is actually a good thing. The reason it happen is because the issue at hand is very important (at least from their perspective). In a one party, or two party state (like USA), such important debates will be watered down. I'm sure the two parties will "agree" and just end up passing a bill. For instance, consider how the existence of only two parties (that get more than 1% vote) means that something like war (say the Iraqi war) has zero dissent. Both the Democrats and the Republicans "agree" on everything. There might be some rhetoric one way or another but in the end it's all the same. In contrast, countries with more viable parties are far more democratic. Things like wars won't get a free pass with everyone "agreeing" on everything.
(SIDE NOTE: I put agree in quotes because parties never agree in words. However, they do agree in practice under two party systems. For example, Kerry doesn't agree with Bush's Iraqi war if you just listen to his rhetoric. But in reality, he agrees with everyting Bush has done. In fact, he even voted for nearly all of Bush's decisions).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
lol computer users revolting against the computers ;)
Well by that definition hardly any institution is capitalist. The Central Banks, for instance, always manipulate currencies. Are you saying they are not capitalist either?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm not a capitalist so you need to ask the capitalists who control earth ;)
My view is that the world will shift towards pure capitalism (assuming capitalism doesn't collapse). This will mean that everything will be privatized, including the moon. My impression of capitalism is that you can privatize names, concepts, ideas, etc. This is why you can patent scientific discoveries, genetically engineered plants, books, brands, etc.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You took the standard capitalist line of thinking; I'm going to take the standard socialist line of thinking.
Actually, it's the exactly other way around. What created a middle class was having a surplus of goods for that middle class to buy. If you tried creating a middle class during, say, the middle ages, the surplus that the middle class could buy would have just made everyone else starve.
Actually, you COULD have had a middle class in the Middle Ages. The existence of the middle class is mainly driven by politics and distribution of wealth. The reason you didn't have a big middle class in 1500's (Europe) is because the monarchs and the aristocrats hoarded all the wealth. In contrast, some other areas of the world (Middle East and to some degree China and India) had a sizeable middle class (although still nowhere near modern levels).
Another example to refute your point is Industrial Europe (particularly Britain). If what you were saying were true, a large middle class would have automatically popped up during the 1800's (during Industrial Revolution). Goods production ramped up, productivity increased, etc. Instead, the middle class during that period was tiny. The middle class only materialized (1900's) when wealth distribution was flattened, so that lower classes shared more wealth.
The primary problem was, is, and always will be, distribution of wealth. As long as a small segment of the population controls everything, the existence of a middle class is not possible. If Britain still had monarchy*, I am pretty sure there wouldn't be such a big middle class. Same thing with USA, and others.
In the global scheme of things, it's just a means in the circulation of products and resources. No more, no less. What counts is how much stuff can your population buy, not how money do they earn.
Money (aka capital) is the most important thing under capitalism! No if's or but's! Seperating the quantity purchased from disposable income is pointless in my opinion. They are both related to each other. If real income increases (adjusted for inflation), the greater the quantity consumption; and vice versa. I don't see the point of seperating the two.
Don't believe me? Some of the communist regimes tried fixing prices without regards to the salaries and production capacity. The only thing that resulted was a shortage of goods. There just was less stuff on the market than the people had money for.
True but the opposite was true as well: too many goods and too low consumption. The problem with the "communist" countries was that they messed up their allocation. This, unfortunately, resulted in shortages and excesses (sometimes resulting in massive deaths or goods spoilages/waste). I don't think you can really use the "Communist example" for your argument since these governments did not optimally allocate resources. The "Communist example" neither proves nor disproves your argument.
And I fail to see how a worldwide increase in goods production is a bad thing. On the whole, the number of tons of consumer goods produced worldwide is raising. Someone has to buy those. Salaries will increase or prices will drop, but either way, someone will afford to buy more stuff out of their salary.
It can always be bad for non-economic reasons (for example, consumption increase results in massive pollution--wait 50 years and see what will happen to oil consumption, CO2 emissions, sulfur emissions, etc). However, let's ignore all that since many here aren't environmentalists...
Worldwide increase in consumption is good--I have no problems with that. However, if this comes at circumventing worker rights/environmental regulations/etc, and if this results in impoverishing the middle class in developed countries**, it cannot be a good thing. In the short term, people may benefit. But in the long term, it will not be good.
(* I don't think the modern monarchy can truly be con
Argentina did have corruption problems and so forth. However, they were not its biggest problem. Capitalists simply screwed up. Argentina's entire economy was run by capitalists in USA (and IMF). Some economist in USA had more control of Argentina than even an Argentinian politician.
Argentina was the poster boy of capitalism in the 90's. If you don't believe me, check out some articles from the popular business press at that time. But when things unravelled, the blame was pinned on corruption and other factors which had less impact than the capitalist policies.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't think there can be any true capitalist. That's nothing more than an oxymoron. Since capitalists are driven by profits (i.e. money), they'll do anything for it. For instance, nearly all capitalists attempt to manipulate politics. It is not a coincidence that politicians receive more funding from corporations (and other capitalist entities) in a country like USA (which is more capitalist) than in a country like Mexico (which is less capitalist).
In other words, no capitalist in real life would accept losing money. Therefore, they will do whatever is necessary to prevent the market from "working against" him/her.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm not a capitalist but here are my thoughts...
Capitalism calls for privatization of EVERYTHING (except courts). If you are a (pure) capitalist, you would be in favour of privatizing anything. This can include electricity utilities, schools, hospitals, roads, parks, rivers, trees, animals, etc ( simple principle regarding environment here).
The world is not practicing pure capitalism so all of it hasn't happened. However, the world is shifting towards pure capitalism. So things like parks are being privatized (check out Bush's plan to privatize American parks), schools are being privatized (applies to almost any country), animals are being privatized (genetic rights allows corporations to own newly created biological beings--so far it has only applied to simple organisms (like plants--look up the Monsato controversy) but it will likely include mammals in the future). Owning the moon may seem ludricrous to you but capitalism calls for privatizing it. It's just that it hasn't happened right now. However, I will guarantee you that the moon will be ownd by some private entities in a few hundread years (assuming capitalism is around--I think it will collapse).
Under capitalism, everything is supposed to be privately owned. That's a result of capitalism, just like how under socialism, communism, and anarchism, everything is supposed to be owned by the "common good" or society (usually represented by government or communes).
I have just talked about physical entities so far. The same applies to intangible things like "intellectual property", "thoughts", styles, fashion, etc. There is no difference between physical and mental entities--at least according to capitalism. For example, you will be sued in a similar manner whether you steal a company's (private) financial statements or its (private) computers. The courts--and consequently societies under capitalism--see no difference. Everything is private property according to capitalism.
Under capitalism, patents, copyrights, IP (intellectual property) rights, etc are just as strongly protected as tangible property like buildings, capital/money, or houses. You may think what I am saying is a bunch of nonsense. You might think that capitalism has nothing to do with privatizing mental concepts. You are mistaken.
Perhaps a very good example that is similar to the IP/copyright/DRM stuff is stock market indices. Financial institutions are the heart of capitalism so you can be sure that anything that they support is due to capitalism. How many of you know that a stock market index, like S&P 500, is owned by some corporation? An index is just a collection of stocks and anyone can make it up. But the fact that these things are owned essentially means that it is plausible for anyone to own IP, patents, DRM rights, etc. So it is actually a result of capitalism that mental constructs are owned.
Based on your thoughts you don't seem like a capitalist to me. Or perhaps you are not a pure capitalist. You may be a quasi-capitalist who supports some non-capitalist ideals. For instance, your comment "I just don't think there should be artificial government decrees that say people can own ideas beyond the right of recognition and the right to protect personal privacy" essentially implies that you are not a capitalist. Capitalism actually calls for governments to protect rights, however arbitrary, and capitalism has nothing to do with privacy. Things like privacy, human rights, environmental rights, etc have nothing to do with capitalism.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I never said it wasn't capitalist. Of course it's capitalist. I don't know of many nations still using barter and trade.
Capitalism can still use barter & trade (it can be free market after all).
Why am I not out protesting? Who the heck wants to be one of those freaks getting nailed with a rubber bullet? Peaceful protests? My butt. Society doesn't have many circuses left. Modern society has protests for entertainment.
By refusing to protest, you have given up one of the few ways you can influence the plutocrats. We didn't get to where we were without taking action. The freedom of speech that you take for granted did not come from just hanging around doing nothing. Having said all this, there is a cost to protesting (on top of the bullets and beatings, you might get blacklisted by the govt). If you don't want to accept those costs, that's fine BUT you must admit that nothing is going to change.
As for this being my government. All I have to say is,"Hardly." Democracy is rigged. You do know that, don't you?
Precisely why you need to protest, convince others, etc. When the system is flawed, you have to consider other strategies...
Corporations are not the result of capitalism. Even barter and trade systems had corporations. They existed mainly in shipping and distributing because that's all there really was for business back in that era.
Corporation as a type of ownership has nothing to do with capitalism (it's just a type of ownership that is even permissible under socialism). However, what people call corporations nowadays, with the wealth, power and influence, is a direct result of capitalism. It is not a coincidence that a country like USA, which is one of the most capitalist in the world, has more powerful corporations than anywhere else. For instance, US corporatiosn contribute more to politicial parties than in most other less capitalist countries. There is a reason why this is so. Obviously you disagree with the implications.
If you're trying to blame the existence of greed on the presence of a trade system which uses capital known as "capitalism", well, you might as well tie the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks on the position of the moon and stars on that particular day.
Capitalism rewards greed! I don't know how you can think otherwise. Again, it is not a coincidence that people in USA are more materialistic and greedy than less capitalist countries. It's the system!
Greed happens, bub. Don't blame me or say I'm wrong because of it. I'm just trying to find my next meal in this mess.
I'm not blaming YOU for the greed. All I'm saying is that greed is a manifestation of capitalism. It will exist under other systems but won't be as worse (or it can also be worse eg. monarchy). My disagreement with you is that you blame government when the problem is the system and all its actors...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't want to get into defending MS because that's not what I'm after. But anyway...
The price of Mac OS/X and Windows XP are the same. Check out the prices from Future Shop, a mainstream Canadian retailer:
OS/X $299
Windows XP Home $299
So the prices are similar.
Microsoft doesn't sell servers as far as I can tell, they sell software that runs on other people's servers. Sun sells servers.
I meant to say server software. Solaris vs Windows 2000/XP Server.
I've been working in a server industry in a while, and I've never heard of anyone describe those three products as being very comparable. People buy Oracle or DB2 because they need a more serious DB. That said, I'm doing my part to get postgres on that list.
Well this depends on a lot of factors. I agree that high-end stuff pretty much requires Oracle and others. For medium and low-end stuff, MS SQL Server is arguably better than others.
This is just uninformed. I was using free browsers before I ever heard of Internet Explorer.
This point is harder to prove. Mosaic? Lynx? I still think web browsers wouldn't be free and where they are today if MS or another company didn't enter the market. Yes, you can use Mosaic or whatever you want but it never would have been as good.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
If monopolies generate the highest profit, why aren't people wanting to have their companies eaten by Microsoft? Monopolies generate high profit for the monopoly, and little profit for those it has swallowed.
Actually, a large number of start-ups and small companies are hoping to be bought out by larger ones. In general, it IS in the interest of the smaller company to be bought out. It all depends on details though. For instance, if someone is trying to rip you off (i.e. buyoug premium is low) then you clearly wouldn't sell your company.
As far as why all companies haven't merged together to form super-corporations, well there are a few reasons. First of all, what I am saying will generally transpire under (pure) capitalism. The world is not really a capitalist society yet. There are a lot of socialist ideals in place (for example, anti-trust regulations). However, the day WILL come when a few companies dominate.
In addition, a new market starts off as perfect competition. If you can create a market selling sand from Iraq for hundreads of dollars, there will be lots of competition (as soon as the market is established and word spreads). So at this early stage it may not be a monoploly or oligopoly. However later on, it's end up as an oligopoly or monopoly.
Lastly, it is also possible that certain small markets (niche markets) are not attractive to large companies. Small companies in these markets won't be taken over. BUT I do think that these markets will be monopolized and oligopolized in the long term (say hundreads of years).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
It's not, and I didn't say that. It's 'merely' the primary human trait exposed where business and economy is concerned.
...it is there for the good of the people (whatever happened to government for the people, by the people? :( )...
...and not for the good of the corporations (who really gives a ____ about the corporations, anyways)...
;) Since I claim that corporations heavily influence and control goverments, it only follows that these governments defend corporations.
:(
Physically, and in all other respects, no.
;)
I don't know about business and economics but when it comes to humans as living entities, I say cooperation is the primary trait. Like I said, we wouldn't have developed religion, courts, schools, and libraries, among others, without cooperation playing the major role. If competition was the primary trait, we would have had privatized schools, privatized libraries, and so forth.
Well that was always a fantasy more than reality. Elites have always controlled governments. I claim that the people have never really controlled goverments. Nowadays, instead of the elites and the aristocrats, replace them with plutocrats, capitalists, and corporations.
I think the corporations themselves do
Legally, yes.
Since the legal system is what rules people, perhaps if the corporations were physically people but not legally, it would be a better scenario
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Their employees? You mean Steve Ballmer? Or does somebody besides Bill and Steve work at M$? Not that we've ever heard of anyway.
I don't think highly of Ballmer... but Bill Gates, regardless of what you think, is a visionary! He has innovative ideas, and tries pushing MS in intersting directions. It doesn't always work but he does a much better than many in the tech industry. Companies like IBM, Sun, Oracle, etc lack visionaries.
Their marketing is straight from the Heinrich Himmler school of Social Development.
Well that's a good thing in the business world, I suppose. Marketing is nothing more than brainwashing the consumers and if MS is doing as good a job as one of the top propagandists of all time, I think that's a good sign for Microsoft. Perhaps companies like Apple need to follow the same strategies...
Their products suck. It's true, no matter how much the M$ Certified suckers might scream.
Most of the MS certified professionals likely care less about MS or its products. Most of these guys are just in it for the money.
In any case, MS DOES make good products. Stop laughing; I'm serious. Here are some of MS' top products:
So there you have it... some superior products from MS. Of all these, if I had to pick 3, I think the best MS products are Visual Studio, MS Office (especially Excel), and Encarta.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Are you a troll?
Or are you a racist?
Or is this a joke?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Wal-mart is going to be sued by the US government within 15 years. Wait and see... Wal-mart is pretty bad but it's a different industry. So, Wal-mart doesn't really prevent products from interoperating with others, etc.
The reason other companies haven't been sued is because they are more corrupt and hence influence government more directly. For instance, ever wonder why Arthur Anderson (accounting firm that helped Enron hide its illegal activities) got off without any serious penalty? In case you haven't figured it out, it's because the accounting lobby has massive influence over the US government. In contrast, Microsoft is much cleaner. It became rich by being lucky and developing a good product. Bill Gates, as much as you may hate him, hasn't been known to be involved with US politicians. Therefore, MS is an easy target.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
USA is practicing capitalism. It may not be (pure) capitalism (or a perfect free market) but it is closer to it than any other sizeable country.
Besides, it is YOUR government. Why aren't you out there protesting and influencing the government? Why aren't you tryin to change policies?
Also, why don't you move to a more capitalist country*? Why not move to Bahamas, Monaco, or Switzerland (like all wealthy people do)? Check out what it means to live in a low-tax country that you dream.
I'm not going to get into your anti-government argument. Suffice to say, I completely disagree with your view**. In any case, it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, which is monopolies and oligopolies.
(* Obviously I'm not asking you to move to another country per se. USA is your homeland so if you want to stay that's fine. However, if taxes are so bad, why don't you go and live in Bahamas for a short while to see how it is? Low taxes and capitalism is what you desire no?)
(** You also fail to realize that corporations, which are the result of capitalism, are hte ones that heavily influence and control governments like USA. Too bad you don't realize it. Your free market has created these "monsters" which are even more powerful than you are. Stop coming up with excuses regarding government and admit that your free market benefitiaries, namely corporations, have enslaved you).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Except for Microsoft, the only monopolies that still exist in free markets are those that started out as a monopoly in their market. Can you name any company besides Microsoft that has emerged into a monopoly by taking over a free market?
There are many markets which are being monopolized and oligopolized. For example, there are less media companies now than ever. Around 10 media companies control 90% of US media! If that isn't an oligopoly, I don't know what is. It never started out that way. And don't bring up the capitalist excuse of government intervention.
Another example is the auto industry. Due to the mergers in the 90's, there are fewer car companies now than, say the mid 1900's. It would not surprise me if all these companies merge again and end up with 3 or 4 large companies. Such an oligopoly has nothing to do with government intervention.
Airplane manufacturers is yet another example. Boeing and Airbus control pretty much all the commercial manufacturing of airplanes. Throw in McDonald-Douglas, Bombardier, etc and you have less than 10 companies responsible for the vast majority of commericial and industrial airplanes (military is still an exception due to government restrictions). Around a 100 years ago, you had tens to hundreads of airplane manufacturers. How come you only have a few now?
The same thing is happening in retailing. Wal-mart is pretty much driving everyone else out of business. Wal-mart, in my opinion, can destroy any retailer out there. In 20 years, there will be less retailers and they will resemble an oligopoly, or perhaps even a monopoly (although I don't think a monopoly will materialiaze).
You can also look at the financial sector. There are only a few accounting firms that are responsible for everything. Only a few brokerages that dominate the world. Even when it comes to banks, a few dominate*. If anything, these banks are calling for governments to deregulate them and let them merge (this is definitely the case in Canada). I will bet you that there will be 3 major banks in Canada that are responsible for 95% of the assets. Eventually, you'll end up with a few for the whole world.
You, my dear capitalist friend, are living in a fantasy. To you, goverment is the evil that creates monopolies and oligopolies. Unfortunately, you don't realize that ALL BUSINESSES attempt to monopolize their markets. They do this because monopolies generate the most profits for the business (basic economics; the opposite, perfect competition, generates the least profits). Government is not what creates monopolies and oligopolies; it's the corporations themselves!!!
(* In USA this is not really true. But the rest of the world is dominated by a few banks)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I meant to say monopolies or oligopolies (as opposed to perfect competition). I think I wasn't clear enough...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
huh? I don't understand your last sentence... I'll check out your reference though...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I am influenced by Marx but didn't know he said that. Do you have any specific references?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Why do you say Windows rips off people? Last time I checked, Apple is charging more than Windows. Also, SUN charges way more for its servers than MS does for its servers. And how about MS SQL server vs Oracle vs IBM DB2? Also, let's not forget that internet browsers would not have been free if it weren't for Internet Explorer.
Wal-mart is worse because it bullies everyone. The prices may be cheap but it exploits workers all over the place. It forces its suppliers to cater to its wishes, and so on. Wal-mart can also put any other retailer out of business more easily than MS can.
Sivaram Velauthapillai