You do realize that Bill Gates contributes more to charities every year than 90% of the population makes in their life times?
If you exploit something to make your millions and then give away a portion of it, you are not being very charitable...
Think of it this way... If I cut down all the forests and eliminate all the endangered species, enriching myself by $2.7billion in the process, and then turn around and donate $700million, am I really being charitable and fair?
Absolute actions mean nothing when it comes to morality... a poor person giving half his bread is far more admirable than a rich person giving a full loaf of bread!!!
The amount must be huge. I am not familiar with the US university system but I haven't heard of too many cases where universities get $300m+ for one project.
Also, you can't really compare it to cars. Cars are a PROVEN commercial product. Meaning that you will get guaranteed profits (in the billions) once you have built the car, especially with the market cornered by 5 or so companies. A space exploration project has no commercial "benefits" so it is tough to sell that to the capitalists. In addition, there is no guarantee it will succeed. The probability of this project failing is FAR HIGHER than a new car.
I guess the best comparison is to compare money spent on space to the money spent on early cars (in the early 1900's). Did anyone spend hundreads of millions back then (adjusted for inflation)? Nope. If anything they probably spent $10-$20million rather than $200 to $300 million. It's just like the X prize right now, which is a commercial endeavour. The companies competing are spending less than $25m. Granted the competition limits the costs but even if they were free to spend, I doubt anyone would spend more than $150million on a project with no commercial money-making prospects...
This amount is HUGE... Only other govt projects (like military projects) ever give out this much to unproven missions...
Capitalism is the freedom to trade with others.Trade, not steal, extort, exploit, etc. Capitalism works much better in free societies than in non-free ones.
Clearly we have different definitions of freedom. To you, it seems that freedom is commerce-oriented. For instance, you would proably say that free market is equivalent to freedom. Whereas me, as well as most of the earth's population I suspect, will consider freedom to be entirely something else--the ability to do whatever one pleases, especially when it comes to speech, movement, etc.
Capitalism works much better in free societies than in non-free ones.
You cannot prove that. I already gave examples of it. Nazi Germany, for example, was very capitalist (it was run entirely by private individuals and corporations, including some help from US corproations like Ford and IBM). I'm guessing you would have considered Germany to be free, as in commerce.
The black markets you cited in South America doesn't prove any point. The dictatorships backed by USA (in Chile, etc) were actually more free (from an economic point of view) than non-dictatorships (eg. Mexico, etc at that time). The black markets existed but they were smaller in these dictatorships than in non-dictatorial countries.
In any case, looking at black markets is complicated and can be misleading. For instance, the black market in Russia (now) is FAR larger than it ever was under Communism (USSR). This is probably because totalitarian regimes can crush black markets more easily. In addition, there are different reasons for black markets. The blacks markets in USA and Canada are mostly there to trade illegal goods (eg. sex (i.e. prostitution), drugs, illegal immigrant rings, etc). In contrast, black markets in South America and many other developing countries are there to avoid paying taxes/import duties/etc. People can literally get the "same" goods in the open market but it is cheaper on the black market (eg. music CDs). I don't think we should be going into black markets because they are complicated and misleading.
There are many areas of freedom.
I can see how people would have different views of what freedom is (eg. people in Middle East consider themselves free but I disagree). I only have ONE definition of freedom: the ability to move around freely, communicate with others, speak freely, etc. I'm anti-capitalist and don't consider free markets to be "free". Just because corporate oligopolies have control over you (instead of a government, or a king, or a dictator) doesnt' mean you are free... I doubt that you will agree with me but hopefully you'll realize that we are nothing more than economic slaves right now! All you capitalism-worshippers are going down...
So are you saying that property rights exist simply to allocate resources efficiently? Can you prove that private property, for instance, is more effective than public property? In any case, your original argument is moot because even with physical property you end up with monopolies.
I guess your real argument is not monopoly but rather innovation or preventing others from developing the same thing (I guess)....
Red Hat's market capitalization is overvalued. I have nothing again Red Hat but it cearly isn't a 1billion company. Granted, mkt value is based on future prospects and hype but it is still too high IMO...
And how exactly will they do that? Is IBM going to give free money to Red Hat? Of course not! IBM will NOT be footing the bill... The reason Red HAt decided to do it is because GNU/Linux is far more important to its business than IBM. If GNU/Linux dissapears from the face of earth, I highly doubt IBM would even care. Tow much do they generate from GNU/Linux? Far less than they do on consulting services (global solutions, etc)...
Why is MS=China? It makes no sense... MS=USA plain and simple... also Red Hat and IBM are not really allied strongly. IBM is plainly in it for hte money. Once the money dries up, watch IBM pack up and leave. Red Hat, on the other hand, is committed to the cause...
Strictly speaking you are probably right... however, loosely speaking, republics are a "type" of democracy. For instance, politicans may represent the wishes of their constituents/local areas/whatever but overall the end result is a form of democracy. Whatever the majority decides, everyone accepts (eg. if the majority in Congress+Senate (along with the President) vote to pass a bill, everyone else must accept it too)...
How do you explain Nazi Germany which was capitalist and fascist? How do you explain Argentian (pre-80's) or any other South American dictatorship which was more capitalist than any of its neighbours? How do you explain Saudi Arabia, which is religious fundamentalist monarchy yet is VERY capitalist (free markets, little govt intervention, etc)?
Giving property rights to people/corporations/whatever is granting monopoly. So what's the difference? What's the difference between my corporation (let's pretend I have one:) ) buying a road and park area vs Microsoft getting patent rights?
So a company that is supported by laws which protect it's monopoly status, is not a capitalist company. The US is not a pure capitalist system, and it is this lack of pure capitalism which allows Microsoft to be protected from competition.
Strongly disagree with what you are saying there.
Let's start with what I agree: USA is not practicing PURE capitalism. Then again, I would like to know how capitalists plan to run a pure capitalist economy WITHOUT the government. If anything, you need the government to protect PROPERTY RIGHTS. Property rights is the core of capitalism.
Besides, just because something is not pure capitalism doesn't mean that it isn't capitalism. It is still correct, and acceptable, to refer to a non-pure system wtih a name as long as it is somewhat similar and has the same aims. For instance, people still refer to USSR, China, North Korea and Cuba (among others) as Communist even though they are not pure communism (as a side note, Marxism holds the view that communism as a pure system cannot exist--it is simply a transitionary period). USSR is clearly totalitarian in all forms; China is more socialist (it has always been more open and had more private property); North Korea has absolutely nothing to do with communism or Communism--it is nothing more than a dictatorship (similar to how Iraq was); Cuba is the closest to communism of all the countries that tried communism (except Russia during Lenin's days)... This basically shows that you don't need a pure system to use that name.
On another note, my theory is that capitalism leads to monopolies and oligopolies. You are starting to see this but it hasn't happened fully yet. Already there are many industries where companies have merged and basically created oligopolies. Very good examples include media (only like 4 companies control practically every music, tv, cable, newspaper, etc), banks (not true in USA but in many other countries only 2 or 3 banks account for 70%+ of assets), accounting firms (something like 6(?) accounting firms audit more than 60% of the fortune 100 companies), automobiles (with the recent mergers, no more than 7 car companies control all the car production in the world (not counting countries with nationalist policies like China, India, etc), airplanes (Boeing and Airbus have nicely divided up the airplane market all for themselves; in the early 1900's you had at least 20 companies), etc...
Capitalism leads to monopolies!!! I know you capitalists don't like to admit it but just wait and see...
Funny how capitalism and communism in their purest forms are basically indistinguishable...
This makes no sense whatsoever... In their pure forms, capitalism and communism are very far apart (almost "opposite"). It it in their non-pure forms that they are similar...
Microsoft clearly cannot be USSR since it is capitalist, very wealthy, etc. If anything, Microsoft is USA (as a side note, this is reflected in reality. If you visit any foreign country, Microsoft is considered to be an ideal US corporation and the US govt (which is controlled by capitalists) push a similar model).
IBM may be USA but it is hard to say. I don't think there is a country that represents IBM. IBM is large, powerful, only in it for the money, could care less about ideologies. Closest to IBM would be Britain (not the colonial one but modern one) but IBM is more powerful than Britain.
Red Hat would have to be a small socialist country, probably Cuba
SCO would be more like North Korea, or possibly even (Nazi Germany) or (imperial) Japan although SCO isn't as powerful as Germany or Japan were.
The only reason this is even possible is because the legal system is very "lawyer-friendly", especially in countries like USA. If the system ever changes, lawyers will be in big trouble...
Also keep in mind that large powerful countries are ripe for control by hawks, elitists and various other pro-war people. Smaller countries on the other hand are generally controlled by doves...
What helped countries like USA was public research. They wouldn't be where they are without the money spent on universities, research grants, etc. It's sad to see all that being cut in the name of capitalist pursuits. Capitalists love to cut anything that doesn't generate money. I guess no one has told a capitalist that research generally doesn't make money:(
Actually, USA has a habit of giving weapons to everyone that wants them. It has "helped" countries descend into wars and massive abuse of human rights than any other country in the last 50 years (not counting USSR)...
China has never had a continuous lineage in its history. I don't think you can claim that China is thousands of years old. If anything, the Mongols destroyed the previous culture and ruled China for a while...
China was the center of the earth for quite some time in terms of technology and civilization. So, they've been in a slump - Communism didn't help out much there.
China was never at the center of earth--no one ever was. That is only a concept developed by elitists, particularly colonialists who thought they were superior to everyone else. China was a top civilization thousands of years ago but you cannot say it was #1. Others like Egypt, India, Rome/Italy were just as good.
Oh another thing... Communism actually helped China, although at GREAT human cost (millions of deaths). Before Communism, China was a "primitive" Agarian society. Communism actually coverted them to an industrial society. For instance, all the space programs, military weapons, etc were due to the work and millions sacrificed (in real deaths) several decades ago. The same thing happened in Russia/USSR. Before Communism, Russia was a "primitive" country with no technology at all. All Communism ever did to Russia (apart from killing millions) was convert a primarily agarian society into an 80% industrial society.
However, they've the manpower and availible resources to thrash anyone else if they ever decided to get rid of the Communist craziness.
I'm not a supporter of totalitarianism so take the post for what it's worth. All I know is that if China switches from Communism, it will collapse. It'll turn into Russia.
For instance, imagine how they would control their population if they eliminated their birth limitation policy. There is no way anyone would ever support a policy restricting their reproductive abilities.
It'll be interesting to see how China handles its econopolitical structure. The country is still pretty much run by authoratrians (i.e. Communist Party). The whole notion of free market is an illusion (eg. a company (both foreign and local) can't get anything done without govt permission)... If China sticks with its present path, it is sacrificing freedoms and basically riding on backs of millions; if it switches to capitalism, it will basically collapse and end up with all sorts of social problems (eg. unemployment, corruption, populartion growth, disease, etc) but with greater freedom for its population...
Government and the people are the same thing. This is especially true in something like Communism. Sure, there is corruption and the party members may benefit more than others. But how many Chinese politicans became billionaries or millionaries through the govt? Far less than under capitalistic countries... For instance, George Bush probably gained half a million (over a 10 year period) simply by his tax cuts which will help the wealthy class (which he belongs to)...
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that Bill Gates contributes more to charities every year than 90% of the population makes in their life times?
If you exploit something to make your millions and then give away a portion of it, you are not being very charitable...
Think of it this way... If I cut down all the forests and eliminate all the endangered species, enriching myself by $2.7billion in the process, and then turn around and donate $700million, am I really being charitable and fair?
Absolute actions mean nothing when it comes to morality... a poor person giving half his bread is far more admirable than a rich person giving a full loaf of bread!!!
The amount must be huge. I am not familiar with the US university system but I haven't heard of too many cases where universities get $300m+ for one project.
Also, you can't really compare it to cars. Cars are a PROVEN commercial product. Meaning that you will get guaranteed profits (in the billions) once you have built the car, especially with the market cornered by 5 or so companies. A space exploration project has no commercial "benefits" so it is tough to sell that to the capitalists. In addition, there is no guarantee it will succeed. The probability of this project failing is FAR HIGHER than a new car.
I guess the best comparison is to compare money spent on space to the money spent on early cars (in the early 1900's). Did anyone spend hundreads of millions back then (adjusted for inflation)? Nope. If anything they probably spent $10-$20million rather than $200 to $300 million. It's just like the X prize right now, which is a commercial endeavour. The companies competing are spending less than $25m. Granted the competition limits the costs but even if they were free to spend, I doubt anyone would spend more than $150million on a project with no commercial money-making prospects...
This amount is HUGE... Only other govt projects (like military projects) ever give out this much to unproven missions...
Capitalism is the freedom to trade with others.Trade, not steal, extort, exploit, etc. Capitalism works much better in free societies than in non-free ones.
Clearly we have different definitions of freedom. To you, it seems that freedom is commerce-oriented. For instance, you would proably say that free market is equivalent to freedom. Whereas me, as well as most of the earth's population I suspect, will consider freedom to be entirely something else--the ability to do whatever one pleases, especially when it comes to speech, movement, etc.
Capitalism works much better in free societies than in non-free ones.
You cannot prove that. I already gave examples of it. Nazi Germany, for example, was very capitalist (it was run entirely by private individuals and corporations, including some help from US corproations like Ford and IBM). I'm guessing you would have considered Germany to be free, as in commerce.
The black markets you cited in South America doesn't prove any point. The dictatorships backed by USA (in Chile, etc) were actually more free (from an economic point of view) than non-dictatorships (eg. Mexico, etc at that time). The black markets existed but they were smaller in these dictatorships than in non-dictatorial countries.
In any case, looking at black markets is complicated and can be misleading. For instance, the black market in Russia (now) is FAR larger than it ever was under Communism (USSR). This is probably because totalitarian regimes can crush black markets more easily. In addition, there are different reasons for black markets. The blacks markets in USA and Canada are mostly there to trade illegal goods (eg. sex (i.e. prostitution), drugs, illegal immigrant rings, etc). In contrast, black markets in South America and many other developing countries are there to avoid paying taxes/import duties/etc. People can literally get the "same" goods in the open market but it is cheaper on the black market (eg. music CDs). I don't think we should be going into black markets because they are complicated and misleading.
There are many areas of freedom.
I can see how people would have different views of what freedom is (eg. people in Middle East consider themselves free but I disagree). I only have ONE definition of freedom: the ability to move around freely, communicate with others, speak freely, etc. I'm anti-capitalist and don't consider free markets to be "free". Just because corporate oligopolies have control over you (instead of a government, or a king, or a dictator) doesnt' mean you are free... I doubt that you will agree with me but hopefully you'll realize that we are nothing more than economic slaves right now! All you capitalism-worshippers are going down...
So are you saying that property rights exist simply to allocate resources efficiently? Can you prove that private property, for instance, is more effective than public property? In any case, your original argument is moot because even with physical property you end up with monopolies.
I guess your real argument is not monopoly but rather innovation or preventing others from developing the same thing (I guess)....
Red Hat's market capitalization is overvalued. I have nothing again Red Hat but it cearly isn't a 1billion company. Granted, mkt value is based on future prospects and hype but it is still too high IMO...
Ultimately, IBM will be footing the bill.
And how exactly will they do that? Is IBM going to give free money to Red Hat? Of course not! IBM will NOT be footing the bill... The reason Red HAt decided to do it is because GNU/Linux is far more important to its business than IBM. If GNU/Linux dissapears from the face of earth, I highly doubt IBM would even care. Tow much do they generate from GNU/Linux? Far less than they do on consulting services (global solutions, etc)...
Why is MS=China? It makes no sense... MS=USA plain and simple... also Red Hat and IBM are not really allied strongly. IBM is plainly in it for hte money. Once the money dries up, watch IBM pack up and leave. Red Hat, on the other hand, is committed to the cause...
Your part about SCO=North Korea is correct IMO...
Strictly speaking you are probably right... however, loosely speaking, republics are a "type" of democracy. For instance, politicans may represent the wishes of their constituents/local areas/whatever but overall the end result is a form of democracy. Whatever the majority decides, everyone accepts (eg. if the majority in Congress+Senate (along with the President) vote to pass a bill, everyone else must accept it too)...
Freedom and capitalism do go hand in hand.
How do you explain Nazi Germany which was capitalist and fascist? How do you explain Argentian (pre-80's) or any other South American dictatorship which was more capitalist than any of its neighbours? How do you explain Saudi Arabia, which is religious fundamentalist monarchy yet is VERY capitalist (free markets, little govt intervention, etc)?
Clearly you have no idea what freedom is...
Giving property rights to people/corporations/whatever is granting monopoly. So what's the difference? What's the difference between my corporation (let's pretend I have one :) ) buying a road and park area vs Microsoft getting patent rights?
So a company that is supported by laws which protect it's monopoly status, is not a capitalist company. The US is not a pure capitalist system, and it is this lack of pure capitalism which allows Microsoft to be protected from competition.
Strongly disagree with what you are saying there.
Let's start with what I agree: USA is not practicing PURE capitalism. Then again, I would like to know how capitalists plan to run a pure capitalist economy WITHOUT the government. If anything, you need the government to protect PROPERTY RIGHTS. Property rights is the core of capitalism.
Besides, just because something is not pure capitalism doesn't mean that it isn't capitalism. It is still correct, and acceptable, to refer to a non-pure system wtih a name as long as it is somewhat similar and has the same aims. For instance, people still refer to USSR, China, North Korea and Cuba (among others) as Communist even though they are not pure communism (as a side note, Marxism holds the view that communism as a pure system cannot exist--it is simply a transitionary period). USSR is clearly totalitarian in all forms; China is more socialist (it has always been more open and had more private property); North Korea has absolutely nothing to do with communism or Communism--it is nothing more than a dictatorship (similar to how Iraq was); Cuba is the closest to communism of all the countries that tried communism (except Russia during Lenin's days)... This basically shows that you don't need a pure system to use that name.
On another note, my theory is that capitalism leads to monopolies and oligopolies. You are starting to see this but it hasn't happened fully yet. Already there are many industries where companies have merged and basically created oligopolies. Very good examples include media (only like 4 companies control practically every music, tv, cable, newspaper, etc), banks (not true in USA but in many other countries only 2 or 3 banks account for 70%+ of assets), accounting firms (something like 6(?) accounting firms audit more than 60% of the fortune 100 companies), automobiles (with the recent mergers, no more than 7 car companies control all the car production in the world (not counting countries with nationalist policies like China, India, etc), airplanes (Boeing and Airbus have nicely divided up the airplane market all for themselves; in the early 1900's you had at least 20 companies), etc...
Capitalism leads to monopolies!!! I know you capitalists don't like to admit it but just wait and see...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Funny how capitalism and communism in their purest forms are basically indistinguishable...
This makes no sense whatsoever... In their pure forms, capitalism and communism are very far apart (almost "opposite"). It it in their non-pure forms that they are similar...
Your example is totally messed up...
Microsoft clearly cannot be USSR since it is capitalist, very wealthy, etc. If anything, Microsoft is USA (as a side note, this is reflected in reality. If you visit any foreign country, Microsoft is considered to be an ideal US corporation and the US govt (which is controlled by capitalists) push a similar model).
IBM may be USA but it is hard to say. I don't think there is a country that represents IBM. IBM is large, powerful, only in it for the money, could care less about ideologies. Closest to IBM would be Britain (not the colonial one but modern one) but IBM is more powerful than Britain.
Red Hat would have to be a small socialist country, probably Cuba
SCO would be more like North Korea, or possibly even (Nazi Germany) or (imperial) Japan although SCO isn't as powerful as Germany or Japan were.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Are you saying Eminem is a lawyer? He doesn't look like one ;)
The only reason this is even possible is because the legal system is very "lawyer-friendly", especially in countries like USA. If the system ever changes, lawyers will be in big trouble...
what's a pro se form?
I guess I should become a lawyer ;)
lol.. hilarious quote... hehe :)
How that post gets marked as troll is baffling ??:|
Also keep in mind that large powerful countries are ripe for control by hawks, elitists and various other pro-war people. Smaller countries on the other hand are generally controlled by doves...
What helped countries like USA was public research. They wouldn't be where they are without the money spent on universities, research grants, etc. It's sad to see all that being cut in the name of capitalist pursuits. Capitalists love to cut anything that doesn't generate money. I guess no one has told a capitalist that research generally doesn't make money :(
Actually, USA has a habit of giving weapons to everyone that wants them. It has "helped" countries descend into wars and massive abuse of human rights than any other country in the last 50 years (not counting USSR)...
China has never had a continuous lineage in its history. I don't think you can claim that China is thousands of years old. If anything, the Mongols destroyed the previous culture and ruled China for a while...
China was the center of the earth for quite some time in terms of technology and civilization. So, they've been in a slump - Communism didn't help out much there.
China was never at the center of earth--no one ever was. That is only a concept developed by elitists, particularly colonialists who thought they were superior to everyone else. China was a top civilization thousands of years ago but you cannot say it was #1. Others like Egypt, India, Rome/Italy were just as good.
Oh another thing... Communism actually helped China, although at GREAT human cost (millions of deaths). Before Communism, China was a "primitive" Agarian society. Communism actually coverted them to an industrial society. For instance, all the space programs, military weapons, etc were due to the work and millions sacrificed (in real deaths) several decades ago. The same thing happened in Russia/USSR. Before Communism, Russia was a "primitive" country with no technology at all. All Communism ever did to Russia (apart from killing millions) was convert a primarily agarian society into an 80% industrial society.
However, they've the manpower and availible resources to thrash anyone else if they ever decided to get rid of the Communist craziness.
I'm not a supporter of totalitarianism so take the post for what it's worth. All I know is that if China switches from Communism, it will collapse. It'll turn into Russia.
For instance, imagine how they would control their population if they eliminated their birth limitation policy. There is no way anyone would ever support a policy restricting their reproductive abilities.
It'll be interesting to see how China handles its econopolitical structure. The country is still pretty much run by authoratrians (i.e. Communist Party). The whole notion of free market is an illusion (eg. a company (both foreign and local) can't get anything done without govt permission)... If China sticks with its present path, it is sacrificing freedoms and basically riding on backs of millions; if it switches to capitalism, it will basically collapse and end up with all sorts of social problems (eg. unemployment, corruption, populartion growth, disease, etc) but with greater freedom for its population...
Government and the people are the same thing. This is especially true in something like Communism. Sure, there is corruption and the party members may benefit more than others. But how many Chinese politicans became billionaries or millionaries through the govt? Far less than under capitalistic countries... For instance, George Bush probably gained half a million (over a 10 year period) simply by his tax cuts which will help the wealthy class (which he belongs to)...