Mr. Gates said that he has grown impatient with the shortcomings of capitalism. He said he has seen those failings first-hand on trips for Microsoft to places like the South African slum of Soweto, and discussed them with dozens of experts on disease and poverty.
The reason that capitalism hasn't worked as well in places like this is because they were F'd over for so long by imperial states. And their own warring states. So what's really needed is a dramatic cut in militarism/statism.
In particular, he said, he's troubled that advances in technology, health care and education tend to help the rich and bypass the poor. "The rate of improvement for the third that is better off is pretty rapid," he said. "The part that's unsatisfactory is for the bottom third -- two billion of six billion."
It's unfortunate that he's overlooked how much better off the poor are under capitalism and voluntary trade than any other system.
The consulting firm I work for is a fast growing partner of IBM. A huge chunk of our business comes from customizing WebSphere Commerce for large companies (like Borders for instance). While I haven't always been that impressed with IBM's code, software services is a HUGE part of their business. And WebSphere Commerce is quite impressive for what you get out of the box. So you obviously have no idea what the fsck you're talking about.
Furthermore, their employees shouldn't unionize. Unions provide practically nothing of value to companies, and IBM would be no different. Just look at what they've done to Detroit. If they're unhappy with their job, there are lots of opportunities out there. I know... this is my 3rd job out of school and the best company I've worked for yet.
If you don't like what they're charging for TV service, don't pay them. It's that simple. I get TV for free OTA, and couldn't be happier with life. Once in awhile there's a show I like so I watch it... like the new Terminator show. Otherwise, I spend my time surfing online, reading, chatting with friends, etc. The possibilities are endless.:)
As far as the bandwidth caps go... well, I'm on TW's 768mbps plan for $15/month, and that works just fine for surfing and skype. Of course, I don't download much or play online games... but I still spend a lot of time online.
Yes, I do miss Discovery HD and ESPN HD on occasion. But I'm done paying the exorbitant costs of digital cable just to get a couple channels I liked. If I could sign up for just those two for a nominal fee, I would (a la carte). But until then they're not getting my business.
I canceled my cable TV a few months ago and haven't looked back. I have over the air HDTV essentially for free (after tuner cost). I also pay Netflix $17 for their 3 at a time plan, and that fills the void nicely and is much cheaper than digital cable.
Exactly. It's easy for someone who has only ever known life in a democracy to claim that anarchy isn't possible. The only reason democracy is possible is because most people agree with it. Every state fails. There are definitely no exceptions. When states fail, they leave a trail of chaos in their wake... which I would hardly call a true "anarchy".
Furthermore, the world was much closer to anarchy before extreme nationalism caused strong states to form beginning in the middle ages. I see no reason why the world couldn't (or wouldn't) eventually turn around and go back in that direction.
There is even 3g competition coming up too. Personally, I'd rather not pay $50/month for 3g though. I just downgraded my connection at home to 768Mbps with Time Warner for $15/month. Normal surfing and skype work fine on it. I don't download much or play online games so that's good enough for me.
I never used to be all that big on Thinkpads until I started to work for a consulting firm that's a partner of IBM. They give all their employees Thinkpads to work on. I started off with a T43, and they recently upgraded me to a T60. I have to say, they have grown on me quite a bit since I started using them. My only gripe is the models I've had only use a 4200 rpm hard drive. My personal laptop, and Asus model purchased about 3 years ago, still has its original 7200rpm drive... makes quite a noticeable difference. I even used to think these things are ugly, but even the looks have grown on me. I'll probably be working at this place for awhile, but I might have go get me a Thinkpad for myself if I ever get a new job.
I'm not sure how the things you mention are contradictory...
I guess my question is why the schools should have been shut down instead of allowing them a chance to improve their standards. Clearly to restrict medical competition.
Ever since the Tammany Hall political machine days, people have been trying to make the government more transparent. I don't think they have succeeded very much. Indeed it pretty much seems like a hopeless cause. When a majority of people put up with those in power who make arbitrary decisions in favor of their friends, the prospect of reform seems bleak.
And the envy reason for socialism falls flat because people will always have some reason to envy their neighbor. Not because it doesn't jive with my notions or anything...
Perhaps there really is more mobility in Europe. Maybe it's because the corporate state is more entrenched over here. I tend to think more and more that corporations who are the most successful in lobbying the state for benefits that their competitors do not get end up stifling that mobility. But the question of mobility doesn't solve everything either. It doesn't answer whether the poor here are better off than the poor there.
The health insurance situation is a very tough one here. I often point people to this article to begin understanding why health care has gotten so out of control. Again it has to do with an obvious lack of competition and the leading providers being entrenched in the state.
Perhaps rising education costs can also be attributed to much higher demand due to government subsidies. The idea of having free markets in education have been kicking around for some time as you will see here: http://www.schoolchoices.org/roo/fm.htm
I'm convinced that education is in a such deplorable condition in this country precisely because of just how much the state has managed to get control of it. The homeschool movement and private vouchers seem to be the best weapon we have against the crushing weight of public education...
I have a hard time attributing the concentration of wealth to unregulated capitalism because we have hardly had that, despite popular belief. It seems easy to complain about how much wealth individuals have accumulated while not realizing the extent to which the state aggregates wealth to itself and gives it to politically well-connected contractors, defense orgs and the like. If corporations try to corrupt the state's simple regulation of contracts, perhaps the best thing to ultimately do is get rid of the state all together. If that's ultimately impossible, then we should try to approach that goal as much as we can. When it comes down to it, companies are beholden to consumers. If they don't provide services that people need they will cease to exist.
I would hope envy is the least important reason, because it seems to fall flat upon any examination. The common theme here seems to be that the power of the state is used by corporations to abuse people. The goal then, should be to limit state power as much as possible (if not completely) and let people decide which goods are most important to them. The more regulating power the state has, the more scales are tipped in favor of corporate interests. It seems foolish to say that a much larger state apparatus wouldn't be as easily corrupted as the one we have now.
BTW - I graduated from BYU in 2002. The mountains are probably the only thing I miss about Utah, hehe...
As I've said before, the Netflix service isn't too great for new movies
I haven't found too much of a problem with newly released DVDs. Sometimes you have to wait a day or two, but it's not that big of a deal for me. I don't even bother with Cable TV anymore because Netflix is more than good enough for entertainment.
The problem is that you say that RP only claimed he didn't write them. Not that he did not agree with them.
Ron Paul's statement shows that is wrong... he not only claims he didn't write them, but denounced such small minded views and says the views aren't (and never were) his. I wouldn't call that an endorsement. Whether you believe that is a different story - but if you keep saying he didn't denounce the views you are clearly lying.
Nevertheless, the point stands: the poorer people do in comparison to those around them, the worse they feel. How they're doing in comparison to someone living in the bronze age, or a Bangladeshi straw hut? Not so much.
And if they feel bad, they are free to work themselves up the ladder, as thousands of people have done. It's not just someone living in the Bronze age - even just one or two generations ago, the difference is staggering.
Maybe it's not infinate... but I still think it's much more fluid than socialists would have us believe. A case in point would be my own dad, who grew up very poor and who worked very hard to build a successful life for himself and his family. Who knows whether economic growth can continue forever... likely there are peaks and valleys, as in everything else. But I'm not sure what that has to do with acquiring wealth. I don't think people being poor and happy flies in the face of capitalism any more than the notion that money buys happiness, which we could say is equally erroneous. Can people be happy poor? Of course they can. But if you're poor, the prospect of becoming wealthy can also be just as alluring. And there's virtually no chance of that in Cuba. That doesn't even cover how, in a uniformly poor society, people will simply create other ways of measuring status. So what is the difference? Not everyone in a poor society can be in a higher status profession.
Until the implosion, Enron's Ken Lay was considered one of the true star quarterbacks, worth every penny the investors were paying him and more.
It's interesting that you note the Enron case. I think that's more of a case against the corporate state we have today, rather than capitalism gone bad. I think without all that "corporate personhood" nonsense (protection from the state) the Enron folks would have been much more accountable. The state's oversight of capitalism can even create a false sense of security in investors, who blindly think that if the government regulates industry enough they don't have to be so careful...
We already have forced wealth redistribution in this country. We just call it 'no-bid contracts.'
And the no-bid contract method of distributing income from the poor to the rich is every bit as wrong as other forced redistribution.
There are two ways to look at "what people deserve". One is to ask, "Who is responsible for creating this wealth?"
In a voluntary market economy, I would say that the division of labor is what's responsible for creating wealth. It allows us to focus on what we are most interested in doing, rather than having to grow all our own food and make our clothes. I would agree that our economy is broken... but not in the way you suggest.
After developing a failed project based on the Oracle stack last year, I would have to agree. I hope I never have to use OAS, and JDeveloper ever again. Oracle DB wasn't too bad, and JSF was buggy but somewhat alright to work with. But not nearly as nice as Spring/Hibernate. IBM seems to definitely be more advanced in their middleware tools, and I would choose them hands down.
Did you read his statement that I posted earlier? Or are you willfully ignoring it?
When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name. The quotations in the New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
So you actually admit then, that what socialists want is a political system entirely based on human envy.
It is virtually an infinite sum game. If you have any kind of talent, you can create opportunity. Even if you just have enough talent to work and get by, you will be well off enough. It does matter that America's working poor are much better off. They lead virtual lives of comfort compared to those before them. It is entirely due to economic freedom and advancement - that is, markets and voluntary trade. There is even a stronger correlation between economic prosperity and lifespan. Prosperity leads to more investment in medical technology, and thus longer lifespan. The Cuban living conditions are terrible. Sure the wealth is more equal, but they live in absolute poverty. You'd have to be crazy to choose life there. You don't have to wonder why Americans aren't beating down their door...
You can't tell me that a CEO shouldn't make more than twelve times minimum wage. I would say why not? They are the ones who have the talent to direct investment capital properly, thus earning a decent return. Even the poor are better off when those decisions are made correctly.
Any random person doesn't deserve a CEO's extra money any more than they do. A political system of heavy, forced redistribution that you propose isn't moral or just. Economics has shown that voluntary trade leads to prosperity. It's the reason we aren't all subsistence farmers, scraping by between drought cycles and crop failures.
Perhaps you're right - it does seem a little strange. Maybe those quotes are out of context... I dunno. I haven't read the actual newsletters themselves.
It's at least comforting to see him denounce that material. Because of his stance on war and incredibly libertarian voting record, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until more light can be shed. It doesn't look like he'll be elected president anyway, but I really want his small government views to gain more attention in public discourse.
Five or six - whatever... it's still a fairly small number. The exact number doesn't matter.
I don't have a problem with people who are concerned about racism - that is perfectly legitimate. And I agree it was stupid for him to not read all of them. But yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree about whether he consents to the views. He publicly repudiated them many times, and that's good enough for me... for now.
The number of ones actually referenced are five, and I didn't go back and count them... so what? I think it's believable that he could have missed five random issues of a monthly newsletter over a period of a few years. Was it wise? Certainly not... and he is definitely paying the price for that now. But he has come out many times and repudiated the racism in those ones that were quoted. People, especially politicians, make mistakes. Just ask Bill Clinton. There is a point where people should move on, and I think that point has been reached with this issue. At this point, the only people who keep bringing it up are liberal democratic socialists who disagree with Paul's political philosophy.
Like I said, we don't know if more issues besides these five had racist content. And we don't know if he read these specific five issues over a period of 10 years. I don't think he's racist, and pandering to racists simply doesn't make sense for an intelligent person who has aspirations to be president.
There has been enough accountability and civilized debate to satisfy a reasonable approach to the situation. Now you really are to the point of flaming and trolling. Personally I wouldn't have modded you down. But I also think that the main problems have been addressed adequately. At least for people who are open minded enough to accept the repudiation of the racist views.
Slashdot Mirror
Democracy also suffers from this problem.
The problem is that when companies get hurt, their employees get hurt even more. Detroit is a perfect example.
The reason that capitalism hasn't worked as well in places like this is because they were F'd over for so long by imperial states. And their own warring states. So what's really needed is a dramatic cut in militarism/statism.
It's unfortunate that he's overlooked how much better off the poor are under capitalism and voluntary trade than any other system.
The consulting firm I work for is a fast growing partner of IBM. A huge chunk of our business comes from customizing WebSphere Commerce for large companies (like Borders for instance). While I haven't always been that impressed with IBM's code, software services is a HUGE part of their business. And WebSphere Commerce is quite impressive for what you get out of the box. So you obviously have no idea what the fsck you're talking about.
Furthermore, their employees shouldn't unionize. Unions provide practically nothing of value to companies, and IBM would be no different. Just look at what they've done to Detroit. If they're unhappy with their job, there are lots of opportunities out there. I know... this is my 3rd job out of school and the best company I've worked for yet.
If you don't like what they're charging for TV service, don't pay them. It's that simple. I get TV for free OTA, and couldn't be happier with life. Once in awhile there's a show I like so I watch it... like the new Terminator show. Otherwise, I spend my time surfing online, reading, chatting with friends, etc. The possibilities are endless. :)
As far as the bandwidth caps go... well, I'm on TW's 768mbps plan for $15/month, and that works just fine for surfing and skype. Of course, I don't download much or play online games... but I still spend a lot of time online.
Yes, I do miss Discovery HD and ESPN HD on occasion. But I'm done paying the exorbitant costs of digital cable just to get a couple channels I liked. If I could sign up for just those two for a nominal fee, I would (a la carte). But until then they're not getting my business.
I canceled my cable TV a few months ago and haven't looked back. I have over the air HDTV essentially for free (after tuner cost). I also pay Netflix $17 for their 3 at a time plan, and that fills the void nicely and is much cheaper than digital cable.
Exactly. It's easy for someone who has only ever known life in a democracy to claim that anarchy isn't possible. The only reason democracy is possible is because most people agree with it. Every state fails. There are definitely no exceptions. When states fail, they leave a trail of chaos in their wake... which I would hardly call a true "anarchy".
Furthermore, the world was much closer to anarchy before extreme nationalism caused strong states to form beginning in the middle ages. I see no reason why the world couldn't (or wouldn't) eventually turn around and go back in that direction.
There is even 3g competition coming up too. Personally, I'd rather not pay $50/month for 3g though. I just downgraded my connection at home to 768Mbps with Time Warner for $15/month. Normal surfing and skype work fine on it. I don't download much or play online games so that's good enough for me.
I never used to be all that big on Thinkpads until I started to work for a consulting firm that's a partner of IBM. They give all their employees Thinkpads to work on. I started off with a T43, and they recently upgraded me to a T60. I have to say, they have grown on me quite a bit since I started using them. My only gripe is the models I've had only use a 4200 rpm hard drive. My personal laptop, and Asus model purchased about 3 years ago, still has its original 7200rpm drive... makes quite a noticeable difference. I even used to think these things are ugly, but even the looks have grown on me. I'll probably be working at this place for awhile, but I might have go get me a Thinkpad for myself if I ever get a new job.
You can scroll with the Thinkpad's nipple if you hold down the middle button above the trackpad. Quite handy on my Thinkpad T60.
I'm not sure how the things you mention are contradictory...
I guess my question is why the schools should have been shut down instead of allowing them a chance to improve their standards. Clearly to restrict medical competition.
Ever since the Tammany Hall political machine days, people have been trying to make the government more transparent. I don't think they have succeeded very much. Indeed it pretty much seems like a hopeless cause. When a majority of people put up with those in power who make arbitrary decisions in favor of their friends, the prospect of reform seems bleak.
And the envy reason for socialism falls flat because people will always have some reason to envy their neighbor. Not because it doesn't jive with my notions or anything...
I couldn't agree more. You're basically echoing the sentiments of Murray Rothbard, one of the preeminent free market economists of our time.
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics.pdf
Yes, interesting stuff indeed...
Perhaps there really is more mobility in Europe. Maybe it's because the corporate state is more entrenched over here. I tend to think more and more that corporations who are the most successful in lobbying the state for benefits that their competitors do not get end up stifling that mobility. But the question of mobility doesn't solve everything either. It doesn't answer whether the poor here are better off than the poor there.
The health insurance situation is a very tough one here. I often point people to this article to begin understanding why health care has gotten so out of control. Again it has to do with an obvious lack of competition and the leading providers being entrenched in the state.
Perhaps rising education costs can also be attributed to much higher demand due to government subsidies. The idea of having free markets in education have been kicking around for some time as you will see here: http://www.schoolchoices.org/roo/fm.htm
I'm convinced that education is in a such deplorable condition in this country precisely because of just how much the state has managed to get control of it. The homeschool movement and private vouchers seem to be the best weapon we have against the crushing weight of public education...
I have a hard time attributing the concentration of wealth to unregulated capitalism because we have hardly had that, despite popular belief. It seems easy to complain about how much wealth individuals have accumulated while not realizing the extent to which the state aggregates wealth to itself and gives it to politically well-connected contractors, defense orgs and the like. If corporations try to corrupt the state's simple regulation of contracts, perhaps the best thing to ultimately do is get rid of the state all together. If that's ultimately impossible, then we should try to approach that goal as much as we can. When it comes down to it, companies are beholden to consumers. If they don't provide services that people need they will cease to exist.
I would hope envy is the least important reason, because it seems to fall flat upon any examination. The common theme here seems to be that the power of the state is used by corporations to abuse people. The goal then, should be to limit state power as much as possible (if not completely) and let people decide which goods are most important to them. The more regulating power the state has, the more scales are tipped in favor of corporate interests. It seems foolish to say that a much larger state apparatus wouldn't be as easily corrupted as the one we have now.
BTW - I graduated from BYU in 2002. The mountains are probably the only thing I miss about Utah, hehe...
I haven't found too much of a problem with newly released DVDs. Sometimes you have to wait a day or two, but it's not that big of a deal for me. I don't even bother with Cable TV anymore because Netflix is more than good enough for entertainment.
The problem is that you say that RP only claimed he didn't write them. Not that he did not agree with them.
Ron Paul's statement shows that is wrong... he not only claims he didn't write them, but denounced such small minded views and says the views aren't (and never were) his. I wouldn't call that an endorsement. Whether you believe that is a different story - but if you keep saying he didn't denounce the views you are clearly lying.
And if they feel bad, they are free to work themselves up the ladder, as thousands of people have done. It's not just someone living in the Bronze age - even just one or two generations ago, the difference is staggering.
Maybe it's not infinate... but I still think it's much more fluid than socialists would have us believe. A case in point would be my own dad, who grew up very poor and who worked very hard to build a successful life for himself and his family. Who knows whether economic growth can continue forever... likely there are peaks and valleys, as in everything else. But I'm not sure what that has to do with acquiring wealth. I don't think people being poor and happy flies in the face of capitalism any more than the notion that money buys happiness, which we could say is equally erroneous.
Can people be happy poor? Of course they can. But if you're poor, the prospect of becoming wealthy can also be just as alluring. And there's virtually no chance of that in Cuba. That doesn't even cover how, in a uniformly poor society, people will simply create other ways of measuring status. So what is the difference? Not everyone in a poor society can be in a higher status profession.
It's interesting that you note the Enron case. I think that's more of a case against the corporate state we have today, rather than capitalism gone bad. I think without all that "corporate personhood" nonsense (protection from the state) the Enron folks would have been much more accountable. The state's oversight of capitalism can even create a false sense of security in investors, who blindly think that if the government regulates industry enough they don't have to be so careful...
And the no-bid contract method of distributing income from the poor to the rich is every bit as wrong as other forced redistribution.
In a voluntary market economy, I would say that the division of labor is what's responsible for creating wealth. It allows us to focus on what we are most interested in doing, rather than having to grow all our own food and make our clothes. I would agree that our economy is broken... but not in the way you suggest.
After developing a failed project based on the Oracle stack last year, I would have to agree. I hope I never have to use OAS, and JDeveloper ever again. Oracle DB wasn't too bad, and JSF was buggy but somewhat alright to work with. But not nearly as nice as Spring/Hibernate. IBM seems to definitely be more advanced in their middleware tools, and I would choose them hands down.
So you actually admit then, that what socialists want is a political system entirely based on human envy.
It is virtually an infinite sum game. If you have any kind of talent, you can create opportunity. Even if you just have enough talent to work and get by, you will be well off enough. It does matter that America's working poor are much better off. They lead virtual lives of comfort compared to those before them. It is entirely due to economic freedom and advancement - that is, markets and voluntary trade. There is even a stronger correlation between economic prosperity and lifespan. Prosperity leads to more investment in medical technology, and thus longer lifespan. The Cuban living conditions are terrible. Sure the wealth is more equal, but they live in absolute poverty. You'd have to be crazy to choose life there. You don't have to wonder why Americans aren't beating down their door...
You can't tell me that a CEO shouldn't make more than twelve times minimum wage. I would say why not? They are the ones who have the talent to direct investment capital properly, thus earning a decent return. Even the poor are better off when those decisions are made correctly.
Any random person doesn't deserve a CEO's extra money any more than they do. A political system of heavy, forced redistribution that you propose isn't moral or just. Economics has shown that voluntary trade leads to prosperity. It's the reason we aren't all subsistence farmers, scraping by between drought cycles and crop failures.
Perhaps you're right - it does seem a little strange. Maybe those quotes are out of context... I dunno. I haven't read the actual newsletters themselves.
It's at least comforting to see him denounce that material. Because of his stance on war and incredibly libertarian voting record, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until more light can be shed. It doesn't look like he'll be elected president anyway, but I really want his small government views to gain more attention in public discourse.
Five or six - whatever... it's still a fairly small number. The exact number doesn't matter.
I don't have a problem with people who are concerned about racism - that is perfectly legitimate. And I agree it was stupid for him to not read all of them. But yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree about whether he consents to the views. He publicly repudiated them many times, and that's good enough for me... for now.
The number of ones actually referenced are five, and I didn't go back and count them... so what? I think it's believable that he could have missed five random issues of a monthly newsletter over a period of a few years. Was it wise? Certainly not... and he is definitely paying the price for that now. But he has come out many times and repudiated the racism in those ones that were quoted. People, especially politicians, make mistakes. Just ask Bill Clinton. There is a point where people should move on, and I think that point has been reached with this issue. At this point, the only people who keep bringing it up are liberal democratic socialists who disagree with Paul's political philosophy.
Like I said, we don't know if more issues besides these five had racist content. And we don't know if he read these specific five issues over a period of 10 years. I don't think he's racist, and pandering to racists simply doesn't make sense for an intelligent person who has aspirations to be president.
There has been enough accountability and civilized debate to satisfy a reasonable approach to the situation. Now you really are to the point of flaming and trolling. Personally I wouldn't have modded you down. But I also think that the main problems have been addressed adequately. At least for people who are open minded enough to accept the repudiation of the racist views.