Good article from Bill Gates

[Bud Struggle]

A really good article on Bill Gates from the Economist.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11622119

WHEN Bill Gates helped to found Microsoft 33 years ago there was a company rule that no employees should work for a boss who wrote worse computer code than they did. Just five years later, with Microsoft choking on its own growth, Mr Gates hired a business manager, Steve Ballmer, who had cut his teeth at Procter & Gamble, which sells soap. The founder had chucked his coding rule out of the window.
In becoming the world’s richest man, Mr Gates’s unswerving self-belief has repeatedly been punctuated by that sort of pragmatism.

[Dros]

You really need to work on the titles of your threads!:D:laugh:

[Bud Struggle]

You really need to work on the titles of your threads!:D:laugh:

This is all the freakin' program will allow me to post--everything else gets a kickback saying I am not allowed to post some freakin' tags--whatever the hell they are. :cursing:

But, Bill Gates is a good example of why I trust intelligence to make someone act well. The founders of Google are another example. The fact that he's going to pretty much give all the money back - recycle it back into the eco(no)system - is a basically rational decision. He considers his fortune to be as much the world's money as his - which is a perfectly rational conclusion. Not because he's "selfless" in some abstract way but because he's being fair in a pragmatic way.

[Chapter 24]

I hear about philanthropists like Bill Gates donating these billions to charity and I feel enticed to feel some warmth that a rich man like him would still care about those that are less fortunate, and then at the same time he would be considered to be a member of the "bourgeoise" - would he be considered an enemy in the revolution?
What is an "authentic" leftist approach to people such as Mr. Gates, those on top who give substantial amounts of money to charities and foundations?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The money found in the Gates Foundation is a scam; most of it goes towards "economic development" by spreading out into businesses. Not bad, seeing as how it's not taxed. $500 million went towards companies in Nigeria responsible for poisonous, burning gas fumes. And the educational programs in line with Billie's ideas are remarkably similar to the failed policies of NCLB: produce an obedient work force. :thumbup1: Philanthropy is a myth invented by capitalists to justify all the shit they threw at the fan. If Bill Gates is such a wonderful person, why was Microsoft purposely misleading workers into labeling themselves as "freelancers" just so the company wouldn't have to pay health care benefits?

These "grand" foundations only constitute 7% of all money given in charity. The biggest givers are the proletariat; more specifically, the "middle class" our media stations lament about.

Beyond BASIC, Gates was a negative influence on the computing industry. I hope his snobbery burns right alongside Rockefeller.

[pusher robot]

The money found in the Gates Foundation is a scam; most of it goes towards "economic development" by spreading out into businesses. Not bad, seeing as how it's not taxed. $500 million went towards companies in Nigeria responsible for poisonous, burning gas fumes.


Uhhh, source? I don't see anything about that on their website (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Grants/).


And the educational programs in line with Billie's ideas are remarkably similar to the failed policies of NCLB: produce an obedient work force. :thumbup1:


Preparing All Students for College, Career, and Life
Every young person in the U.S. needs—and deserves—the chance to attend strong schools.
Yet many children have limited opportunities for quality early learning. And millions of students sit bored and unchallenged in our high schools. Most leave school without the skills to attend college or get a job that can support a family.
The foundation's goal is for all students—regardless of race or family income—to graduate from high school prepared to succeed in college, career, and life. All students, all schools, everywhere.
We also offer college scholarships, and in Washington state we support efforts to increase children’s readiness for school.
Those monsters!

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Microsoft is a good example of how capitalism and the free market can actually impede innovation and progress.

[Killfacer]

its also a good example about how capitalism can bring technology to the working classes and make it cheap. And a good example of an extremely easy to operate operating system.

[RGacky3]

But, Bill Gates is a good example of why I trust intelligence to make someone act well. The founders of Google are another example. The fact that he's going to pretty much give all the money back - recycle it back into the eco(no)system - is a basically rational decision. He considers his fortune to be as much the world's money as his - which is a perfectly rational conclusion. Not because he's "selfless" in some abstract way but because he's being fair in a pragmatic way.

The same way it behooves a dictator or a king to keep his underlings somewhat happy, and that he must use his power for good not for evil.

Tom K, you like to make very abstract and pretty expressions about rich peoples kindness, and how they are unselfish and give back, and how alls good and fair because they are nice to their underlings. Philanthropy is great, but the fact that philanthropy is needed, and the fact that it can exist (that there are some who have a bunch of disposable cash, which out of the goodness of their hearts, decide to bless others who have nothing.) Is wrong in itself, that situation should'nt, and does'nt need to, exist.


If Bill Gates is such a wonderful person, why was Microsoft purposely misleading workers into labeling themselves as "freelancers" just so the company wouldn't have to pay health care benefits?


The Bottom line, philanthropy is all good and nice fluff to show the cameras, but what matters always is the bottom line, cold hard cash, which is why when Tom K talks about philanthropy and the such its all just fluff. Kind of like when Mao had the hundered flowers campain, out of the goodness of this heart to allow free discorse and whatever, but then guess what, he rolled it back. Capitalists can be as philanthropic and nice as they want, but as soon as teh bottom line is involved, they'll roll it back, its as I said before, fake fluff.

[Bud Struggle]

The same way it behooves a dictator or a king to keep his underlings somewhat happy, and that he must use his power for good not for evil.

Tom K, you like to make very abstract and pretty expressions about rich peoples kindness, and how they are unselfish and give back, and how alls good and fair because they are nice to their underlings. Philanthropy is great, but the fact that philanthropy is needed, and the fact that it can exist (that there are some who have a bunch of disposable cash, which out of the goodness of their hearts, decide to bless others who have nothing.) Is wrong in itself, that situation should'nt, and does'nt need to, exist.

First of all Gates isn't a king or a tyrant--he's just a businessman he "took" nothing from anyone--he developed a better mousetrap and all the world beat a path to his door. He did it all himself. Secondly--if some people can't do well in America at least, is that Gates' fault? Really, we all have the same opportunity--or something close to it. The question is do I, or you, or Bill Gates, or society OWE anything to people that have done nothing except get born (of course the way the Communist believe in Abortion--maybe a prize should be given for that after all. :lol:)

I just don't see it. You should be responsible for you and I should br responsible for me. I don't mind my tax dollars going to help someone that's down on his luck temporarly--but I have no interest in supporting him all his life (even without luxuries.) That is his own her job in life. I sure as hell wouldn't take anything from anyone--I make my own way in life. If Bill Gates has some disposable cash it's none of my business or anyone elses. And if he want's to give it away in charity--good for him.


The Bottom line, philanthropy is all good and nice fluff to show the cameras, but what matters always is the bottom line, cold hard cash, which is why when Tom K talks about philanthropy and the such its all just fluff. Kind of like when Mao had the hundered flowers campain, out of the goodness of this heart to allow free discorse and whatever, but then guess what, he rolled it back. Capitalists can be as philanthropic and nice as they want, but as soon as teh bottom line is involved, they'll roll it back, its as I said before, fake fluff.

There's a big difference between a life and death tyrant like Mao and a businessman like Gates. No one is forced to buy his product, no one is forced to work for him--but also, lots of peole have worked for him and become millionaires--either by getting a few shares of stock or learning what they needed to learn to start their own companies and become successful.

From the NYTimes:

"While the exact number is not known, it is reasonable to assume that there were approximately 10,000 Microsoft millionaires created by the year 2000," said Richard S. Conway Jr., a Seattle economist whom Microsoft hired to study its impact on Washington State. "The wealth that has come to this area is staggering."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/business/yourmoney/29millionaire.html

Lots of people did just fine associating with Bill Gates.

[RGacky3]

we all have the same opportunity--or something close to it.

Do you seriously believe that?


he's just a businessman he "took" nothing from anyone

Niether do kings and tyrants, their authority is generally completely legal.


The question is do I, or you, or Bill Gates, or society OWE anything to people that have done nothing except get born

Well I would say that Capitalists owe, their workers all the profits they have made off them, but I won't hold them to that, as long as the system changes the Capitalists are off the hook.

Its not a matter of oweing, thats like saying a King owes nothing to his peasants, which he does'nt, but the system that they are in dictates that he's a king, and they are peasants, same principle.


I just don't see it. You should be responsible for you and I should br responsible for me.

I agree, which makes property laws rediculous, because property laws destroy that principle, because now the worker is responcible not only to produce for himself but to make a profit for the Capitalist, a profit he'll never see, ultimately thats whats happening, the worker is'nt seeing all his labor's worth.


No one is forced to buy his product, no one is forced to work for him--but also, lots of peole have worked for him and become millionaires--either by getting a few shares of stock or learning what they needed to learn to start their own companies and become successful.

No ones forced to work for him, but most are forced to work with a Capitalist, and the fact that many became successful through him is irrelivent, many people became successful in the feaudal system, many knights became very powerful.

Supporters of Capitalism superate Capitalism from other tyrannical systems because they fail to realize, that money is'nt just money, money is power.

[Green Dragon]

Capitalists can be as philanthropic and nice as they want, but as soon as teh bottom line is involved, they'll roll it back, its as I said before, fake fluff.
[/QUOTE]

But hang on a second. A socialist community also has to be woried about the "bottom line" as well. It has to because it is supposed to be providing as a rule that which the capitalist might do as an exception. So the socialist system has to make sure its "bottom line," is met as well, in order for it to provide the built in philanthropy of the socialist system.

So your objection to the meaningfullness of capitalist philanthropy makes no sense. We are back, where these things always wind up, as to whether socialism is a superior system of producing and allocating resources.

[RGacky3]

. A socialist community also has to be woried about the "bottom line" as well. It has to because it is supposed to be providing as a rule that which the capitalist might do as an exception. So the socialist system has to make sure its "bottom line," is met as well, in order for it to provide the built in philanthropy of the socialist system.

So your objection to the meaningfullness of capitalist philanthropy makes no sense. We are back, where these things always wind up, as to whether socialism is a superior system of producing and allocating resources.

For a Capitalist firm, the bottom line is making a profit for shareholders, in a socialist society the bottom line is making sure everyone has what they need. Huge difference.

[534634634265]

For a Capitalist firm, the bottom line is making a profit for shareholders, in a socialist society the bottom line is making sure everyone has what they need. Huge difference.

quoted for great wisdom. in a socialist state, any "profit" produced is merely windfall for the community at large.
a company like microsoft must constantly generate more money for its shareholders, thus squeezing more money out of its products.
people may have flocked to microsoft for its easy to use product, but that product need not cost $300.

[Bud Struggle]

quoted for great wisdom. in a socialist state, any "profit" produced is merely windfall for the community at large.
a company like microsoft must constantly generate more money for its shareholders, thus squeezing more money out of its products.
people may have flocked to microsoft for its easy to use product, but that product need not cost $300.

If the price was too high, people wouldn't flock to it. $300 is a reasonable price for such a useful and easy to use product. If it wasn't people wouldn't buy it.

There are numerous alternatives to Microsoft--some of them are even free--you Microsoft rules the market. Bill Gates must have done something right.

[RGacky3]

If the price was too high, people wouldn't flock to it. $300 is a reasonable price for such a useful and easy to use product. If it wasn't people wouldn't buy it.

There are numerous alternatives to Microsoft--some of them are even free--you Microsoft rules the market. Bill Gates must have done something right.

Well profit is comming from somewhere, and I am predicting its from the factories that produce the computer parts. like I said before, all companies are about profit, otherwise they would'nt be companies, Socialism is about social need.

[Bud Struggle]

Well profit is comming from somewhere, and I am predicting its from the factories that produce the computer parts. like I said before, all companies are about profit, otherwise they would'nt be companies, Socialism is about social need.

Well when Microsoft makes a product--the first disk of it costs (just guessing) $10 million. Every subsequent disk costs $.02. They make their 10 mil back in no time--Microsoft is a highly profitable organization. But you are right--nobody gives a hoot if you could afford the $300 or not--it is about profit.

[534634634265]

i dont deny that these large corporations are driven by profit, i view that as a problem.
im confused by your last post Tomk, you didnt really state anything, only repeated what others have said. Did i miss something?:blink:

[Bud Struggle]

i dont deny that these large corporations are driven by profit, i view that as a problem.
im confused by your last post Tomk, you didnt really state anything, only repeated what others have said. Did i miss something?:blink:

I said it's about profit but it is also what the market will bear. Obviously the company has to get its money back from inventing the product--but once that is done pricing is purly a function of what people will pay for the item and most people are more than happy to pay $300 for the software. If people were unwilling to pay that amount--the price would drop.

People are content with the price so there really are no problems with the way Microsoft is doing business.

[Green Dragon]

For a Capitalist firm, the bottom line is making a profit for shareholders, in a socialist society the bottom line is making sure everyone has what they need. Huge difference.


The "huge difference" is simply that capitalism is more thought out than is socialism

A "profit" is a measuremenent which DEFINES that the objective was a success.

OTOH, the phrase "everyone has what they need" says absolutely nothing. It dioesn't describe what that is, it doesn't doesn't describe whether the objective was a success, it doesn't describe whether even the best decision of even reaching the objective is being used.

[Green Dragon]

Well profit is comming from somewhere, and I am predicting its from the factories that produce the computer parts. like I said before, all companies are about profit, otherwise they would'nt be companies, Socialism is about social need.


No. The profit is coming from the consumers who want the product.

[Green Dragon]

in a socialist state, any "profit" produced is merely windfall for the community at large.



Actually in any rational system, profit has to be the objective. And that is because the system has to be able to determine whether what they are doing and in the manner the are doing it, makes any sense.

How does the socialist system know that the factory that utilises the labor of 100 workers can produce the same output by only using 75 workers? A vote in Congress or in some workers commitee? No. that simply describes a process of making a decision, a decision that one would hope would have the grounding in a sound argument. LTV? Please.
The factory needs a way to measure the value of the outpuit of its production to the community at large. "Profit" does this by demonstrating that the value of your production to the community is greater than the costs of that production to the community.

[534634634265]

How does the socialist system know that the factory that utilises the labor of 100 workers can produce the same output by only using 75 workers? A vote in Congress or in some workers commitee? No. that simply describes a process of making a decision, a decision that one would hope would have the grounding in a sound argument. LTV? Please.
The factory needs a way to measure the value of the output of its production to the community at large. "Profit" does this by demonstrating that the value of your production to the community is greater than the costs of that production to the community.

im confused, your idea would only make sense if we were at square one. for whatever industry you choose, we already know if the value to the community is worth the cost of production, because we already know what commodities we use and need, or use and want are. and actually, it would be a commitee of workers who decided. Imagine if there were 100 workers in Factory-A. the workers commitee of Factory-A would say " we could make sufficient amounts of this with less employees". thus they cut to 75 employees. since we arent starting at square one with no culture or value system in place we know already that we only need what 75 employees of Factory-A make. if we needed more, more people could work at the factory.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

How does the socialist system know that the factory that utilises the labor of 100 workers can produce the same output by only using 75 workers?
How does a capitalist factory know that they could be using 75 workers instead of 100 to produce the same output?

They don't know until they try it. The same goes for a socialist factory. The capitalist market does give you information, but it works by trial and error - you can't know the effect of any given decision in advance (though you can of course make an educated guess). Capitalism doesn't give you a crystal ball, so it's absurd to expect socialism to provide one.

In capitalism, the factory owner says "hey, let's try this and see if it increases profit." In socialism, the elected factory manager says "hey, let's try this and see if it makes people happier so they'll vote for me in the next election."

[MarxSchmarx]

quoted for great wisdom. in a socialist state, any "profit" produced is merely windfall for the community at large.

Actually in any rational system, profit has to be the objective. And that is because the system has to be able to determine whether what they are doing and in the manner the are doing it, makes any sense...
The factory needs a way to measure the value of the outpuit of its production to the community at large. "Profit" does this by demonstrating that the value of your production to the community is greater than the costs of that production to the community.

You are missing crackedlogic's point. There is nothing in a collectivist economic system that precludes the profit mechanism. What matters is not whether there are "profits", but who enjoys those profits. Whether the profit is relatively diffused (communism) or highly concentrated (capitalism) has little bearing per se on the capacity of organizations to respond.

[534634634265]

You are missing crackedlogic's point. There is nothing in a collectivist economic system that precludes the profit mechanism. What matters is not whether there are "profits", but who enjoys those profits. Whether the profit is relatively diffused (communism) or highly concentrated (capitalism) has little bearing per se on the capacity of organizations to respond.
thanks schmarx:D
also, its not a crystal ball or magic, its experience in the field. its a ratio known to people in whatever trade you talk about. you need X number of employees to produce Y amount of product. like i said, we arent starting from square one, we know what we need and want already. its simply a matter of scaling production to that. no longer driven to make large excesses of what we need to sell for profit, we now make as much as our populace requires. think of the materials saved from unnecessary production!

[Bud Struggle]

thanks schmarx:D
think of the materials saved from unnecessary production!

If it's a GOOD product--that never is the problem. :)

[534634634265]

If it's a GOOD product--that never is the problem. :)
this whole debate started with microsoft. do you honestly think microsoft is a good product. i think it sort of-kind of is. but not nearly as good as it could and should be. and not worth the money i would pay if i didnt pirate it.

[RGacky3]

No. The profit is coming from the consumers who want the product.

Thats not profit, thats revenue, profit is revenue minus expenses, expenses are raw materials, capital and labor, and the labor, the people that do the work, are paid not by what they produce at market value, but for their labor, which is less, which is where the profit comes in, thats exploitation my friend. If profit was'nt made from labor, there would be no wage labor, only partenerships :P, but thats how Capitalism or any class system looses, someone is getting screwed, and its generally the majority of the population.

[Green Dragon]

im confused, your idea would only make sense if we were at square one. for whatever industry you choose, we already know if the value to the community is worth the cost of production, because we already know what commodities we use and need, or use and want are.

How valuable is the typewriter to the community? Not very valuable in 2008; considerably more so in 1958.


and actually, it would be a commitee of workers who decided. Imagine if there were 100 workers in Factory-A. the workers commitee of Factory-A would say " we could make sufficient amounts of this with less employees". thus they cut to 75 employees. since we arent starting at square one with no culture or value system in place we know already that we only need what 75 employees of Factory-A make. if we needed more, more people could work at the factory.

"sufficient amounts" as defined by whom? The workers at the factory?
And from where do those extra 25 employees come from? the unemployed? Are they raided from other factories?

[534634634265]

i dont know, you answer that question.
more importantly, where do the 25 guys i laid off as unnecessary labor GO?
i like the idea of raiding other industries for workers. like the british did to american sailors in the 1800's. whats the word they used for that? impressing them? something like that.

srsly tho.
i would imagine the people of the area we supplied with archaic typewriters would tell us how many they needed, and as a cadre of experienced laborers we would know how many of us were needed to do the work.

[Green Dragon]

They don't know until they try it. The same goes for a socialist factory. The capitalist market does give you information, but it works by trial and error - you can't know the effect of any given decision in advance (though you can of course make an educated guess). Capitalism doesn't give you a crystal ball, so it's absurd to expect socialism to provide one.

In capitalism, the factory owner says "hey, let's try this and see if it increases profit." In socialism, the elected factory manager says "hey, let's try this and see if it makes people happier so they'll vote for me in the next election."
[/QUOTE]

Yes, it is certainly true nobody can divine the future. And I suppose there is a certain level of trial and error in the capitalist way-within the structures of a capitalist system.

The capitalist might say 'Lets try this and see if it increases profit." But there is usually a rhythm and reason involved. It is not just random. The capitalist has to turn the profit, which means he must satisfy the needs of his customer and make them happy.

Meanwhile, the elected factory manager in the socialist system has to satisfy the needs of the workers in his factory. If they are happy, he has done his job. So what this means is that production in the socialist community is geared to satisfy the needs of the workers in the factory, and not to satisfy the needs of the consumers at large. The problems with such an aproach is legion, most obviously has to be how happy are the workers in a factory likely to be if their elected manager proposes to shave their labor force by 25%?

[Green Dragon]

[

quote=crackedlogic;1185738]thanks schmarx:D
also, its not a crystal ball or magic, its experience in the field. its a ratio known to people in whatever trade you talk about. you need X number of employees to produce Y amount of product. like i said, we arent starting from square one,


So you are picturing a static community?


we know what we need and want already.

Really? How many people "need" a computer? How about internet service? hard as it may be for some to believe, there are actually people alive who lived in a period of time where this sort of stuff was unimaginable. Did those people not "need" such technology?


its simply a matter of scaling production to that.

Ahh. Its a piece of cake.

[Green Dragon]

[

quote=crackedlogic;1186706]i dont know, you answer that question.
more importantly, where do the 25 guys i laid off as unnecessary labor GO?
i like the idea of raiding other industries for workers. like the british did to american sailors in the 1800's. whats the word they used for that? impressing them? something like that.


Well, the socialist factory which seeks to increase its labor force from 75 to 100 is going to have to get them from somewhere. In the capitalist system, the factory would simply raise its wages and salaries in hopes to attract workers from other jobs. The socialist system has no such simple a solution.




i would imagine the people of the area we supplied with archaic typewriters would tell us how many they needed, and as a cadre of experienced laborers we would know how many of us were needed to do the work.
[/QUOTE]

Okay. I say to you, I need twenty items of X from you and your fellow workers.
1. Why should you send those items to me as opposed to sending them to somebody else?
2

[534634634265]

i figure i'll be able to draw workers from the enormous pool of unemployed that the revolution will create. stockbrokers seeking real employment at my typewriter factory?
also, we would send you those typewriters you needed because your part of our community. you support us just as we support you. im no master of this ideology so it doesnt make sense to me either. all it takes in my eyes is one slackass and it all falls apart.

EDIT: im not picturing a static community, just one that already has a fairly clear idea of its needs. since im no factory worker or owner i honestly have no clue what goes into adjusting production, nor do i grasp economics well enough to tell you how i would evaluate what adjustments NEED to be made.
secondly, while you may scoff at such technological marvels as a PC or the internet, you couldn't have this debate without either. we don't "need" computers, just like we don't "need" toothbrushes. its a convenience in life.

[Green Dragon]

i figure i'll be able to draw workers from the enormous pool of unemployed that the revolution will create. stockbrokers seeking real employment at my typewriter factory?
also, we would send you those typewriters you needed because your part of our community. you support us just as we support you. im no master of this ideology so it doesnt make sense to me either. all it takes in my eyes is one slackass and it all falls apart.

EDIT: im not picturing a static community, just one that already has a fairly clear idea of its needs. since im no factory worker or owner i honestly have no clue what goes into adjusting production, nor do i grasp economics well enough to tell you how i would evaluate what adjustments NEED to be made.
secondly, while you may scoff at such technological marvels as a PC or the internet, you couldn't have this debate without either. we don't "need" computers, just like we don't "need" toothbrushes. its a convenience in life.


I do not scoff at technological marves such as the PC or internet. I simply observe that at one point people went about their daily lives without such knowledge. In other words, at one point there was no conception amongst people that they "needed" a PC or the internet.

[534634634265]

I do not scoff at technological marves such as the PC or internet. I simply observe that at one point people went about their daily lives without such knowledge. In other words, at one point there was no conception amongst people that they "needed" a PC or the internet.

just like at one point people didnt "need" the toothbrush or cutlery.:D
welcome to a more modern world, where while we may not need a computer, it certainly makes life easier.
for many years people went about their daily lives without such knowledge as:
1. germs exist, and can kill you
2. throwing your shit in the street spreads disease
3. fucking your close family makes your offspring more likely to be half-wits.
amazing what we've learned throughout time.

[Green Dragon]

just like at one point people didnt "need" the toothbrush or cutlery.:D
welcome to a more modern world, where while we may not need a computer, it certainly makes life easier.
for many years people went about their daily lives without such knowledge as:
1. germs exist, and can kill you
2. throwing your shit in the street spreads disease
3. fucking your close family makes your offspring more likely to be half-wits.
amazing what we've learned throughout time.

Its amazinghow completely irrelevent your response was.

In Note 26, you stated we "know what we need and want already." It was a comment in response to an inquiry of the problem of production and how a socialist community would deal with it. Basically, your response said it is no problem, for the above quoted reasons. Whereupon my coment basically said yours was total bullshit, because we have no idea what people want.
But it is certainly true people learn over time. So how do people learn what other people want in a socialist community, if socialist community approaches the issue as already being solved: Look at what they wanted yesterday.

[Kami]

its also a good example about how capitalism can bring technology to the working classes and make it cheap. And a good example of an extremely easy to operate operating system.


Make it cheap? you jest, surely! a copy of microsoft windows & a copy of office will set you back hundreds of pounds, well outside what a hell of a lot of people are willing to pay, specifically those of us left at the bottom of the ladder.
Foisting sub-standard software, every "innovation" in which is shamelessly ripped off from competitors is in no way laudable. And trust me, it's only easy to use because you're used to it. You'd be saying the same about Mac, or Acorn (boy, that's going back a way :P) or GNU/Linux, or BeOS, or whatever other operating sytem you happened to have grown up with. Use Ubuntu for a few months, and XP seems like torture.

[534634634265]

Its amazinghow completely irrelevent your response was.

In Note 26, you stated we "know what we need and want already." It was a comment in response to an inquiry of the problem of production and how a socialist community would deal with it. Basically, your response said it is no problem, for the above quoted reasons. Whereupon my coment basically said yours was total bullshit, because we have no idea what people want.
But it is certainly true people learn over time. So how do people learn what other people want in a socialist community, if socialist community approaches the issue as already being solved: Look at what they wanted yesterday.

my reply was no more irrelevant than yours, friend.
you stated that my idea of what was "needed" was wrong. i said that people have needed more and more over time as we have become aware of the good that said "needed item" can bring. i made several examples of how things we didnt know about became "needed" items, like antibiotics, toilets, and condoms.
you said we dont need computers, i say we do. you got into needs, not wants. i want a Mac, but i make do with a PC because i know i need a computer to do what i do. I want you take your needs versus wants to reality and get rid of your computer, but i know that you "need" your computer to make the comments you make. need, want, it all depends on who you ask, pal. shall we continue to debate the semantics or would you like to get back to the point at hand?:confused::blink::)
now then, my factory would only make a needed item, because if we didn't need its product we likely couldn't afford to continue making it. in a socialist state we'll probably see long periods of fairly intense poverty as the economy restructures itself to these new principles.
how i would know how much product to make? as i said, the people i serve would likely tell me. if you want to look at what people wanted yesterday the future will escape you. trapped in the past, we would never be able to grow or develop. no, we'll likely leave factories in the hands of those who already control them since they probably know more about their operation than you or I.

[superiority]

he developed a better mousetrap and all the world beat a path to his door. He did it all himself
Actually, he developed a half-assed knock-off of CP/M, but he got a sweet deal with IBM so he managed to get a lot of market share. Later on, he ripped off Apple's ideas, but managed to get a settlement with them.

[534634634265]

Actually, he developed a half-assed knock-off of CP/M, but he got a sweet deal with IBM so he managed to get a lot of market share. Later on, he ripped off Apple's ideas, but managed to get a settlement with them.

so he was more crafty and scheming than his counterparts. still seems like a highly successful capitalist to me. he played the system for all it was worth and won. unfortunately this is something many can do in our current way of living. i mean, he promised to deliver a product he didn't have, bought or stole that product, then delivered it to a bigger beast as bait to take their flock. seems like a slick bastard to me, key word being slick.

[Green Dragon]

you stated that my idea of what was "needed" was wrong.

Not at all. i said simply because we know what people need today, it does not mean they will need it tomorrow. One did not need PC in 1975 (or didn't think he or she needed it). Yet your production ideas operating in 1975 would preclude the idea of computers.

i
said that people have needed more and more over time as we have become aware of the good that said "needed item" can bring.

Certainly. But such production requires that base behind it.


now then, my factory would only make a needed item, because if we didn't need its product we likely couldn't afford to continue making it.

Correct. In 2008 your factory would make computers. In 1975 it would have made typewriters. And if was using your principles in 1975, in 2008 it would still be making typewriters, not computers.



in a socialist state we'll probably see long periods of fairly intense poverty as the economy restructures itself to these new principles.

I would think it would be a permanent period of poverty.


how i would know how much product to make? as i said, the people i serve would likely tell me.

This occurs in capitalism as well. So you need to expand a bit how things are different on this score in the socialist community.


if you want to look at what people wanted yesterday the future will escape you. trapped in the past, we would never be able to grow or develop. no, we'll likely leave factories in the hands of those who already control them since they probably know more about their operation than you or I.

Yes. The workers in the typewriter factory of 1975 will know all about manufacturing typewriters. But who cares? People want computers produced.

[Kronos]

The fact that he's going to pretty much give all the money back - recycle it back into the eco(no)system - is a basically rational decision. He considers his fortune to be as much the world's money as his - which is a perfectly rational conclusion. Not because he's "selfless" in some abstract way but because he's being fair in a pragmatic way.This might impress naive people who endorse capitalism, but it doesn't impress a socialist/communist. For a guy to get rich from selling the products manufactured by the working class, and then donate portions of that profit to charities, or to research, whatever, hasn't done anything worthy of adulation....although it appears as some kind of heroic, humanitarian effort. No. Every cent that Gates "owns" was not generated by him, so therefore it doesn't belong to him. If you wish to thank someone for the money you can thank all the computer techs who labored to produce the software, and all the consumers who paid far more than the costs of the production of that software, for that software.

Gates is a nobody. He was valuable only insofar as he conceived the microsoft operating systems. The moment others take part in the production of those systems...Gates is no longer legitimate or important.

He gets no more credit than that. He had a good idea. Big fucking deal. There are computer wizards all over the planet. What he did was not so exceptional that it warrants being as rich as he is. You cannot equate "value" and "integrity" with the amount of wealth one has. There are people who have so much money....the money itself generates interest. Somewhere there is a fat guy planted on a couch in Bermuda who is so filthy rich and overweight from eating pasta that he hasn't been to his other nine properties in over three years since he'd likely have a heart attack if he got off the couch. Is this a "great person"? He should be, right, because he has so much money.

There isn't much of a difference between this guy and Gates, except Gates spent a few hours on a computer and doesn't eat as much pasta.

[534634634265]

oh lawd green dragon,
your assuming a static environment still. as the needs of the community change, the product made would change as well. of course i wouldnt just make the same old product, demand for it would shrink and eventually cease. and its not a moneyless utopia im talking about. socialism is the change of economic policies to reflect the need of the government to take care of its people. for a factory or a farm or a utility little would change in the event of a transition to socialism. pay scales would re-adjust, and people that trade only in imaginary things like credit or debt would probably need new jobs, but for the average worker things would improve in the availability of free services like health care, dental care, etc. think about socialized medicine. now take that concept to a national scale. this is how i understand it to work. the government controls everything, which is ok because the government would actually be OF the PEOPLE for the first time. maybe someone with a more advanced understanding of socialism can explain it more thoroughly.

[Green Dragon]

oh lawd green dragon,
your assuming a static environment still. as the needs of the community change, the product made would change as well. of course i wouldnt just make the same old product, demand for it would shrink and eventually cease. and its not a moneyless utopia im talking about. socialism is the change of economic policies to reflect the need of the government to take care of its people. for a factory or a farm or a utility little would change in the event of a transition to socialism. pay scales would re-adjust, and people that trade only in imaginary things like credit or debt would probably need new jobs, but for the average worker things would improve in the availability of free services like health care, dental care, etc. think about socialized medicine. now take that concept to a national scale. this is how i understand it to work. the government controls everything, which is ok because the government would actually be OF the PEOPLE for the first time. maybe someone with a more advanced understanding of socialism can explain it more thoroughly.



I suspected there was a misunderstanding along the way.

I was not talking about capitalism as compared with socialism. I was responding to your claims regarding socialism itself.