Why Capitalists are Capitalists...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
What the hell did Bill Gates do comapred to Octavan? Lets see any of the puny mamas boys that run Wall street try to win a civl war and then rule and empire! they would fold like that!

ROME! ROME! ROME! ROME!

[GePap]

People keep talking here about risk: what risks? What si the most someone risk in investing? loosing that money..wow, given the range of options someone with little or no money has, that is not that huge a risk, comapred to what people took before.

Look at Gengis Khan: he first gains leadership of his tribes (somehting that took political skill and ruthlessness, military daring) and then he engges in some of the most spectacular conquests EVER. In fact, od any of today's "great men" hold eve the most miserable candle to the great achievemets of men like Khan, or Alexander, Napoleon or Ceaser? But the fact that these men ahcieved incredible things mean that if they came to the modern world, they would all of a sudden be able to transmit their skills to achieve in this modern world? They cretainly have ambition: but that is not enough. As I said, each system has winners and loosers, it reenforces a certain set of behaviors most beneficial to it.

And on the question of capitalism and morals: should the tax exemption for charitable donations be ended? I mean, money that goes to some soup kitchen is wasted: it buys some cheap subsidized grain, but then is just given for free to one of the "losers" as Lefty so "accurately" stated. Should good capital that could go into investments, IRA's and other economically worthwhile measures be wasted like that? If a consumer wants to waste his money thus, let them, its their choice, but should the government encourage such a wholesale waste of valuable capita for no economic good at all?

[Velociryx]

Results don't really have a lot to do with initial conditions. Initial conditions are the defining parameters of what your choices are, but that's about the extent of their involvement (ie - I don't get invited to the same dinner parties as Bill Gates...AT these dinner parties, he has opportunities I do not have to structure new business deals. That doesn't mean I don't have just as many opportunities....it's just that mine are on a smaller scale....as they should be. I don't have Gates' resource pool).

But....in looking at the options I DO have available to me, no....my current position has little to do with whether or not I will succeed or fail. That is largely determined by effort and timing on my part.

You seem to think that everybody should have the EXACT SAME opportunities....let me ask you then...what have you ever done to even be considered for an invite to a Bill Gates dinner party? What have I?

The answer should be painfully obvious....nothing.

That doesn't make it unfair....not in the least!

The best thing commies can do is stop whining about how the man is exploiting and out to get them, and go make some opportunities for themselves, rather than sitting around pining for the revolution that's not coming....

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Results don't really have a lot to do with initial conditions.

Actually they do. 90% of all wealthy people were born to wealthy families. Bill Gates started out rich. He was able to get IBM to buy an OS from him because his mother sat on a board of directors with the CEO of IBM. The best determinate of results are actually inituil conditions.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap




So I guess the best system of all had to be the Roman system: losers became slaves with no rights (they were really losers, I mean, they could not beat the Romans, so slavery was just what they deserved, the weak and spineless bastards!) while the most ambitious and intelligent men would float to the top and lead, make great conquests, have great arches that stand the test of time built for them! Yeah, that a winner. What the hell did Bill Gates do comapred to Octavan? Lets see any of the puny mamas boys that run Wall street try to win a civl war and then rule and empire! they would fold like that!

ROME! ROME! ROME! ROME!

Bill Gates would hire Mad Mike Hoare, and a few other types, and do just fine, thank you. Do you think Octavian Rambo'd it with his gladius and left a trail of chopped liver in his path?

[Velociryx]

If that's true, Che, then I should not be where I am. Am I just that damned good? Are all the people around me whom I have WATCHED bootstrap themselves from the gutter to something significantly better?

We must just be an amazingly talented lot to have been able to buck the system that is largely influenced by starting parameters then, eh?

But that's not how it is.

I'm just an average guy who was single-mindedly determined to do better.

As are all my friends.

And we are, starting conditions be damned! And I'm not even talking about people who are born to affluence, I'm talking about the rank and file being able to use the existing system which you guys swear till you're blue in the face is broken beyond repair to better themselves significantly.

Of course, that's not what you guys want to hear....cos if it works (and I'm a living example that it does), then membership for the glorious revolution might dry up....

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

You mean lilke going out and formenting revolution to overthrow bloodily the "dinner crowd" set?

Don't worry, I am sure that as such a crackerjack businessman, you would have the skills to survive the bloody purge. After all, you are a Winner!......

Actually Vel, we had a thread here a hwile back about economics (the wage gap), and one of the sites I dug up showed that income mobility has decreased with time sicne the mid 60's. Someone in the bottom 20% of incomes has a 68% chance of staying there, as opposed to somehting like 40-50% in the 70's. So innitial condition do have a good deal to do with things. Would you say that a race in which someone starts 10 feet from the finnish and were someone starts 30 feet away is a fair race? Someone who in increadibly fast could in theory win such a race even if he begun 30 and not 10 feet back. But the likelyhood is small.

[Velociryx]

And Che...by your own words, you have defined exactly what I'm talking about.

Gates' starting position defined his choices. Mom served on the board of IBM....that gave him his opportunity, but HE still had to do the work....he still had to pull together (purchase) the initial OS and make the pitch.

Had he flubbed the meeting, IBM would not have bought.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Results don't really have a lot to do with initial conditions. Initial conditions are the defining parameters of what your choices are, but that's about the extent of their involvement (ie - I don't get invited to the same dinner parties as Bill Gates...AT these dinner parties, he has opportunities I do not have to structure new business deals. That doesn't mean I don't have just as many opportunities....it's just that mine are on a smaller scale....as they should be. I don't have Gates' resource pool).

So let me put 2 and 2 together. You don't believe that initial conditions 'really' matters, and you agree that opportunity is not equal. That still adds up to the rich having an unfair advantage. Then you just say that the system is fair? Is there something you aren't telling us?

Oh, and it doesn't matter what accomplishments I have made. You have to be rich to eat with Bill Gates. If you're not rich you will make dinner conversation very ackward.

[Velociryx]

Gepap: The race analogy is generally a good one, but is not accurate here.

The reason: We're not all aiming for the same "finish line."

Each person has their own individual goals and desires, and they seldom interact in that way (ie - if your goal is to "beat" Gates to being worth ten trillion dollars, your anaolgy is apt....he's closer to that goal than you are, and will likely "win." But if your goal is to become as wealthy as Gates, then your accomplishing that goal in no way interacts with the bank balance of Mister Gates (unless your plan involves clandestinely transfering his balance to your bank account).

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Were you poor as a child Vel? live in a broken home? Perhaps suffered malnutrition? Does not seem so, since

And we are, starting conditions be damned! And I'm not even talking about people who are born to affluence, I'm talking about the rank and file being able to use the existing system which you guys swear till you're blue in the face is broken beyond repair to better themselves significantly.

Anyone in the middle class enjoys a level of affleunce that most human beings do not, and many American dont. I have never faced real hadship in my life, I came from a good background, and I have built upon it: but I am very well aware that I am building upon a solid structure. Other aren't.Your 'life experience" is not an arguemnt, neither is mine, or Che's. So please get a real argument Vel. Becuase all incan say to what you are saying is:

Good for you...

[Velociryx]

*sigh* Kid....I don't get you, man.

No! You do not have the same opportunities as Bill Gates. You are your own person, in your own unique life situation, and just because you don't have 100% of the same opportunities that Gates has, does NOT mean you do not have opportunities of your own.

I wrote two novels, and I daresay, I wrote them far better than Gates ever could have. That was my opportunitiy, and I ran with it.

People ARE individuals, not ants in part of a great socialist colony.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
If that's true, Che, then I should not be where I am. Am I just that damned good? Are all the people around me whom I have WATCHED bootstrap themselves from the gutter to something significantly better?

By your own interpretation you could be digging ditches any day now. A bunch of poor people will start competing with you and put you out of business.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
He was able to get IBM to buy an OS from him because his mother sat on a board of directors with the CEO of IBM.

Bull****.

Gates having a corporate lawyer daddy didn't get him off the ground. Gates and Allen's earliest products (language and compiler products) did.

Microsoft didn't have an exclusive on developing an OS for IBM, and in fact, they wanted to sell the rights to IBM, and IBM refused (lucky for Microsoft) because according to IBM's corporate mantra of the time (I worked there) "There's no money in software"

Gates and Allen succeeded for reasons that had nothing to do with their parent's initial financial condition.

The entire point of the debate is also not for everyone to get to where Gates and Allen are financially - if someone from a crap background raises himself from virtually nothing to a 50-60k a year job and a good pattern of savings and investment so he can retire, is that a "bad" outcome? How about a 100k job and decent retirement?

The leftist whining that's prevelent throughout these threads is that unless you're born with a silver spoon in hand, you're stuck in ****sville, unless the heroic party comes in and plays Marx meets Robin Hood. Oh, and nobody is actually responsible for their choices or results.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
*sigh* Kid....I don't get you, man.

No! You do not have the same opportunities as Bill Gates. You are your own person, in your own unique life situation, and just because you don't have 100% of the same opportunities that Gates has, does NOT mean you do not have opportunities of your own.

You have to tell me why this is fair now. What you are explaining is not fair.