Why do we allow so few to hoard to much wealth?

[BlahBlahYouToo]

I get it now. It took me this long, but the OP is just the hardcore liberal parody to anarchist 420. I was curious why he kept posting so many threads like this, then it hit me...he's just a parody artist.

Frankly, looking at the two of them, it just goes to show that the extremes on both sides are stupid.

yup, he's trolling.
no one can be this stupid.

 

[Venix]

I get it now. It took me this long, but the OP is just the hardcore liberal parody to anarchist 420. I was curious why he kept posting so many threads like this, then it hit me...he's just a parody artist.

Frankly, looking at the two of them, it just goes to show that the extremes on both sides are stupid.

My suspicion is that it's just the latest account of (banned?) troll DVK916/UCDAggies/StatsManD.

His posting style, braindead political positions and hatred of religion are pretty much identical to that idiot's. I doubt that it's a coincidence.

 

[JimW1949]

Everyone who gives to charity gets benefits from it, with the main benefit being the feeling that you helped someone in need. When companies do it, they generally do it to help the community they're in (since many employees live there) and also, yes, public image.

You act as if Bill Gates was sitting in his mansion with his financial advisors and spreadsheets trying to determine how much extra money he'd gain in long-term sales by donating. I don't know when this donation took place, but MS owns nearly 90% of the desktop OS marketshare worldwide so I hardly think a couple thousand kids using MS software will convince them to use MS software when they grow up. In fact, many people who use MS software in the real world have no choice because 1) Their company's IT department mandates it 2) There aren't cheaper alternatives available. If the donation took place in the mid-80s you might have a point, but if it took place in the last 15 years, you don't.

So you agree that charitable contributions benefit the giver. That was the point I was trying to make. Someone else tried to make the same point earlier in this thread, but was insulted as well.

As far as using other operating systems or other software, Microsoft has a stranglehold on the computer industry. I don't want to get into a debate on how Microsoft got that stranglehold, that would be best discussed in a different thread.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

As far as using other operating systems or other software, Microsoft has a stranglehold on the computer industry. I don't want to get into a debate on how Microsoft got that stranglehold, that would be best discussed in a different thread.

From the tone of your comment, we'd probably agree.

 

[Matt1970]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimW1949
As far as using other operating systems or other software, Microsoft has a stranglehold on the computer industry. I don't want to get into a debate on how Microsoft got that stranglehold, that would be best discussed in a different thread.

From the tone of your comment, we'd probably agree.

At the time of the lawsuit Microsoft paid $0.00 in campaign donations and lobbying. Now they pay upwards of $31,000,000 a year and haven't really been sued by the US Government. Coincidence?

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

So you agree that charitable contributions benefit the giver. That was the point I was trying to make. Someone else tried to make the same point earlier in this thread, but was insulted as well.

Earlier in the thread that person stated that the only reason they give to charity is for the tax benefits. They weren't insulted; they were told that is not how charity works.

Charitable donations don't benefit the giver at a 1:1 ratio. MS would be better off investing $20 million and getting a 10% return on it than taking a gamble and purchasing a bunch of computers for underprivileged schools (hint: kids that go to these schools most likely aren't going to be buying computers anytime soon....)

Whatever benefits there are, this is about taxes and money, not promoting business and giving yourself a good image. When donating to charity you do not get some huge tax break that will, in the end, get your more money back from the government. That isn't how it works and I think dipshit didn't quite understand that.

 

[werepossum]

At the time of the lawsuit Microsoft paid $0.00 in campaign donations and lobbying. Now they pay upwards of $31,000,000 a year and haven't really been sued by the US Government. Coincidence?

Microsoft learned the hard way that government, like the Mafia, requires protection money. Even better, the government lets you buy favors for yourself. Microsoft also learned from Apple, who distributed thousands upon thousands of computers and raised a generation of children who knew only Apple computers. Then Microsoft helped Apple and WordPerfect learn that no one can afford to give stuff away to buy market share like Microsoft.

This is a great thing though. When Microsoft gives a school $10,000 worth of PCs, only the foamiest progressive really believes that the federal government could have provided anything near equal for the amount of the lost tax revenue. Microsoft gets to do a good thing, has a small portion of its cost removed by the tax break, and hopefully gets some good press and a future competitive advantage. The school gets much more computer capability than society could have afforded by taxing, distributing, and bidding the contract. And the federal government gets the societal advantage ($10,000 worth of PCs) at a fraction of the "cost" to government. Same thing with churches, which can provide far more (and better) services for the poor using charitable contributions than the tax money would have provided. These situations are win for everyone involved. That does NOT mean however that these donations are done for the tax breaks; anyone that stupid would be unable to afford charitable donations.

 

[manimal]

At the time of the lawsuit Microsoft paid $0.00 in campaign donations and lobbying. Now they pay upwards of $31,000,000 a year and haven't really been sued by the US Government. Coincidence?

Wheres Scully and Molder when you need them..

 

[Acanthus]

Think about this:

Say I make a million dollars a year and I live in a shack, I put all my money in the bank, buy stocks etc

When I get my interest and dividends I just buy more stocks and put more money in the bank.

My money in the bank goes to people to get loans for houses, cars, start a new business, the money I put into stocks provides capital for businesses which provides people with more jobs and helping the economy even more.

I buy nothing for my own indulgence.

I work and provide $1 million dollars of productivity a year to society, and I accept worthless green pieces of paper in return.

According to the OP I'm an "evil" hoarder though.

Even if I did actually "hoard" mountains of cash in my basement I would *still* be helping society by causing the overall price level to drop because I'm deflating the money supply.

You are assuming the capital is remaining in the United States.

It is not.

 

[JimW1949]

Charitable donations don't benefit the giver at a 1:1 ratio. MS would be better off investing $20 million and getting a 10% return on it than taking a gamble and purchasing a bunch of computers for underprivileged schools (hint: kids that go to these schools most likely aren't going to be buying computers anytime soon....)

I don't see how you can say that with any degree of accuracy. In one respect, making charitable contributions is like advertising. When you advertise you try to do it in such a way that it entices people to purchase your product, or your services. Likewise, in a manner of speaking, making a charitable contribution is very good for your company's public image because it gives people a "warm and fuzzy" and people naturally want to buy your product, or your service. As an added bonus, it will hopefully generate future sales. Now initially, when the computer donation was made, I would agree completely that the tax benefits would not cover the cost of the donation. It would be silly to think that it would. But how do you measure the worth of the good pulic relations associated with the gift, and how do you measure what future sales will be because of the computer donation? As with any type of advertising, there is no real way to predict that.

As far as kids buying computers, I would suspect they will not be purchasing a computer of their own until they at least finish high school. But when they do purchase one, most likely they will purchase something they are used to, which of course will have a Windows operating system and other Microsoft software.

Once more let me remind you that I am not saying people, or companies, make charitable donations simply for the tax breaks, or for the improved public image, or whatever else that may be involved. I am only saying that making a charitable contribution does have benefits for the giver, and in some cases the benefits may be substantial.

I would also like to mention that I wish individuals and business owners would make charitable contributions more than what they do. I think this country would be much better off if everyone were "more giving" than what they are. I think collectively we are much too greedy and excessive greed will ultimately be our downfall. A little greed is OK, excessive greed is not OK.

 

[piasabird]

So are we proposing that the government should just steal wealth from the ultra wealthy and give it to people that are sitting on their asses? I would agree to some extent that the balance of wealth does seem somewhat unfair, however; I am not willing to just steal money.

Some countries do things a little differently than we do. In some countries apartments are built by the government to keep costs down. The downside is that the square footage you get is less. Smaller apartments could also reduce energy usage and help create more living space in per given city block or less actual acerage.

 

[Anarchist420]

Microsoft learned the hard way that government, like the Mafia, requires protection money. Even better, the government lets you buy favors for yourself. Microsoft also learned from Apple, who distributed thousands upon thousands of computers and raised a generation of children who knew only Apple computers. Then Microsoft helped Apple and WordPerfect learn that no one can afford to give stuff away to buy market share like Microsoft.

This is a great thing though. When Microsoft gives a school $10,000 worth of PCs, only the foamiest progressive really believes that the federal government could have provided anything near equal for the amount of the lost tax revenue. Microsoft gets to do a good thing, has a small portion of its cost removed by the tax break, and hopefully gets some good press and a future competitive advantage. The school gets much more computer capability than society could have afforded by taxing, distributing, and bidding the contract. And the federal government gets the societal advantage ($10,000 worth of PCs) at a fraction of the "cost" to government. Same thing with churches, which can provide far more (and better) services for the poor using charitable contributions than the tax money would have provided. These situations are win for everyone involved. That does NOT mean however that these donations are done for the tax breaks; anyone that stupid would be unable to afford charitable donations.

Microsoft is possibly a product of the state due to patents. The reason Linux can't fully take off is because of patents.

 

[Steeplerot]

So are we proposing that the government should just steal wealth from the ultra wealthy and give it to people that are sitting on their asses?

Where do you get this assumption? Or is it just more projection by you guys?

Funny how righties are always the one pointing out people are sitting on their asses, they know all about it for some odd reason. :sneaky:

 

[werepossum]

Microsoft is possibly a product of the state due to patents. The reason Linux can't fully take off is because of patents.

The reason Linux can't fully take off is because people good enough to make a first rate OS want to make a living at it. This is the beauty of capitalism, which selects for success those products with the best features and marketing. (Not that the various Communist state OS's aren't good too, demonstrating the value of using the wisdom of government to select who designs the state OS. Let's see, we have Kronos, um, ZilOS probably, Starvux definitely . . . )

 

[Linflas]

Where do you get this assumption? Or is it just more projection by you guys?

Funny how righties are always the one pointing out people are sitting on their asses, they know all about it for some odd reason. :sneaky:

You tend to notice what is being done with money taken from you by force and redistributed to others. Just ask homeowners around a section 8 house how they feel about working their asses off to pay a mortgage and real estate taxes only to see them subsidize someone living in the house next door at a fraction of the cost.

 

[JimW1949]

The reason Linux can't fully take off is because people good enough to make a first rate OS want to make a living at it.

Are you implying that Linux is not a first rate operating system? I have never had Linux Mint crash, or lock up, or do anything other than work perfectly. I certainly can't say the same thing about Windows.

 

[werepossum]

Are you implying that Linux is not a first rate operating system? I have never had Linux Mint crash, or lock up, or do anything other than work perfectly. I certainly can't say the same thing about Windows.

I'm stating that Linux is not an economically viable product in the same vein as is Windows. Given a choice, people prefer to get something for free (or nearly so) all things being equal. Windows' commercial success indicates that all things are NOT equal. Nothing against Linux itself; for what it is, it works very well.

 

[JimW1949]

I'm stating that Linux is not an economically viable product in the same vein as is Windows. Given a choice, people prefer to get something for free (or nearly so) all things being equal. Windows' commercial success indicates that all things are NOT equal. Nothing against Linux itself; for what it is, it works very well.

My personal belief is that Linux is a better operating system than is Windows, but Microsoft has a stranglehold on the computer market preventing Linux from making big gains in popularity.

Linux versus Windows is an interesting subject and if you would like to discuss this further, start a thread about it and I will be more than glad to discuss it with you. But I don't want to hijack this thread to talk about it.

 

[Nebor]

My personal belief is that Linux is a better operating system than is Windows, but Microsoft has a stranglehold on the computer market preventing Linux from making big gains in popularity.

Linux versus Windows is an interesting subject and if you would like to discuss this further, start a thread about it and I will be more than glad to discuss it with you. But I don't want to hijack this thread to talk about it.

I think you're missing his point, in that people generally believe Windows to be so far superior to Linux that they're willing to pay as opposed to getting something for free.

 

[JimW1949]

I think you're missing his point, in that people generally believe Windows to be so far superior to Linux that they're willing to pay as opposed to getting something for free.

Assuming that you are correct, and most people believe Windows is superior, then tell me this; Why do most people believe that?

Please understand that I am not trying to attack you on this, that is not my intent so please don't take it that way. The thing is, I would be willing to bet you that if you took a poll of people on the street and asked them what they thought of Linux, they would probably look at you as if you were speaking a foreign language. I don't think most people have even heard of Linux, much less tried it to see if they would like it. How can people who know virtually nothing about Linux and have never even seen it or used it, believe that Windows is superior? I realize that people can believe whatever they want so if they want to believe Windows is superior without having tried Linux, OK, but does it make logical sense?

 

[Matt1970]

My personal belief is that Linux is a better operating system than is Windows, but Microsoft has a stranglehold on the computer market preventing Linux from making big gains in popularity.

Linux versus Windows is an interesting subject and if you would like to discuss this further, start a thread about it and I will be more than glad to discuss it with you. But I don't want to hijack this thread to talk about it.

Linux is better in a lot of ways but that is only in the hands of those who know how to use it. The average Linux user is much more savy than the average Windows user and can make it work well for them but the average Windows user is NOT going to like Linux one bit.

In the last 15 years I have had ONE Linux machine come in for repair. Most Linux users will know how to troubleshoot thier own problems.

 

[Nebor]

Assuming that you are correct, and most people believe Windows is superior, then tell me this; Why do most people believe that?

Please understand that I am not trying to attack you on this, that is not my intent so please don't take it that way. The thing is, I would be willing to bet you that if you took a poll of people on the street and asked them what they thought of Linux, they would probably look at you as if you were speaking a foreign language. I don't think most people have even heard of Linux, much less tried it to see if they would like it. How can people who know virtually nothing about Linux and have never even seen it or used it, believe that Windows is superior? I realize that people can believe whatever they want so if they want to believe Windows is superior without having tried Linux, OK, but does it make logical sense?

Sure it makes sense. Windows is dominant, it has good marketing and market saturation. There are a number of "under dog" products out there that are cheaper and sometimes better than the "name brand" but it's still mostly about image and branding. Which Linux just doesn't have.

 

[JimW1949]

Linux is better in a lot of ways but that is only in the hands of those who know how to use it. The average Linux user is much more savvy than the average Windows user and can make it work well for them but the average Windows user is NOT going to like Linux one bit.

In the last 15 years I have had ONE Linux machine come in for repair. Most Linux users will know how to troubleshoot their own problems.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree with you up to a point, but if you download and install the new Linux Mint you will find that the install program will detect your computer's hardware and will install the necessary drivers automatically for you. If you have a networked printer, it will find it and install drivers for you. The newer versions/distribution of Linux are much more sophisticated than the older versions were and they function very much similar to Windows. To install software, you go to the Linux Mint site and you choose the software you want, you click on it and it will download and install it for you, all automatically.

Basically, a few years ago you needed to be a computer guru to be able to use Linux. Today, that is no longer the case, you no longer need to be a rocket scientist to download, install and use Linux. If you have ANY doubts, please try it. Download the latest Linux Mint and install it on a computer. I really think you will be impressed.

 

[dmcowen674]

FACT the top 1% hold more than 40% of the world wealth

So what are you doing about?

 

[Anarchist420]

Note to the OP: It's called saving, not hoarding. Personally, I don't see a reason to save US Fiat currency, but if people wish to do so, they should be allowed to do so, whether it somehow helps them or bites them in the ass in the long run.