Capitalism Doesnât Work, Mr. Gates?
- Thread starter rubibond007
- Start date
If it is true then he is trying to catch yet another tide in human history. Erradicating poverty. What is the problem with that? It is a good purpose. He may be saying let us add a patch to capitalism,which would make a good thing even better. Adding a patch is a well known concept in software engineering. So, let Gates make a new release of capitalism:
Capitalism VISTA 1.0
That business of "inventing" is always a case of more credit than one person deserves and too little credit for people upon whose shoulders the inventor had to stand to gain inspiration or even the idea for the project. Granted Gates took a much trodden path but so does every inventor when you take a microscope to it. The electronic digital computer we know today is maybe the best example of stepwise contributions from mechanical data processing machines to punch cards and a hundred Booleanized smaller steps. All your guy did was apply electricity to a basic concept-- that was the obvious next step -- like Gates. So are you all FOR poverty. Let those little fly entombed kids in Africa pick themselves up by their bootstraps, thin out the herd, let natural selection do its thing get out of my way so I can be on Cribs with all the hard earned stuff I own. That Gates just doesn't appreciate this country and everything it allowed him to plagarize Sounds like Ann Coulter.
Gates, Soros & Buffet often talk really banal stuff or sometimes just mouth off bizzare shit. Outside their undoubted financial/technical savvy in their speciality wherein they made their billions, they are no better than anyone else in their world view or in their take on the US, politics or economics in general. The late James Goldsmith in England, apart from his exceptional money making success, is a good example of how to be a crank as often as you like. I mostly find Buffet's comments on things are cliched & boring.
Look, they all did very very well for themselves and showed exceptional ability and determination in making their money.But thats it.
Look, they all did very very well for themselves and showed exceptional ability and determination in making their money.But thats it.
The fellows whose opinions you dismiss know more than just making money.
They know heads of state the world over, they know leaders in finance, politics, government, manufacturing, business, etc...
They know more than us how corrupt and rotten the system has become. They know more truths than even they, with all their wealth and power, can speak publicly about.
So when the ultra wealthy worry about the future of the common man, I listen.
If you look at the difference between say Singapore versus Laos, Burma or Vietnam; or Botswana vs Nigeria, Ethiopia or Tanzania, the common thread I see is not how much money rich white foreigners gave as aid to those countries, but the quality of leadership by local people in government. Singapore and Botswana adopted models based on political stablity and a pretty free economy, the other countries ran on command economy lines, with heavy doses of socialism. Why doesn't Gates or Buffett mention that?
Rich white western billionaires have never helped poor countries, regardless of their intentions. The only times poor countries have become rich is when people from those countries did something about it.
No one would listen to Buffett, Gates or Soros if they hadn't made money. I fail to see how being good at software monopolisation or stock trading/investing qualifies one for understanding politics. People should be listened to because of the quality of their arguments, not their wealth. So if any of these billionaires gives us some evidence that these countries have followed western-style capitalism yet still done really badly, then they are worth a listen. If they demonstrate, via facts, that socialist economies have done much better in getting countries in the 3rd world out of poverty, then it would be worth paying attention. Yet they have singularly failed to do any of that. And at the same time, they are only listened to because the capitalist system of the US allowed them to succeed in a way they wouldn't have been able to do in the 3rd world. It's ignorance and hypocrisy of the highest order. It's also dangerous, because the medicine they advocate has been tried and failed many times before.
Rich white western billionaires have never helped poor countries, regardless of their intentions. The only times poor countries have become rich is when people from those countries did something about it.
No one would listen to Buffett, Gates or Soros if they hadn't made money. I fail to see how being good at software monopolisation or stock trading/investing qualifies one for understanding politics. People should be listened to because of the quality of their arguments, not their wealth. So if any of these billionaires gives us some evidence that these countries have followed western-style capitalism yet still done really badly, then they are worth a listen. If they demonstrate, via facts, that socialist economies have done much better in getting countries in the 3rd world out of poverty, then it would be worth paying attention. Yet they have singularly failed to do any of that. And at the same time, they are only listened to because the capitalist system of the US allowed them to succeed in a way they wouldn't have been able to do in the 3rd world. It's ignorance and hypocrisy of the highest order. It's also dangerous, because the medicine they advocate has been tried and failed many times before.
As my good southern friend puts is:
" Kudlow is vermin of the lowest kind. The guy is mind numbingly stupid"
A very fitting product to sell to the herd.
" Kudlow is vermin of the lowest kind. The guy is mind numbingly stupid"
A very fitting product to sell to the herd.
Just to get it all in a perspective that everyone can understand and learn from.
Your child has his tenth birthday. Being a doting Dad you decide to have his 20 friends around for a party. You get a big birthday cake.
Do you just give the 2 or 3 of the fattest kids 90% of the cake and a few crumbs to the rest ? No of course you don't you give each child a slice. Well the economy is no different. Share the benefits around. Don't be like 101+ dictators who grabbed too big a share for themselves and ended up with nothing.
Did the Visi-goths march and fight 2,000 miles to Rome for their amusement. No.
The Romans were quite happy to give them every ounce of precious metal, jewels and anything else of value just to save their city and themselves from destruction.
The moral of the true story being - share it around fairly before it is taken by force !
Your child has his tenth birthday. Being a doting Dad you decide to have his 20 friends around for a party. You get a big birthday cake.
Do you just give the 2 or 3 of the fattest kids 90% of the cake and a few crumbs to the rest ? No of course you don't you give each child a slice. Well the economy is no different. Share the benefits around. Don't be like 101+ dictators who grabbed too big a share for themselves and ended up with nothing.
Did the Visi-goths march and fight 2,000 miles to Rome for their amusement. No.
The Romans were quite happy to give them every ounce of precious metal, jewels and anything else of value just to save their city and themselves from destruction.
The moral of the true story being - share it around fairly before it is taken by force !