Bill Gates is the richest American once again!

[thewiseguy]

The recent economic turmoil has caused Warren Buffet to lose 12 billion dollars. So, Bill Gates with 57 billion dollars net worth is now the king of US rich list!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080918/en_afp/ussocietyeconomyrichmediaforbes_080918150831

Time for more useless Gates and Seinfeld ads!
:rofl:

[no limit]

1. Congratulations to him I guess.

[Oregone]

2. Fuck that. I think we should tax him 90%+

And he'd still make more than everyone else. What conceivable notion would convince the people to allow a private individual to accumulate so much wealth, when so many have so little?

[fascisthunter]

3. thank you

[no limit]

11. He started microsoft and built that company up from nothing. You can do it too

go for it. Let me know how it turns out for you.

Yes, he should be taxed. But 90% is absolutely insane, I don't understand why certain people around here have such a big problem with people making money. He got where he is today by his own hard work, personally I respect that especially when you consider the charity he has done with his billions. I'm sorry that you don't.

[bean fidhleir]

13. Yes, isn't it amazing what one can do with as little as $1,000,000

in his pocket at age 18, a millionaire corporate lawyer father, and a mother with connections into top-level IBM management.

[no limit]

15. yeah, the fact that he was writting software in 8th grade

long before anyone knew what software was, is all because his parents were rich. Or the fact that he knew, even if IBM didn't, that others would clone the IBM platform so he wanted to keep the copyrights to dos. Nope, he deserves absolutely no credit for anything no matter how smart he was.

:sarcasm:

[bean fidhleir]

26. What book of fairy tales have YOU been reading??

Paul Allen is responsible for most of the technical side of DOS, and it was hardly more than a massage of CP/M.

And tens of thousands of people were writing software in the 8th grade and earlier, all the way back to the first kludged IMSI cards -- but they didn't have well-connected millionaire parents, or benefit from Kildall blowing off a meeting with IBM management out of hubris. If three different factors hadn't all come together by sheer luck, the first IBM boxes would have been running CP/M and Microsoft would have remained a tiny niche company fighting for aftermarket scraps. If it had survived at all.

Anyone can succeed if they're a wealthy, unscrupulous, intelligent asshole ...and lucky.

[Sebastian Doyle]

16. His own hard work? Not exactly....

Gates is a brilliant marketer, but you DO know the whole story of how MS-DOS came to be, right?

[no limit]

17. Absolutely. The story of him making his fotrune shows his pure genius

You would have to be a genius to know that people would clone IBM machines so you should keep the copyright to the operating system, he knew this even when IBM didn't. And that kind of genius is not gained by luck, it is gained by extremely hard work and dedication. As I said above, the guy was writing software in 8th grade, before most people knew what software was. What do you call that if you don't want to call it hard work?

[mudesi]

23. You're spouting falsehoods

No, he wasn't writing software before people knew what software was. He had an interest in something that others before him worked to develop, and good for him. I don't deny him his credit there.

But MS-DOS was a direct rip off of PC-DOS. All he did was change the first head drive letter from "A:" to "C:". And Windows was a direct rip off of Xerox's user interface paradigm.

And he didn't start Microsoft. He bought it.

He was (is) a shrewd business man, not a genius. He didn't invent anything, he saw what others did and marketed it better, made the right business connections, and managed his money properly.

There's a difference between the geniuses who actually create new things and the entrepreneurs who invest their time and money on those things in an attempt to make a profit.

[jayfish]

19. By Almost All Accounts He Was A Brilliant Programmer...

as well. Why did he need to reinvent the wheel with a new operating system when he could buy what he needed and move on from there. You know the story of how OS X came to be, right? I don't hear anyone bringing that one up ad nauseam.

Jay

[Sebastian Doyle]

22. I'm not a Mac user, so I don't keep track of OS X history

I know it's built on top of Darwin BSD, but apart from that, I don't know all that much about it.

[Dukkha]

27. It's origin was NeXTSTEP

An operating system made by Steve Jobs' other company NeXT, which Apple Computer acquired in 1996 and ported it to the Mac PowerPC platform making it OS X. This was after years of failed attempts to make their own next generation OS code named Copeland. The acquisition also brought Jobs back to Apple, at first as an interim CEO, or as he called it the iCEO.

[Sebastian Doyle]

31. So Jobs basically bought an operating system..... from himself?

I don't see why people have a problem with that. :shrug:

Even if it is just a slick interface built on top of BSD which you can get for free.

[LSK]

18. for every Bill Gates, there are 1,000,000 failed businesses

Can you get that myth of "anyone" can do it out of your head please????

Nobody has a problem with people making big money, but they should be taxed appropriately. I would have no problem with a 50% tax on him.

Also check the tax rates of the 50s please. Wasnt that our "golden era"????

[jayfish]

20. You Missed The Sarcasm I Guess. -NT-

[LSK]

21. probably so

Just a little upset about the constant lying from McShame and Co and the economy falling to shit.

[LanternWaste]

25. From 1951 - 1961

From 1951 - 1961, the top marginal tax bracket in the U.S. was set at 91%. We certainly didn't think it was insane at that point, nor did we percieve that as a disrespect for work or initiative.

But then again, we've bought into a New & Improved notion of what is or is not fair that seems to consistently reduce what we owe the country.

[Romulox]

29. Yeah, but why should Gates care any more about his fellow Americans than anyone else in the world?

Just like you say, "No border makes any one worker any better or any worse than another."

If he avoids US taxes, this just means he has more to share with the workers of the world! :P

[Romulox]

28. Bill Gates built his company on GOVERNMENT PORK. His last 2 or 3 OSes have been trash.

I run Vista on one laptop and Leopard on another.

There. Is. No. Comparison.

My Vista PC had its first full reformat after 8 months of operation. My Leopard laptop is going on 3 years (after being upgraded from Tiger (ask any of your PC friends if they recommend upgrading to the latest Windoze OS, rather than reformatting with a clean install.)

Vista is garbage. I like my 360, however.

[Sebastian Doyle]

30. Last 2 or 3?

OK, Vista pretty much blows. But what's wrong with Windows 2000, or XP?

Now Windows ME, granted, was even a bigger piece of shit than Vista. And that's saying a lot.

[Oregone]

32. I don't care how he "earned" his money.

He has it.

We should want it. We should demand it. End of story.

American Dream music not needed.

[no limit]

36. We should demand his money? What right do you have to his money?

[Oregone]

37. The real question is: What right does he have to his money?

What can we empirically derive about the concept of "property ownership"/"property rights" from evaluating fundamental science and math?

Pretty much nothing. "Property ownership" is a human concept, based primarily upon other concepts such as "property" and a human's ability to "own".

Well, I should give you that such concepts are defined and agreed upon, not within science, but within certain societies (not all societies, such as early man who could clearly take whatever they wanted by force). But, we should ask, what is the inherent value to honoring what that society has agreed upon?

Well, such agreements are laid out in something I would like to refer to as a "social contract". Essentially, it is an agreement that is the cornerstone to a society, in which the members within implicitly agree to follow such. To break it down, societies consist primarily of the owners and the owner-less. Of the few powerful, and the many who can be thought of as powerless. But those who do not own or wield power have numbers, and together, more power than the upper echelon of society. These masses, can take whatever they want, whenever they want. But they do not, because they normally prefer security, a functioning society, and benefits they ask for, in return for preserving the rule of law. The powerful need to pacify the masses, so that they may continue to profit. They must negotiate and find out what they can cost-effectively give the masses, such that the masses follow and do not rebel from the contract (being that each side is essentially extorting each other with the threat of force, we can call this mutual agreement to play nice "cooperative extortion"). The negotiation, agreement, or "social contract" stipulates that the upper class must follow certain rules and give certain demanded benefits, such that the lower classes continue to be good citizens and workers (and this is a fluid contracts, which can be renegotiated based on the ability of the upper class to give, and the condition of the lower-class). But, if such a contract is broken by either side, then no such concepts of "property rights" or even inherent "God-given" rights exist. Only anarchy exists (or totalitarianism), so it is within the interest of the upper class to always work to preserve the social contract (as it is within the interest of the lower classes). Only with the social contract, can they ever securely own any thing and can they ever "earn" more. Otherwise, the group or class with the most might will always seize the most assets in the end, which historically has proven to be the masses.

I guess in conclusion, perhaps I feel as if our "social contract" has been consistently broken, which nullifies the concept of "property rights". He no more owns that, than a mass of armed people who may try and take it from him, hypothetically speaking of course (they would need to organize and demand it first).

Further, in the same regard, if we were to consider there is no breach of the "social contract", then we do in fact have a "right" to that money (if we demand it as so), because we have abided by the contract while allowing him to accumulate it. We have worked for him, we have created a safe environment, we have created a strong economy, we have been paid un-proportionally to our work, we have respected the property rights of his business partners (helping him do business), etc. We have a "right" to our cut.

But it all boils down to this..."rights" are merely fluid concepts. You aren't born with the, via God. You either fight for them, or you prepare to fight for them....under such preparation, if the upper class feels it is cost-effective to give them to you rather than war with you, it is now a "right". Hence, to establish a "right" to his money is as simple as asking for it, while organized, via a threat of force. Fortunately, in most cases, there is a government to facilitate the struggle of the classes, and we can normally ask them first.

[Common Sense Party]

38. Where do you live? I want to come over and take some of your

money.

[Generic Other]

4. He's also the biggest asshole in the country

but who's counting?

[jayfish]

7. Bill Gates?

Your kidding right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Personal_life

Gates began to realize the expectations others had of him when public opinion mounted that he could give more of his wealth to charity. Gates studied the work of Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller and in 1994 sold some of his Microsoft stock to create the William H. Gates Foundation. In 2000, Gates and his wife combined three family foundations into one to create the charitable Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which is the largest transparently operated charitable foundation in the world.<48> The foundation is setup to allow benefactors access how its money is being spent, unlike other major charitable organizations such as the Wellcome Trust.<49><50> The generosity and extensive philanthropy of David Rockefeller has been credited as a major influence. Gates and his father have met with Rockefeller several times and have modeled their giving in part on the Rockefeller family's philanthropic focus, namely those global problems that are ignored by governments and other organizations.

Just in case this is an Apple fanboi thing, let me say the Steve Jobs IS one of the biggest assholes in the country.

Jay

[Oregone]

9. How do you objectively quantify being an asshole?

Perhaps its someone who has the most of something that is needed direly by the most people, and he still wont give them any significant share of it. And no, Im not talking about hugs.

If that is the definition, then, despite his "foundation" and tiny "gifts" he throws around for PR, he is the biggest asshole.

[jayfish]

12. "Tiny Gifts"? Give Me A Break.

He donated $6 billion in 1999 alone. SIX FUCKING BILLION. The biggest charitable gift in history. You are a caricature of the bad librul. Get over yourself.

Jay

http://speakout.com/activism/news/2246-1.html

ON EDIT: He gave 3.3 billion in 1998

[no limit]

14. Don't worry, for some idiots if you are rich you are an asshole by default

no matter what facts there are. Like for example the fact that you built a company from nothing to become the worlds largest corporation in less than 20 years. Or how when you made all your billions you decided to give a bunch of it away to charity. Nah, none of that matters because you are still rich so you are an asshole. I wonder how much the guy that made that comment gives to charity. Wanna place any bets? (I bet its $0).

[Oregone]

34. If you are excessively rich, you are an asshole.

Yes, thats how it goes. Because you have excess you don't need, that everyone else needs, that you can't do anything with practically, and that you refuse to give away.

And no...I gave about $300 to charity last year, but I used to dedicate/volunteer a lot of my time my community (it became my life for a few years, my actual life).

When you look at what I make, how I survive, the energy/time/money I put forth, I find it to be quite expansive.


And you know what. Many non-asshole progressive people don't give to charity. They are not in the position to. Not only is Bill Gates in the position to give, he could give 90% of his wealth left over after he *invests for lifetime of security, plays, buys housing, or whatever the fuck else he could conceivably do with it as an individual*, and still be fucking fine, happy, safe, secure, and richer than 99.5%+ of everyone else.

Clearly, we cannot depend on charity for answers (often foundations are just tax shelters). We need progressive taxation, and investment in the communities, not the individuals.

[Oregone]

33. Tiny.....

Once you cover what it costs for him to sustain his existence, add in what it costs for his modest leisure, add to that what it cost for him to enjoy extravagance, and add in investments to prolong his infinite comfort, its a drop in the bucket compared to everything else he has. And therefore, at such a point, everything else he has is expendable. Yet, after he takes his hearty full, to such a point he could not take any more, he is still not willing to give more than a few measly billion here and there?

You see...you miss the point. After you consider what he needs/wants/enjoys/invests, he doesn't NEED the rest. He cannot even USE the rest, or ENJOY the rest. He cannot even FATHOM the rest (its incomprehensible to the human mind). But yet, he keeps pretty much all of the rest?

Its easy to give billions when you have so much, and you are completely taken care of for all existence...hardly edifying. Frankly, quite sickening.

[Gwendolyn]

35. Too bad his foundation gives to the Discovery Institute.

The people spearheading the "teach creationism in schools" movement.

The people who promote the idea that Darwin's theory of evolution is the cause of Hitler's rise and therefore evil.

The Institute funded by the wealthiest Dominionists in the country.

[SweetieD]

5. lol ok but I don't think Buffet is going to be hitting up the soup line anytime soon.

[dana_b]

8. really... do you think he can survive on only 50 billion?? n/t

[Oregone]

10. It might be tough. He should call Suze Orman immediately.

[Common Sense Party]

6. How has Buffett lost money?

On paper, his portfolio is down in value, yes. But he hasn't actually LOST anything.

[bullwinkle428]

24. That should help ease the blow of everyone thinking

:wtf: when they watch those ridiculously pointless commercials he decided to do with Jerry Seinfeld...