Draginol Draginol

Yes, the left would cap your salary if they could

▼

Yes, the left would cap your salary if they could

The radical left doesn't hide their agenda

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/10079
from JoeUser Forums

The smirking chimp is a site dedicated to not just insults of President Bush but also of promoting radical left-wing nonsense like the article "When the rich make too much money".

It never ceases to amaze me to see someone write, without irony on a computer, built by companies started by people who are now "rich" full of components made by companies whose founders are "rich"  running computer software made by companies whose founders are "rich" complaining how unfair it is that there are rich people and how it endangers us all.

How many people do you know whom you would happily claim to be worth 100 times what you are worth as a human and a citizen of a so-called "democracy"? How does the worth of people like Kenneth Lay and Warren Buffett stack up against the worth of people like Jefferson, Franklin and Lincoln? Have you ever considered the certainty that relative human worth does not have one damned thing to do with what you own or how much money you have accumulated?
End of quote

Above is a quote from the article that is written without a hint of irony.  Apparently, being a politician or diplomat has more worth than Warren Buffet.  Who defines how valuable a human being is to society? Apparently in the liberal utopia, learned academics like Dr. Lower.

But before we are assigned a human worth value by the academics, I would ask -- how much has our life changed in just the past 100 years thanks to people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, and so on?  What would our lives be like today without the tiny percentage of people who go out and truly change the world?

If the government were to tell me that I had a maximum cap I could earn, then my answer would be "fuck you" and I would simply stop working.  I have a wife and 3 kids.  Sure, I employ 50 people but if I'm not going to be able to benefit beyond a certain point from my efforts, then I'm not going to work beyond that point either. How would that affect the 50 people that work at the company I run? Probably not very well. But being forced to work without compensation is slavery and I won't be a part of that. 

I could retire right now if I wanted and live comfortably.  I'm not driven by money or wealth accumulation, but I certainly expect to enjoy the fruits of my labor (see Draginol's new car).  I expect to one day be able to afford a lot more than what I have today.  That isn't what gets me up in the morning (making cool stuff does) but there are plenty of days when my job isn't fun and having goals that involve materialism do help (well, I sure don't enjoy having to deal with employee issues but on the other hand, I can afford to buy a nice lake house up north).

One of the things that drives people like me is the desire for new experiences and new frontiers and many of those new experiences take a lot of money because, as I've written before, money can buy time to allow people to experience more in the limited amount of years they have on this Earth.

The problem with left-wingers is that most of them are inevitably divorced from reality and have no conception to how we got from serfdom (where the "goverment" did put hard limits on how much one could earn) to where we are today in a fairly egaltarian society where the child of a single parent with no economic advantages can grow up and live the American dream.

Too many left-wingers think jobs and opportunity simply exist on their own and are not connected to anyone. But our society is a reverse pyramid. You remove the handful of movers and shakers from society and it would collapse in a hurry.  Supply and demand deterine where we are on that pyramid -- not some group of learned academics.

You'd think that academics would see the obviousness in this. After all, one presumes they have some grasp of history.  Yet, when they espouse short-sighted proposals like this which would, in essence, return us to a social structure more resembling feudalism (except where our lords are "elected" rather than born into) it's hard to take their words very seriously. 

It's ironic that a site that has so much venom directed toward the current elected political leader that they would, if they had their way, redirect so much power and wealth into the hands of such leaders and away from people who made their wealth from the voluntary choices of millions of people.

democrat
41,242 views 78 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top

2. People bought IBM PC clones and MS-DOS because MS-DOS was better than CP/M and 100% compatible with IBM's DOS.

In later years, after the romance was gone, IBM said that was their biggest mistake.  And why they could not corner the market.  It may have been IBM's mistake not to enter into an exclusive deal, but I think it was to the benefit of PC usage world wide.

Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
You were fairly reasonable Brad, even in the face of ignorance, hostility and just plain rudeness. I am pretty certain that the air in California is a whole lot less orange than in the 60's and 70's, even with lots more cars. Heck most Ultra Low Emissions vehicles leave the air cleaner as they drive to work during rush hour.
I don't think the folks at the chimp are going to be very receptive to your pro-business views.
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top

You'd think that academics would see the obviousness in this. After all, one presumes they have some grasp of history. Yet, when they espouse short-sighted proposals like this which would, in essence, return us to a social structure more resembling feudalism (except where our lords are "elected" rather than born into) it's hard to take their words very seriously.


I doubt the lords would be elected. The left seem more fond of court decisions than elections. Perhaps the lords would appoint each other like in the EU (but without the control of national governments). Perhaps the courts would name the lords. Perhaps the party would. But I don't just don't see how the same people who scream bloody murder when the people elect a president they don't like would allow elections as we know them.
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Again, a right winger looking for scapegoats when his own kind slit his throat and he can't believe it. The thought of right wingers taking away our freedom, telephone taps, illegal searches of homes and persons, and the planned and osculating terror campaign against brown skinned people are all products of right wing thinking."

May I ask what you do for a living and which "brown skinned people" we are planning a "terror campaign" against?
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
In order to be in power in the United States, elections are held. Whenever someone is in power, they won the last election. Therefore, when a new election comes up, they're feeling pretty good about it. Therefore, they allow the election, expecting their party to win again.

But in the end, it doesn't matter who's in the government, except to their respective corporate sponsors.
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top

I've got a much better idea of the crux of their argument:

Wealth exists because of labor. And the rich are simply people hogging that wealth created by other people.

Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gates bought DOS, danielost. He reworked it.
And DOS wouldn't have neen worth a dime if he hadn't grossly under bid CPM and IBM hadn't come up with the PC.
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
Furthermore I think it was Basic on which DOS piggy backed. And where would Windows be w/o "stealing" from MacIntosh; btw, I believe Apple originated from CPM. The bubble nerds seem to think they invented everything--but where would they be w/o electricity? LOL  
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
And DOS wouldn't have neen worth a dime if he hadn't grossly under bid CPM and IBM hadn't come up with the PC.




actually bill gates didn't use cpm. but his own version of it.



IBM partnership
In 1980 IBM approached Microsoft to make the BASIC interpreter for its upcoming personal computer, the IBM PC. When IBM's representatives mentioned that they needed an operating system, Gates referred them to Digital Research (DRI), makers of the widely used CP/M operating system.[25] IBM's discussions with Digital Research went poorly, and they did not reach a licensing agreement. IBM representative Jack Sams mentioned the licensing difficulties during a subsequent meeting with Gates and told him to get an acceptable operating system. A few weeks later Gates proposed using 86-DOS (QDOS), an operating system similar to CP/M and which Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products had made for hardware similar to the PC. Microsoft made a deal with SCP to become the exclusive licensing agent, and later the full owner, of 86-DOS, but did not mention that IBM was a potential customer. Gates never understood why DRI had walked away from the deal, and in later years he claimed that DRI founder Gary Kildall capriciously "went flying" during an IBM appointment, a characterization that Kildall and other DRI employees would deny. After adapting the operating system for the PC, Microsoft delivered it to IBM as PC-DOS in exchange for a one-time fee,[26] but retained the copyright so that it could sell the system to other hardware vendors.[27]

As several companies reverse-engineered the IBM architecture and developed clones[28] Microsoft was quick to license DOS to other manufacturers, calling it MS-DOS (for Microsoft Disk Operating System). By marketing MS-DOS aggressively to manufacturers of IBM-PC clones and by virtue of its undivided ownership of the operating system's source code, Microsoft went from a small player to one of the major software vendors in the home computer industry. Microsoft continued to develop operating systems as well as software applications.[29][30]


WWW Link


and what helped to make bill gates rich is that ibm allowed him to keep the program to license.
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
And where would Windows be w/o "stealing" from MacIntosh;


your right but then where would macintosh be without stealing from xerox.
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think it was Basic on which DOS piggy backed.


and this was all mircosoft
Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top

As for the link--anyone who quotes Spinoza to justify extreme left nonsense has to be suspect.

As for Brad always finding the "left's" outrageous illustrations to scapegoat all on the left is radical in itself and really serves little purpose other than to vent paranoia. No one is going to raid his bank account--he's small fry--unless he believes, which I doubt, he is worth, not unlike corporate CEOs--who incidentally are as a rule not entrepreneurs but simply business managers who never created anything on their own--400 times more than employees of the Draginol empire. We all tend to forget that w/o labor all the inventions would n't be worth a damnable thing.  

Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top

your right but then where would macintosh be without stealing from xerox.
thanks for the historical perspective. And you're certainly right about xerox, also AT&T and unsung heroes in universities.

 

Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top
stevendedalus


i guess you haven't been watching the news about the add against the general in new york times.
Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top

And DOS wouldn't have neen worth a dime if he hadn't grossly under bid CPM


Ah, the old slimy trick of offering a superior product for less money! Devil, him!

"monopoly"
noun
A situation in which a company uses unfair tactics like very low prices against competing companies. Very low prices and the existence of competing companies are symptomatic of a monopoly.

(https://forums.joeuser.com/?forumid=258&aid=81628)
Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top
he had a monopoly at the time because no one else wanted to do it.


how ever when the government brought charges against Microsoft for being a monopoly. they had 10000 competitors.
Reply #67 from JoeUser Forums Top

how ever when the government brought charges against Microsoft for being a monopoly. they had 10000 competitors.


True enough.
Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top
Definitely check out the comments at: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/10079#comment
Very illuminating.

I tried to get through that thread but I found I'd rather read a newspaper covered by a pile of messy diarrheal diapers.
Good on ya for standing up for what you believe in... I love where they start trashing you for actually being successful.
Reply #69 from JoeUser Forums Top
We all tend to forget that w/o labor all the inventions would n't be worth a damnable thing.


And the potential of that labor would be largely wasted without the inventions to make it more productive. If one person's invention can make another person's labor twice as productive, who should get the credit for that virtual laborer?
Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top
Finally reached the end of that very long thread.

By the end, you had made a lot of enemies. You were clearly not welcome there... after all was said and done, you were the infidel who challenged their "I don't make enough money and those who do should be punished" pity party with some actual realistic mainstream ideas. They asked you to take your ball and go home... mostly so they could continue their circle jerk.
Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top
"But before we are assigned a human worth value by the academics, I would ask -- how much has our life changed in just the past 100 years thanks to people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, and so on? What would our lives be like today without the tiny percentage of people who go out and truly change the world?"


At least one of the people you mention also understands that our country has needs that at times are MORE important then just making the wealthy more wealthy from tax cuts. That is just what Gates and Buffet told Bush in 2001 about his tax cuts for the wealthy.

Those wealthy would still have been VERY wealthy even without the Bush tax cuts but had Bush listened to the two most successful people on earth we could have meet the more urgent needs of our country as Gates and Buffet suggested!

The tax Cuts for the wealthy was GREED not NEED and that is what Gates and Buffet understood!
Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top
this thread has nothing to do with bush so stay out of it.


by the way if you cut taxes. do you cut taxes for those not paying them or do you cut taxes for those who are paying them.
Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gene, don't try to hijack this thread into another Bush tax cut thread.
Reply #74 from JoeUser Forums Top
by the way if you cut taxes. do you cut taxes for those not paying them or do you cut taxes for those who are paying them.


I thought this was a great quote from the linked article that can display nothing but a disconnect with reality in the author:

"The Cheney-Bush administration has redistributed wealth to the already-too-wealthy via tax breaks ever since its was appointed into office."

By the same logic, I can claim that I am redistributing wealth to my neighbor because I stopped taking his newspaper in the morning. HA!
Reply #75 from JoeUser Forums Top
i guess you haven't been watching the news about the add against the general in new york times.
What's the thread? Neither did many take note of the ? mark. Besides, it was cute, but damn awful try at rhyming!