[Goranhammer]

Dude, I'm sorry but you are not a libertarian.

And no, Microsoft is not a monopoly.

-Dr House

QFMFT.

If you think Microsoft is a monopoly, retake Econ 101. The most you can accuse them of is self-collusion in order to increase intracorporate sales of supplemental hardware/software. Welcome to the reason why Steven Jobs is getting richer by the hour and why Microsoft is losing gross market share as I speak.

Jobs is infinitely more intelligent than Gates because of his adamant refusal to license. If Microsoft was a monopoly, none of that would matter. Too bad it does.

[Rancid]

The problem with wealth redistribution is simple.

It's easy to frivolously spend other peoples money on bullshit, because it's not yours. It's the same reason there is so much waste in government.

No accountability, and the fact that it's far easier to spend someone else's hard earned money.

[QatzelOk]

If you think Microsoft is a monopoly, retake Econ 101.

I don't "think" Microsoft is a monopoly. I know it is.

Why are you arguing against the very meaning of words?

Why are you attempting to protect corporate capitalism by whoring out your texts and, in the process, destroying your reputation by lying for your imaginary friends at NASDAQ?

[Goranhammer]

It's clear and accepted fact that you don't know the first fucking thing about economics, Qatz. Quit trying to argue.

Stick with what you know. If you want to discuss Quebecois and the dumb shit they do, you have the upper hand because I don't know fuck-all about those people. Don't sit there and disrespect anyone who's even looked at a community college by stating you know what a monopoly is.

There are no barriers of entry into the computer industry. Microsoft is a price taker, not a price maker (consider that everyone would go with a Mac or something else if Intel suddenly skyrocketed). They fit no other definition of monopoly other than "stupid people don't like me", also known as the WalMart Principle.

[QatzelOk]

It's clear and accepted fact that you don't know the first fucking thing about economics, Qatz. Quit trying to argue.

Am I the only person on this board who aced a Liberal Economics course at the Sorbonne?

I guess that's no match for a TV-viewer who went to community college to become a businessman, but I am at least trying.

[NYYS]

They fit no other definition of monopoly other than "stupid people don't like me", also known as the WalMart Principle.

Did you come up with the "Walmart Principle?" I'm tempted to claim it as my own and use it constantly (except when discussing WalMart).

[Goranhammer]

Yup. Patent pending.

Better take it before you have to pay me royalties.

[Adam_Smith]

There is not the slightest possibility that Bill Gates could have personally created so much economic value to deserve 58 billion dollars as compensation. Basically, he won a lottery by being in the right place at the right time and then built upon his initial good fortune using ethically questionable business practices. He should not be mistaken for a hero worthy of emulation.

[Maas]

I think it's better that the money should be spread among more people. An extremly rich person would buy 4 houses 10 cars etc. While 10 verry verry richr people would buy 30 houses, 50 cars etc etc.

It's better for your own economy.

[Dr House]

I think it's better that the money should be spread among more people. An extremly rich person would buy 4 houses 10 cars etc. While 10 verry verry richr people would buy 30 houses, 50 cars etc etc.

It's better for your own economy.

Actually, the very rich person would be buying 4 more, more luxurious expensive houses, and probably investing the rest of his money. Investment, not consumption, is what ultimately pushes the economy forward.

-Dr House

[QatzelOk]

Investment, not consumption, is what ultimately pushes the economy forward.

Forward? Where is the economy going exactly?

[Dr House]

It's an expression, Qatz.

Oy.

-Dr House

[QatzelOk]

Yes, but what does it mean?

Is there any point to an economy that is "going forward?"

And how can you use expressions like this one if you don't know what they mean, Dr House?

Are you just repeating this liberal economic mantra in hopes that the invisible hand will applaud you and make you one of the chosen?

Our economy is going forward. That's a cliff up yonder.

[NYYS]

Yeah, the healthiest economies in the world are going backward Qatz, that's right.

[QatzelOk]

Yeah, the healthiest economies in the world are going backward Qatz, that's right.

Both the words "healthy" and "forward" are being used arbitrarily in your sentence, Nysux. It isn't irony to juxtapose two words that are being used arbitrarily, pretend to ironically agree with someone you frequently disagree with, and then back off and wait for a point to be proven as a side effect of your text.

That's not how text works. Your point has to surface within the commonly accepted meanings of the words you choose.