[Rancid]

I hear that money itself is a problem; fools like to point to Africa's problems due to XYZ and ABC but these same fools forget that the Europeans of the past had been aggravated at the African lifestyle of not having to work, clothe, and pay mortgages; even though they had ate, schooled, loved and smiled. The failed African state of today is the Africa that was taught about European 'money.'

If and only if 'money' is necessary then it should all be redistributed, but really, 'money' is the problem!

I would gladly let Bill Gates keep his money; heck, print off another seven hundred trillion dollars to give around to everyone. [Get it? Make money worthless?] But, as it is today, if you must fight within capitalism then the fight is for equal distribution.

From an anthropology class i took. I remember learning that many African societies did have money. Also, how could you have a lifestyle of not having to work? That's impossible. You might not have to work 8 hours, but you have to work at least some amount. How else would you not starve? You have to spend time either hunting, gathering, or planting food. That sounds like work to me.

[Athanas]

You may have to work 8 or more hrs in a primitive huntergatherer society but you must consider the value of your work and the satisfaction involved by contributing to the network good of society. As a hunter your role is not only egalitarian but well received and the effect is immediately realized.

Most people have no problem working hard for family, friends, themselves, or towards a legitimate cause. However many get discouraged working in limited settings, working for little recongition, and in some cases working counterintuitive towards your principles and the improvement of society.

This is the major complex of contemporary life and work, as people grow more aware of their surroundings and social role they become dissatisfied by mundane sales positions and desire some form of social contribution. The only alternative lies with those of medical and scientific fields where a sense of community exists, the work is rewarding intellectually, and the effects of the contributions are able to be detected.

[Spin]

Neutral.

Anyway, doesn't Gates intend to leave the vast majority of his wealth to charity, with Warren Buffet plannig the same?

[Zyx]

First, your generalization across all native Americans is silly. One cannot compare a "primitive" * society like the native Americans found in NY/NJ with the gold centered central American natives.

This preamble is very senseless NetsNJFan87 . . . you are on a debate team, yes?

Not to be on a tangent, but it nearly reads as though you are insulting me for comparing two groups that you actually just informed me about.

But, you are right; I am bringing up the Native Americans for an unclear reason. This sentiment is probably what you should have said however. I was referring to an autobiography written by a captive of the Native Americans. She managed to live among their 'savagery' without keeping her upkeep or making an earning. She begged at times, and she may have done some work, but she was really just a captured individual.

It is a bit of a twisted example because it nearly seems pro-slavery, but really it goes to show the morality of individuals and the decay of morality that is truly causing this upkeep mentality.

Certainly when folk are starving I would expect for stinginess to be common, but when people have a surplus, the exchange system does get in the way of distribution. One can argue that an exchange system is the only that can produce a surplus, however . . .

Like I said, every economy that has progressed beyond a certain size has used some unit of account/value in trade. It lubricates trade, it is necessary.

You should recognize that this is a meaningless statement; essentially, what you write is that the richest economies have had units of trade, but this is reads like a correlation. You provide no cause, but really, this goes a bit off topic.

A nice sentiment, but useless in a modern context.

You do not say why, so again, what are you trying to convey?

Do you mean that humans are incapable of regarding one another as an extended family?

Also, how could you have a lifestyle of not having to work? That's impossible. You might not have to work 8 hours, but you have to work at least some amount. How else would you not starve? You have to spend time either hunting, gathering, or planting food. That sounds like work to me.

This 'work' is a different sort of work really. It is disingenuous to call both categories 'work.'

Like 'hunting' would be the equivalent of going to the grocery store with enough money on hand, sure it is 'work' but it is not sitting in a cubicle for eight hours or whatever.

You know; I mean, when you go 'hunting' (I know you do not, but suppose that you do) is it really 'work?'

[Nets]

This preamble is very senseless NetsNJFan87 . . . you are on a debate team, yes?

Not to be on a tangent, but it nearly reads as though you are insulting me for comparing two groups that you actually just informed me about.

I'm not insulting you I am pointing out that Native American cultures and societies had a large amount of variation in how they functioned...you presented them as one big group which makes little sense.

But, you are right; I am bringing up the Native Americans for an unclear reason. This sentiment is probably what you should have said however. I was referring to an autobiography written by a captive of the Native Americans. She managed to live among their 'savagery' without keeping her upkeep or making an earning. She begged at times, and she may have done some work, but she was really just a captured individual.

Indian Captive? What does this example have to do with anything? Here in the US we feed and clothe our prisoners as well, so what?

It is a bit of a twisted example because it nearly seems pro-slavery, but really it goes to show the morality of individuals and the decay of morality that is truly causing this upkeep mentality.

Could you be more specific? I'm not sure what point you are making.

Certainly when folk are starving I would expect for stinginess to be common, but when people have a surplus, the exchange system does get in the way of distribution. One can argue that an exchange system is the only that can produce a surplus, however . . .

Well, that is a matter of debate. Many would argue (including most economists) that the exchange system aids in the efficiency and efficacy of resource distribution. I think the real answer lies in the middle, but markets can be good things.

You should recognize that this is a meaningless statement; essentially, what you write is that the richest economies have had units of trade, but this is reads like a correlation. You provide no cause, but really, this goes a bit off topic.

Not at all. I have provided a cause; barter systems are inaccurate, inefficient and incredibly time consuming. This causes every economy which gets to a certain size (wealthy or not) to create some sort of unit of account to make trade easier. This is the rule, not the exception. There are many examples of what we consider poor, backwards economies have used some form of money, whether beads, shells, etc. It is not a correlation, it is a logical result. Barter economies require that everyone's wants and desires line up at all times in order for complex multi actor transactions to occur, money does not have this restriction.

You do not say why, so again, what are you trying to convey?

Do you mean that humans are incapable of regarding one another as an extended family?

Do you really believe that any economy modeled on a family has any practicality in a globalized world of 6.6 billion people?

[the monkey]

Bill Gates is using his fortune very wisely.

[Lensky1917]

Is it good that Bill Gates controls 58 billion dollars?

I am sure that you will be surprised at my answer, but I'm just going to have to say no. There are those who say that he is giving some of it to charity, but it's called tax deduction people! He has his own charity to place his money back into his own pockets.

[Dr House]

I am sure that you will be surprised at my answer, but I'm just going to have to say no.

z0mg, a commie saying that being rich is bad! Stop the presses!

There are those who say that he is giving some of it to charity, but it's called tax deduction people! He has his own charity to place his money back into his own pockets.

Charity is revenue neutral. The government doesn't actually pay you to give to charity, it just untaxes (i.e. doesn't steal) the money you give away.

[Nets]

^ Anyways, at this point, I doubt he earns as much per year as he is donating per year.

[QatzelOk]

I find it interesting to note that Nets defended the use of money "in the modern context."

You mean it "made sense" in 1951?

What money does, besides making trade possible before the age of electronic credit, was that it made stealing really easy.
All you had to do was invent a complex formula that guaranteed that you get to skim a percentage off everyone else's labor.

Stealing was never so easy.

Before industrialization, you at least knew who was ripping you off, and you could embarass him socially.

After industrialization, the capitalist was able to hide from his workers both physically and administratively. The people who make money off your labor were people you would never meet, so these people felt NOTHING for you - no empathy whatsover.

The holocaust was created by a world without empathy.

[Nets]

Qatz, then what do you suggest as an alternative to money?

[Lensky1917]

Charity is revenue neutral. The government doesn't actually pay you to give to charity, it just untaxes (i.e. doesn't steal) the money you give away.

That I already know. If he is donating to his own charity though, he is protecting his assets.

[Goranhammer]

No he's not. All that happens with donating to your own charity is that you have larger direct control on how the monies are being used. The shelters involved are indeed quite minimal.

This is just classic have vs. have not mentality. Shit like that makes me wish charity was abolished. He donates to charity...and it's still not good enough. My God.

[ingliz]

No, it would be better if that money was in more hands

[SeriousCat]

Bill gates represents a monopoly. Were Microsoft to compete on product quality without using economic clout to crush competitors the world would have been a better place. Customers are suffering from the relentless incompetence that is Bill Gates and Microsoft. Microsoft has already been found guilty of acting as a monopoly and having used predatory underhanded practices, sacrificing everything in the name of supernormal profits. To this day, Bill Gates still condemns open source software, perhaps because open source represents a viable alternative to its products (e.g. Ubuntu Linux OS)?

Anyways, at this point, I doubt he earns as much per year as he is donating per year.

It's about time he gave something back to society. Although Windows OS and other Microsoft products have created wealth and employment in the world, far more wealth and employment would have been created if they did not participate in illegal, underhanded tactics and allow for fair competition.

how much money is considered too much, and thus should be redistributed?

Ethically speaking, there cannot be a cap on earnings, since it is the individual that has earned that money; the market values his services in accordance to supply and demand of such labour and its substitutes, as well as the value created by his work. More likely government is ineffective at bringing down corporate giants engaging in monopoly behaviour. Redistribution happens through taxes, which works for all income classes since it's not a flat fee, but rather a percentage that increases the amount of tax paid the higher the income - Bill Gate's income is already being redistributed in the millions.

[QatzelOk]

Customers are suffering from the relentless incompetence that is Bill Gates and Microsoft.

Likewise, the human race is suffering from the relentless incompetence that is nepotism and materialism.

These are completely related.

[Dr House]

Bill gates represents a monopoly

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

And no, Microsoft is not a monopoly.

-Dr House

[QatzelOk]

And no, Microsoft is not a monopoly.

I think the popularity of hundreds of other OSs proves that Dr House is right yet again.

Personally, I use the Amiga OS, though there are literally thousands to chose from that all work equally well as Windows/DOS.

[Dr House]

Apple has an 8% OS market share (despite having more expensive products) and growing, and Linux has a 1% market share. MS never had a 100% market share.

[Rancid]

Symbian OS dominated the cell phone OS market... not windows mobile..

Also, i believe in the PC market, Microsoft is losing some share.

There isn't a monopoly Qatz.. the fact that you're using an OS that isn't from Microsoft is proof of that..