Bill Gates or Mother Teresa?

[newfangle]

Um, I'm no expert on sefl-sacrificial altruism, but what long term good does Mamma T.'s organization do? Helping people on their deathbeds will not prevent them from getting on that bed.

Prevention is the best cure, and a free, industrialized society is the only sure-way of prevention. Job creation and capital expenditure is the only path to this society, not religious convictions.

 

[Mr. Cackle]

Originally posted by newfangle
Um, I'm no expert on sefl-sacrificial altruism, but what long term good does Mamma T.'s organization do? Helping people on their deathbeds will not prevent them from getting on that bed.

Prevention is the best cure, and a free, industrialized society is the only sure-way of prevention. Job creation and capital expenditure is the only path to this society, not religious convictions.

Well, by helping the homeless both physically and spiritually, they are giving the homeless more of an incentive to go out and get a job because they have HOPE. Plus, Mother Teresa's organization has helped to spark a global humanitarian effort that HAS made people contribute and find a way to prevent mass starvation and the like.

Free, industrialized society? Ehrm, but was it not some company that laid off the homeless man who withers on the streets? Capitalism has no morals. People do. We as people have an obligation to try and live by those morals. Bill Gates has managed to crush much of the hope for morals in the capitalist system.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Bill Gates' products made me fat!

So Martin Luther it is, for quietly eliminating that sticky usary business from Christianity, so as to make Northern Europe rich, rich, RICH, and thus able to colonize my country and transfer the necessary technology to develop a high-tech society, that would ultimately give Bill Gates the tools to connivingly become the most belovedly weislish geek in the world, and ultimately making this long-winded incoherent post of mine possible.

And what the heck is the point of morals if there is no afterlife to reward you with. I thought the centre of capitalism was being rewarded for your efforts. If I am not rewarded for my "moral" efforts, what is the point of morality. Damn, I am already becoming a crotchety old atheist.

 

[Mr. Cackle]

Originally posted by Sobieski II
Bill Gates' products made me fat!

So Martin Luther it is, for quietly eliminating that sticky usary business from Christianity, so as to make Northern Europe rich, rich, RICH, and thus able to colonize my country and transfer the necessary technology to develop a high-tech society, that would ultimately give Bill Gates the tools to connivingly become the most belovedly weislish geek in the world, and ultimately making this long-winded incoherent post of mine possible.

And what the heck is the point of morals if there is no afterlife to reward you with. I thought the centre of capitalism was being rewarded for your efforts. If I am not rewarded for my "moral" efforts, what is the point of morality. Damn, I am already becoming a crotchety old atheist.

1) I didn't understand your first paragraph AT ALL.

2) The point of morals is to feel happy. They are programmed into your instinct by nature, and the incentive to fulfill them and thus help humanity is happiness.

3) The center of capitalism is about getting as much capital as possible. However, you are not just a capitalist, you are also a human, and most humans should feel compassion for others. It simply is our instinctive pack-mode. Really, it is up to you whether you want to listen to your instincts or not, but I believe that morals were put in place for a purpose, that of the betterment of Mankind, and should likewise be listened to if Mankind is to advance as a species.

4) As I said before, you ARE rewarded for your "moral" efforts.

 

[Akka]

Funny.
People talk about how Bill Gates contributed to society.
Contributed compared to WHICH ALTERNATIVE ?
Like if all the sector on which Microsoft developped did not existed before it, and would have not existed without it...

Microsoft is famous for trying to get monopoly, to squash competition, and so on.
How do you know if without Microsoft, there would not be, rather than one giant that impose its own mediocre product, several smaller enterprise proposing better products ?

How can you say how many people Bill has helped, when you don't take into account that we could perhaps be BETTER without him ?
For all we know, it's possible that Gates SLOWED the progress of society. That, by crushing the competitors, he drove more people out of job than he recruited, and this to end with a subpar product.

On the other hand, Mother Theresa didn't take the place of anyone. She perhaps did not bring a lot of jobs, but she surely didn't destroyed any, and she surely didn't force any product down the throat of anyone (except perhaps medication).

I could also add, that the people Mother Theresa helped, are hardly the one that would be concerned by Bill Gates products or jobs.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Originally posted by Mr. Cackle

Although I respect the fact that he is involved in charities and the like, at what cost does it come? Personally, I find that Bill Gates should not expect to write off his moral obligation to society with the blood and sweat of mistreated workers as his ink.

What mistreated workers? Lets not get our industries mixed up here. Nobody can really expain what Gates has done that is soo bad. He made a lot of money by beating the competion like he is supposed to. Who did he hurt? The companies working conditions are excellent, they don't fund death squads, their industry doesn't really pollute the environment and he's giving more of his money to good causes then any other rich person is. People talk about giving away billions like its nothing. Its not nothing to the people who are helped. I would like to see anyone here make billions of dollars and give it away, I doubt you could do it. But if you decide to join job core or be a humanitarian etc I'm sure its within your grasp.

Bill Gates is another issue. Sure, he provides the computers and stuff, but is it really worth it? Capitalism thrives on equal competition, yet Gates has used his cunning to wipe out the opposition, coercing the manufacturers to use only his software. He has ruthlessly bought up companies and expanded into other markets, using his enormous sums of money to slowly squeeze the life out of the companies in those markets as well (Xbox anyone?)

What about Xbox? Playstation 2 is doing much better. Sony is a large powerfull corporation too and they used experience and brand in the game console market to compete with MS. What was done wrong here. Businesses using there money to compete, is that wrong? Gates competition is no victim. Oracle, AOL Time Warner the Media congomerate, Real Networks etc. They're all well off. Just because they are not number one like MS doesn't make them any different. They use the same business practices. Just about all of MS's competitors bundle their products together, buy other companies etc. Its funny how people criticize MS for being good business men when their competition uses the same practices and you've got real abusive corporations in other industries running sweatshops or Enron scams none of which MS has even been accused of.

Its seems to me the real issue hear is image. Mother Theresa has a better image because she is not a business man but that was not the question.

 

[Marla_Singer]

The main basis of capitalism efficiency is actually competition. Considering Bill Gates as the "God" of capitalism because he crushed competition and create a monopoly means we didn't get what capitalism was about. Monopoly is bad for the economy because it gives too much power to the company on its customers. It's actually the main argument against socialism which is promoting monopoly in public services.

To all people who've applaud all the merge between corporations we've seen during the 90's, it will definitly be bad for everyone in the long term because it imbalances the relation between customers and companies. What I'm saying right here, right now isn't socialist, it's the main economic theory since Adam Smith to Friedrich Von Hayek. The center of the capitalist system should neither be managers nor owners (shareholders). It should be the customers. We're perverting that idea right now.

Well okay, my last paragraph has few link with the main topic. But you already know my advice about it. Mother Theresa directly saved lives of many human beings and has given her own life to poorer people than her. As I already said it, if Bill Gates weren't there, then it would be someone else instead... but we never have enough Mother Theresa.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by Akka

How can you say how many people Bill has helped, when you don't take into account that we could perhaps be BETTER without him ?
For all we know, it's possible that Gates SLOWED the progress of society. That, by crushing the competitors, he drove more people out of job than he recruited, and this to end with a subpar product.

Use some sort of source of statistics before you make wild claims with no basis in reality. Don't be so freakin naive.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Originally posted by newfangle
Use some sort of source of statistics before you make wild claims with no basis in reality. Don't be so freakin naive.

Statistics on what ? Fictionnal events ? Don't start to argue about "what if" topics... I'm not sure it would be better with Bill Gates, but he's not alone, if he weren't there, other people would be there instead of him. That's the only "what if" theory we can decently defend.

 

[Mr. Cackle]

Grand Admiral --

1) I already explained what Gates has done that is so bad. But in case you didn't read my posts, I will say it again. Gates has violated Anti-trust laws by instituting a monopoly on the industry and squelching all opposition. He is not supposed to do this because it is against the law. He hurts the smaller businesses who are trying to make a living and create competition.

2) His working conditions are the same as that of most white-collar companies. If you want to know what it is like, refer to my previous post. As for the "giving away more of his money' that is simply because he HAS more money. And he doesn't give a higher percentage of his money AND effort than other rich people. What about Paul Newman? U2's Bono? And the money he gives away is gotten by his cost-cutting in Microsoft.

3) Well, for one Sony entered the game console market before it was as well-established as MS. Also, it is wrong because it means that a company can use its money from other markets to sell higher quality games for less than the smaller competitors, until it eventually gets a monopoly. Once it gets a monopoly then the consumer is at the mercy of the company, as opposed to the other way around.

You talk as if all I do is accuse Microsoft. That is not true. I talk about the white-collar environment in general. I use the word Microsoft only because THIS THREAD IS ABOUT BILL GATES.

 

[superslug]

Originally posted by newfangle
Use some sort of source of statistics before you make wild claims with no basis in reality. Don't be so freakin naive.

Any modern computer user with more than two functioning brain cells and a smidgen of knowledge of economics knows that the existence and practices of Microsoft inflate the prices of software and hamper competition, thus detracting from the potential growth of quality and development we might have otherwise seen.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Originally posted by superslug

Any modern computer user with more than two functioning brain cells and a smidgen of knowledge of economics knows that the existence and practices of Microsoft inflate the prices of software and hamper competition, thus detracting from the potential growth of quality and development we might have otherwise seen.

But Linux is free to all. You brought up a good point you do need some statistics because I don't see how MS has driven up the price of its competitors who distribute Linux. The only high price MS software is its Enterprise software and its not the leading competitor in that market. Its the markets MS doesn't compete in that have insane prices. Have you ever purchased a copy of 3DS Max or any Adobe titles?

 

[Marla_Singer]

Originally posted by superslug
Any modern computer user with more than two functioning brain cells and a smidgen of knowledge of economics knows that the existence and practices of Microsoft inflate the prices of software and hamper competition, thus detracting from the potential growth of quality and development we might have otherwise seen.

Well I'm not that sure about it though. Actually, I think it would have been another monopoly instead.

Let me explain my idea. To see competition working well in a market, the market needs to be standardized. When you buy a Nissan or a Ford, you use the same gas and that gas could be product by Shell, Standard Oil or BP. When you buy a Sony DVD, you don't need a Sony DVD player to watch it, you can use a Pioneer or a Philips. However, when you buy a Sony PlayStation, you can buy only Sony games. When you have .doc document, you can read it only with Microsoft Word. I just want to say any computer markets are standardized (except for PC hardwares).

As it is now, there's no solution to avoid monopoly in software markets unless we ban copyrights in these markets. Then, any companies would be able to create their own version of Windows and we would get back into competition. For now, it has been built to be a monopolistic market.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by superslug

Any modern computer user with more than two functioning brain cells and a smidgen of knowledge of economics knows that the existence and practices of Microsoft inflate the prices of software and hamper competition, thus detracting from the potential growth of quality and development we might have otherwise seen.

So are you going to be the one that points the gun at Microsoft and forces them to be less productive?

There is no getting out of this contradiction. Either you support private developement, or you don't.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by Mr. Cackle


1) I didn't understand your first paragraph AT ALL.

2) The point of morals is to feel happy. They are programmed into your instinct by nature, and the incentive to fulfill them and thus help humanity is happiness.

3) The center of capitalism is about getting as much capital as possible. However, you are not just a capitalist, you are also a human, and most humans should feel compassion for others. It simply is our instinctive pack-mode. Really, it is up to you whether you want to listen to your instincts or not, but I believe that morals were put in place for a purpose, that of the betterment of Mankind, and should likewise be listened to if Mankind is to advance as a species.

4) As I said before, you ARE rewarded for your "moral" efforts.

1) I figured many wouldn't understand it. I was pointing out that I could acredit much of the indirect "goodness" of today, to the death of usary laws thanks to the ilk of Martin Luther.

2) It is true that some sort of moral compass is programmed into the human mind, but the problem is that since no two human beings are at all the same, there are bound to be slight differences across the board as to what that person has perceived as "moral". (Unless of course you are an adherent to an outside theist force, "policing" us from beyond our graves).

Thus the only real moral compass is what makes us truly happy, based on the notions of morality that have been "built in to us" through evolution.

Confessing your inner notions of "wrongdoings", in the long run will always make you fell happier than living in constant guilt.

Meaningless sexual activity may give you a good "feeling" at first but in the long run, it will only make you feel empty and unhappy.

If you honestly believe that you have stolen something, the guilt from it may not be immediately apparent, but may in fact be burried deep down within somebody slowly eating away at them. You can be assured that in the long run that person is not going to be all that happy.

In other cultures some things that may be considered immoral in "our" society may in fact not carry the same moral weight in those cultures. The, how do I say, "liberal" sexual morality of the polynesians, most likely caused them very little angst, and never even thought twice about some of the practices (i will not get into, as they are quite explicit), and were very happy with this situation. Sexual taboos were there, but were virtually non-existence in practice througout much of the region.

Ultimately morality is merely the guide to happiness within our lives. Happiness can be achieved through slightly various means for various people, due to the fact that everyone is biologically, and environmentally different. However, we have enough similarities that for the most part morality is fairly similar amongst all peoples. True happiness is the compass of morality. To reach that is an assymptote of a goal, but hey, "if it makes you happy, it can't be that bad."

Which brings me down to my final conclusion: Hitler was not a happy man, even if he feigned it at times. Deep down (or not so deep down) he was a man of extreme suffering. Even at the very end when he began to really lose it, there could not have been any true happiness within him, and that is what made him evil. It is not so much that he was evil, as it is that his condition was evil. I doubt that there was not deep down inside him some sort of guilt for his actions that hindered this happiness. If he had behaved in a way more attuned to his human-based morality, he probably would not have done what he did, and thus have come out a truly happier person.

This is much like a more theistic view, but there is a difference

Considering that there is no afterlife (in my belief), the true goal is to aim for a true fulfillment of your happiness in this life. For all people, the way in which to fulfill this goal is more or less the same, but that rather mild variations are where vast confusion tends to come from. Deep down we have more or less been programmed similarily as to what actions in our lives will make us happy. (a distinction being drawn between happiness an pleasure)

-Drugs can make you feel pleasure, but not happiness
-Lying can help you gain in the short run, but you feel weaker and less happy in the long-run
-Drinking can help you forget your problems, but the problems are still there.

My point is that, rather than there being a universal morality that applies equality to all people, morality is a device that we have evolved within us to help us in our survival, and the survival of our genes, but at the same time, that morality can be influenced by environmental situations. As an example, in ancient Egypt, the highest morality was that of fertility. In a time when infant mortality was high and life expectancy was low, it was considered natural for married spouses to "explore the town" regularly with very little fuss from eachother, and girls were happy to begin bearing-children as soon as they were capable. The moral of sexuality was reproducing at all costs, and people were more or less quite happy with what they had. Morality changes, because what makes people truly happy changes from culture to culture.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

As for the XBox do not count it out quite yet. It is hands down a superior system to the Playstation 2. It has better internet access capabilities, and most of all, its games selection is catching up with, (and surpassing that) of PS2. Give it some time. Microsoft will this arena soon enough.

 

[superslug]

Originally posted by GrandAdmiral
But Linux is free to all.

I should have been more clear, Microsoft's software is overpriced.

Originally posted by GrandAdmiral
The only high price MS software is its Enterprise software and its not the leading competitor in that market. Its the markets MS doesn't compete in that have insane prices. Have you ever purchased a copy of 3DS Max or any Adobe titles?

I disagree here. I think the retail prices for Windows and Office are complete crap, considering the Linux alternatives available.

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Well I'm not that sure about it though. Actually, I think it would have been another monopoly instead.

Likely, but there shouldn't be any at all. Standardization is needed, but it shouldn't hinge on a monopoly's whim.

Originally posted by newfangle

Either you support private developement, or you don't.

No room for shades of gray in between? Interesting...

In actuality, I oppose Microsoft and all monopoly's because they thwart competition which is what truly drives private development.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

2) His working conditions are the same as that of most white-collar companies. If you want to know what it is like, refer to my previous post. As for the "giving away more of his money' that is simply because he HAS more money. And he doesn't give a higher percentage of his money AND effort than other rich people. What about Paul Newman? U2's Bono? And the money he gives away is gotten by his cost-cutting in Microsoft.

No they're aren't. I've been to the campus plenty. They don't even wear white collars. They are biggest bunch of spoiled employees I have ever seen. Don't even get me started on the people working on the X-Box. Well like was previously stated he plans on giving it all away. Anyways not all rich people give away that much of their money. Thats how rich familys stay rich and old one money is establish. He could always spend most of it on government lobbying like his competition did, or he could fund terrorism like Bin Laden. Like you said he has more money but that money must be created in order for it to be given away.

1) I already explained what Gates has done that is so bad. But in case you didn't read my posts, I will say it again. Gates has violated Anti-trust laws by instituting a monopoly on the industry and squelching all opposition. He is not supposed to do this because it is against the law. He hurts the smaller businesses who are trying to make a living and create competition.

Yes I understood your explanation I just didn't feel it was a good one. The only thing MS is guilty of is being good capitalists. They have not squelched all the competition. I give real world examples. Apache dominates Windows 2000. AIM leads MSN messenger. AOL leads MSN internet service, Playstation 2 leads X-Box. Internet Explorer and Desktop OSs are the only real argumnets for a monopoly.

3) Well, for one Sony entered the game console market before it was as well-established as MS. Also, it is wrong because it means that a company can use its money from other markets to sell higher quality games for less than the smaller competitors, until it eventually gets a monopoly. Once it gets a monopoly then the consumer is at the mercy of the company, as opposed to the other way around.

Sony was already the most established game console brand when Microsoft entered the market with their Playstation 1 and had already launched PS2 almost a year before the X-Box and they had the captital to compete. Sony used capital from its other markets which number many more than MS. That is not wrong or illegal. If I own a printshop and decide to use my profits to start a donut shop thats wrong? Sounds like you just have a problem with business in general. Anyways MS doesn't even have close to a monopoly there and their console (not their games) is superior to the PS2.

I have considered what would happen if there were no MS. A European company would be the leading competitor.

1) More high tech jobs would be lost to non-American competitors because no other American corporation is as good at competing with them as MS is.

2) Less jobs and revenue would be created from operating systems because the leading competitor would be a Linux distribution which is less profitable.

3) Sony would have a monopoly on game consoles and the price would be a couple hundred dollars more.

4) Bone heads would have taken longer to enter the desktop market because they wouldn't understand Linux and all their Linux distributions would cause compitability problems. If they used Apple, Apple would have a monopoly on Desktop hardware.

5) The high-tech bust would have been worse becuase there would be less profitable corporations in the industry to bring it back on its feet.

6) The Northwest would have no other industry besides aerospace that was threatening to leave

7) Public university wouldn't be as competitive as private.

8) Most of these billions of dollars in donations would not exist and good people wouldn't have as many resources to work with.

 

[HuckFinn]

Gates' philanthrophy is questionable... he mostly donates Windows PCs to schools, IMO. This just serves to tie in more drones to the Microsoft monopoly.

 

[thestonesfan]

Microsoft is not a monopoly. Why is this in dispute?

It's amusing that people continually claim that Microsoft stifles competition. How? By being competitive?

If people were unhappy with Microsoft, the market would shift. Duh. As it stands now, the consumer base is happy with Microsoft. Even if it were a monopoly, it would not be harmful one. Unless, of course, they bought political power. The government makes monopolies, not free enterprise.

We need to start a monopoly thread. People don't seem to know much about them.