Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The thread was how does it make people poor. That make people poor because of Microsoft's market dominance where I saw them stifle competition right in front of my face. Was I hallucinating when they polluted the APIs on the Java IDE?
You obviously don't know much about the join us or die negotiating techniques as was discovered by Blue Mountain Arts or others that chose to resist. They were made as rich as was allowed under the threat of facing off against a monopoly.
Ford became a multi billionaire by paying his employees more than the going rate, thus increasing their ability to obtain wealth. How does this enter into your equation?
Furthermore, Microsoft normally paid for those companies with stock, those company owners became fabulously wealthy, far greater than they would have been had they not sold out. Your list actually disputes your own argument.
Examples:
1) Real Estate: I live in NY. When people can afford (and are willing) to pay $12M for an apartment and $10K monthly rent, everybody is effected.
2) Education: At $40-50K tuition (that many can afford), all others are effected. In NY, elementary schools cost $10K per child.
3) Corporate America: In the last 10-15 years, the insane executive bonuses are related to job cuts and wage freezes. As a matter of fact - the more layoffs, the higher the bonus...
To what? Not knowing anything about economics? Where is this fairy land of the pie always getting bigger? What economic model by *any* school of economics supports this ridiculous notion? Let me guess, another arm chair guy who economized on his education.
Tell me where the wealth went during the recession gwyn.. You left wingers always show your inability to do any real economics because recessions and economic booms create and take away wealth constantly. if wealth was a finite asset, something you guys continue to argue, then that money goes somewhere..
Poor people are poor, and remain that way, because a rich person refuses to pay them a living wage.
Pure bullsqueeze.
The poor are mostly poor because for generations, they've lacked ambition and have refused to take advantage of the free education that is there for the taking. Instead they are more than willing to suck up anything they can get for free from the government.
Ignorance will never be very profitable.
Opportunity exists in this country for those who are willing to work for it.
oh brother, your back with that dribble.. I note you didnt answer my question last asked to you, so let me ask you again.
During periods of recessions, where does the wealth go? According to you, wealth is a finite resource so it must go somewhere..
Presently it goes into cash holdings offshore
Wrong.. Say you have a town of 100 people, 1 owns a factory, the other 99 work for that factory.
1 rich person, but the other 99 people arent poor.
They could be, it all depends on how ruthless the rich guy wants to be. What if he only employs 45 people in town and sources the rest from a neighboring town with a much, much lower COL? What if he employs none of the people in town and sources all his labor from a poor town nearby? What if he flies in really, really poor people from a poor country far away? Its all up to him.
The poor are mostly poor because for generations, they've lacked ambition and have refused to take advantage of the free education that is there for the taking. Instead they are more than willing to suck up anything they can get for free from the government.
Ignorance will never be very profitable.
Opportunity exists in this country for those who are willing to work for it.
There are far more examples of my being right than your being right. Free education... education has never been free and lately education costs much more than the previously largest investment any American could make: their house. So fly that flag somewhere else. It's not flying here.
which gets reloaned back out to society. What do you think banks do with the money?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
Wrong.. Say you have a town of 100 people, 1 owns a factory, the other 99 work for that factory.
1 rich person, but the other 99 people arent poor.
They could be, it all depends on how ruthless the rich guy wants to be. What if he only employs 45 people in town and sources the rest from a neighboring town with a much, much lower COL? What if he employs none of the people in town and sources all his labor from a poor town nearby? What if he flies in really, really poor people from a poor country far away? Its all up to him.
H
If he sources the work from the neighboring towns, then he's distributing the money to the neighboring towns thus increasing their ability to obtain wealth as well. That doesnt mean the 1 guy is getting rich because others are getting poor, he's still employing 99 people.
As long as you have a capitalist society, there will be poor people. I suppose you could make an argument that technology will allows us to continue to prosper, but the law of scarcity means that there are finite resources, and much of what allows us to live as we live is non-renewable.
So while, there are many people on this site that have prospered from the status quo, they seem to lack enough foresight to realize that they will be affected at some point as well.
Our situation with climate change, man made or not, will likely be the catalyst to many of the problems that we will have in the relatively near future. The bottom line is that people are going to have to start living a more modest lifestyle, regardless of how much money they make.
Ford became a multi billionaire by paying his employees more than the going rate, thus increasing their ability to obtain wealth. How does this enter into your equation?
It doesn't because it has nothing to do with pricing power by elimination of competition.
Quote:
Furthermore, Microsoft normally paid for those companies with stock, those company owners became fabulously wealthy, far greater than they would have been had they not sold out. Your list actually disputes your own argument.
If you don't believe in the effects of monopolies vs the effects of market competition there is no point in continuing the conversation. We can't possibly agree. To me its just magical thinking in some primitive Piagetian stage, not to mention its the same plaque of government run agencies you rail about as if some nominal identity is cause. The cause is monopoly which is inherent in government agencies. I don't think making people pay $100 to read Doc formats is making anyone rich except Microsoft.
But again if you don't believe monopolies exist, I see little point in any discussion of economics. Money does not just automagically just grow markets and convincing me otherwise isn't going to happen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
