5 ms·

>Bill Gates' (to name a random American citizen) has a far larger share in the GDP than most other Americans. If you want to solve that raise your taxes on the

>Bill Gates' (to name a random American citizen) has a far larger share in the GDP than most other Americans. If you want to solve that raise your taxes on the rich and lift up those that are at the lowest end of the scale. I don't understand why this is something people believe needs "solved". Did you build Microsoft?

lovich 9y ago
Did bill gates build Microsoft? He had a larger part than probably anyone, but he wouldn't even be remembered if he ran it on his own. The reason people think it's something to be solved is because for some reason our society attaches all the reasons for success, and the associated benefits, to a handful of people for enterprises that are a group endeavor
- alphonsegaston 9y ago
  Than any one person through the lens of an authoritarian hierarchy that’s structured to reinforce the necessity of top-down rule. In reality, all the laborers at Microsoft built it into what it is today. And it (like most companies) are at a scale of complexity that is far beyond the fiction that workers are acting out CEO’s “visions.”
  - millermp12 9y ago
    You need both but what is more valuable, the sculptor or the clay?
pc86 9y ago
My React todo app is just as important as Microsoft.
- gozur88 9y ago
  That's why we have money - so people can say things like "No it isn't, because if it were people would have given you billions for it."
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    Money is not a panacea for valuation. If it were, then ending climate change would be much more profitable.
    - gozur88 9y ago
      It's true there's nothing perfect under the sun. But I think the financial judgement of MSFT vs some guy's hobby project is pretty sound, and in general price signals work pretty well as a message to producers.
      - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
        I agree. However, fatal errors within the money system (i.e. climate change, cyclical poverty) must be addressed, which is what this whole thread is about.
        gozur88 9y ago
        Well, I would have to look at pc86's app first.
        pc86 9y ago
        I thought it was pretty obvious I was being sarcastic. Anyone who thinks their todo app is as important as a multi billion dollar company employing about 125,000 people has serious mental issues.
xbzbanna 9y ago
Bill Gates is part of a system that built Microsoft. The system needs to be maintained if it's going to continue to produce outcomes like that.
- dllthomas 9y ago
  And... if we would prefer different outcomes?
Frondo 9y ago
It offends my sense of fairness to see the disparity between the very small number of very, very rich and the very large number of very, very poor. It offends my sense of "people should enjoy freedom" to see so, so many people who are very much not free because of the economic system that offers them no way out of poverty. (And I don't believe that poor people are all choosing poverty. I've been poor, and no one wakes up to that and says "this is what I choose.") And it offends my sense of language when people use phrases like "build Microsoft" as though it was a doghouse that someone assembled in an afternoon and sold for the cost of materials plus $50 profit. Gates no more "built" microsoft than George Washington built America, or whatever. Lots of people were involved, and even if they were compensated well, maybe they weren't compensated fairly. Profits being the unpaid wages of the working class and all...
DubiousPusher 9y ago
Because a growing share of Americans are beginning to feel trapped by poverty and when masses of people feel trapped instability often follows. Everyone, from the CEO to the custodian has an interest in people feeling there is some truth to "The American Dream." Which is not that you might get rich but that you can at least get ahead.
xapata 9y ago
> Did you build Microsoft? Yes. I purchased several of their products, thereby increasing the capitalization of Microsoft. I expect you intended the answer to be "No," implying that Bill Gates (and a few others) built Microsoft. However, that rests on a specific understanding of ownership and causality that not everyone shares.
- slimshady94 9y ago
  Would Bill Gates have worked so hard (presumably) if he didn't have that specific understanding of ownership and casuality? Isn't that type of motivation and incentive necessary, to grind through the obstacles?
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    A lot of people work very hard without even the remotest possibility of getting rich. Scientists or aid workers would be an example. Money is not the only motivator for people.
  - coolaliasbro 9y ago
    I would argue that it was his understanding of ownership and causality that landed him an OS sans building one.
  - gozur88 9y ago
    People like Gates don't get rich because they work hard (though most of them do). They get rich because they're willing to risk what they have build something more. Gates could have sold out to IBM or Apple or whoever and retired as a multimillionaire without taking the chance Microsoft would end up like Wang or Altair or hundreds of other companies.
  - vec 9y ago
    I expect this is intended to be a rhetorical question, but there's a lot of hidden premises here. First, it assumes that Bill Gates did in fact work hard. Please define exactly what you mean by "work" and "hard", since I'm not sure there's an obvious thing that he could have done more of, even if he were so inclined. Second, it assumes there exists some direct relationship between Bill Gates's personal work ethic and Microsoft's outsized success. Maybe all Microsoft needed was a good idea at the right time and would have succeeded about equally well with any minimally competent execution. Maybe they would have done even better had Bill Gates founded the company and then retired at 30. Finally, it assumes that Bill Gates work ethic had some direct relationship with his financial compensation level. It is quite possible that he would have been more than happy to still give his best possible effort in return for being, say, a mere hundred millionaire. Moreover, plenty of people do hard work for all sorts of other reasons, from duty to boredom to artistic vision. Why do we assume that Bill Gates's internal motivation is predominantly financial in the first place? None of those premises appear obviously and indisputably true to me. Maybe they are, but it'd be nice to see the case actually made (and made about real humans in the real world, not about perfectly rational actors in an idealized market).

lovich 9y ago

Did bill gates build Microsoft? He had a larger part than probably anyone, but he wouldn't even be remembered if he ran it on his own. The reason people think it's something to be solved is because for some reason our society attaches all the reasons for success, and the associated benefits, to a handful of people for enterprises that are a group endeavor

alphonsegaston 9y ago
Than any one person through the lens of an authoritarian hierarchy that’s structured to reinforce the necessity of top-down rule. In reality, all the laborers at Microsoft built it into what it is today. And it (like most companies) are at a scale of complexity that is far beyond the fiction that workers are acting out CEO’s “visions.”
- millermp12 9y ago
  You need both but what is more valuable, the sculptor or the clay?

pc86 9y ago

My React todo app is just as important as Microsoft.

gozur88 9y ago
That's why we have money - so people can say things like "No it isn't, because if it were people would have given you billions for it."
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  Money is not a panacea for valuation. If it were, then ending climate change would be much more profitable.
  - gozur88 9y ago
    It's true there's nothing perfect under the sun. But I think the financial judgement of MSFT vs some guy's hobby project is pretty sound, and in general price signals work pretty well as a message to producers.
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      I agree. However, fatal errors within the money system (i.e. climate change, cyclical poverty) must be addressed, which is what this whole thread is about.
      - gozur88 9y ago
        Well, I would have to look at pc86's app first.
        pc86 9y ago
        I thought it was pretty obvious I was being sarcastic. Anyone who thinks their todo app is as important as a multi billion dollar company employing about 125,000 people has serious mental issues.

xbzbanna 9y ago

Bill Gates is part of a system that built Microsoft. The system needs to be maintained if it's going to continue to produce outcomes like that.

dllthomas 9y ago
And... if we would prefer different outcomes?

Frondo 9y ago

It offends my sense of fairness to see the disparity between the very small number of very, very rich and the very large number of very, very poor. It offends my sense of "people should enjoy freedom" to see so, so many people who are very much not free because of the economic system that offers them no way out of poverty. (And I don't believe that poor people are all choosing poverty. I've been poor, and no one wakes up to that and says "this is what I choose.") And it offends my sense of language when people use phrases like "build Microsoft" as though it was a doghouse that someone assembled in an afternoon and sold for the cost of materials plus $50 profit. Gates no more "built" microsoft than George Washington built America, or whatever. Lots of people were involved, and even if they were compensated well, maybe they weren't compensated fairly. Profits being the unpaid wages of the working class and all...

DubiousPusher 9y ago

Because a growing share of Americans are beginning to feel trapped by poverty and when masses of people feel trapped instability often follows. Everyone, from the CEO to the custodian has an interest in people feeling there is some truth to "The American Dream." Which is not that you might get rich but that you can at least get ahead.

xapata 9y ago

> Did you build Microsoft? Yes. I purchased several of their products, thereby increasing the capitalization of Microsoft. I expect you intended the answer to be "No," implying that Bill Gates (and a few others) built Microsoft. However, that rests on a specific understanding of ownership and causality that not everyone shares.

slimshady94 9y ago
Would Bill Gates have worked so hard (presumably) if he didn't have that specific understanding of ownership and casuality? Isn't that type of motivation and incentive necessary, to grind through the obstacles?
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  A lot of people work very hard without even the remotest possibility of getting rich. Scientists or aid workers would be an example. Money is not the only motivator for people.
- coolaliasbro 9y ago
  I would argue that it was his understanding of ownership and causality that landed him an OS sans building one.
- gozur88 9y ago
  People like Gates don't get rich because they work hard (though most of them do). They get rich because they're willing to risk what they have build something more. Gates could have sold out to IBM or Apple or whoever and retired as a multimillionaire without taking the chance Microsoft would end up like Wang or Altair or hundreds of other companies.
- vec 9y ago
  I expect this is intended to be a rhetorical question, but there's a lot of hidden premises here. First, it assumes that Bill Gates did in fact work hard. Please define exactly what you mean by "work" and "hard", since I'm not sure there's an obvious thing that he could have done more of, even if he were so inclined. Second, it assumes there exists some direct relationship between Bill Gates's personal work ethic and Microsoft's outsized success. Maybe all Microsoft needed was a good idea at the right time and would have succeeded about equally well with any minimally competent execution. Maybe they would have done even better had Bill Gates founded the company and then retired at 30. Finally, it assumes that Bill Gates work ethic had some direct relationship with his financial compensation level. It is quite possible that he would have been more than happy to still give his best possible effort in return for being, say, a mere hundred millionaire. Moreover, plenty of people do hard work for all sorts of other reasons, from duty to boredom to artistic vision. Why do we assume that Bill Gates's internal motivation is predominantly financial in the first place? None of those premises appear obviously and indisputably true to me. Maybe they are, but it'd be nice to see the case actually made (and made about real humans in the real world, not about perfectly rational actors in an idealized market).