Rubbish? They say Americans are naive. And I think we are (and I include
myself in that category).
Bill Gates really did have access to computers at a young age in a way
that the vast majority of folks in the world did not (read 'Outliers' by
Gladwell). Very few high school kids of that era had access to a
mainframe and learned to program. Gates was lucky, he stumbled into
something he had a talent for (he also worked hard). Someone who grows
up in the getto learns that the way you get a shinny new car and
girlfriends is to have a gun and sell drugs. Working at a grocery store
and going to school do not get these things in the getto. Their peers
are dying in gunfights at 20 years old and they are suppose to decide to
work hard and save for the future? Yes these kids have choices but the
choices they are exposed to are different than what we were exposed to.
As much as we want to believe in the 'American Dream' it isn't true. Not
everyone has the same opportunity, not in this country and even less so
than other countries; at least if opportunity includes early education
(which I believe it does). Early environment matters: read 'Intelligence
and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count' by Richard E. Nisbett.
We do have laws against monopolies. But the cable company in our city
really does have a monopoly, so does the power company. One company is a
monopoly. If there are two, do we have free, open capitalism? Doesn't
sound like a lot of competition to me (which is why we value
capitalism). What about three? How many should there be to get the best
effect of competition? We only have a handful of car manufacturers. Is
that capitalism? One computer software company has 70%+ of the market.
Is that competition? Can you really compete against Microsoft (or will
you just be bought out under pressure)? Sure you can come up with a new
idea but if Microsoft comes to you and says, look, you sell us this idea
and we won't harass you, it is win-win, is it capitalism? Is it
competition? Or does Microsoft have an advantage? I'm all for
competition but it has to be fair and I think the evidence is that it
isn't always fair. United Fruit in the 50s &60s gained a monopoly in
central America through a combination of hiring armed men and spending
money for political leverage. They had more money than most of the
countries they were dealing with so they could get their own way. Is
that capitalism?
Some people inherit more money than some entire countries. Does that
mean they should have as much influence in the world as an entire
country? From Wikipedia's list of billionaires, click on a few an get
their life story. Are they somehow better than the rest of us? Maybe a
few worked hard but most were also damn lucky and I'm counting over a
third as having gotten their start from their father.
Taxes. Under Roosevelt the highest tax rate was 76% and only one person
(Rockefeller) paid it. Today the highest rate is 38%. If you make half a
million dollars a year you pay 38%. If you make %40 billion (80,000
times more) you pay 38%. I definitely think some people should be paid
more than others. But 80,000 times more? And for some people they get
that for nothing, for merely being born. That seems excessive to me.