Bill Gates had opportunities to access computers that others didn't
have? The real difference is that bill Gates chose not to live with a
needle in his arm. Actions have consequences. If Bill Gates didn't have
a computer I'm sure he would be successful to some degree in something
else. We should definitely tax the drug addict more because he costs
society more for the maintenance of his worthless life style.
Why do you immediately go to "someone to get the minimum wage (or
worse)"? No one (except waitresses who live off tips) need work for
minimum wages. Inexperienced teens might - but adults who really want to
work don't go that route. This is an absurd straw dog argument.
No one can maintain a monopoly for long in a truly free economy (or
capitalism that does not have some sectors artificially propped up by a
central government). Entrepreneurs will always come along to produce a
better, cheaper product that breaks the monopoly. Bill Gates creamed
IBM.
This is like the stuff we hear about the power companies buying up good
ideas that might break their monopoly by providing cheap energy. When
one digs into the matter it's always some quack who never had a
legitimate product in the first place.
Bob at PC
-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
[mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of kyle
forinash
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 2:48 PM
To: phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] SOLAR , NUCLEAR ENERGY etc.
Hi
1) It does not appear to me that you can support the conclusion (as
several people on this list have) that everyone who is rich earned that
money or that the people who are fabulously rich are essential to
furthering capitalism. Take a look at Wikipedia's list of the most
wealthy people in the world. Some DID earn their position but many
inherited it. Some are got rich by creating new technology, etc. others
by lending money or drilling for oil, not by being particularly
innovative. It is pretty much all over the map. So I don't see how
anyone can conclude that taxing the rich is like penalizing the
brightest student in class or hamstringing innovative investments.
Theoretical question. Should we tax Bill Gates more than the kid from
the getto who becomes a drug addict? An argument in favor is that Gates
had special advantages that the kid down the street did not (Gates had
access to computers at an early age which most people at that time did
not). The playing field was never level to start with. Why shouldn't
someone who had special advantages to start with (or in other cases
inherited their money) be asked to pay back some of that?
2) Saying that it is ok for someone to get the minimum wage (or worse)
because they agreed to it assumes everyone is equal. But the playing
field is not equal. If you never learned to read because you grew up in
the rain forest you cannot go out and get a high paying job programing
computers. A low paying job is not, in most cases, a fairly negotiated
social contract.
3) We want capitalism because the competition is effective in improving
goods and services. But if one company beats all the others and becomes
the monopoly, is that capitalism? No. So shouldn't there be some kind of
limit on size and power of individual companies (and rich people) so
that there IS true competition? Should United Fruit have special
political privileges? Should Suez or Vivendi be allowed to charge poor
people in Africa whatever price they choose for drinking water because
they are the only source?
4) Many previous posts are pretty gloom and doom. But, for example, the
emissions of heavy metal in the US has been declining for the past 20
years. There ARE solutions. There is a direct inverse correlation
between wealth and pollution. Once people have their basic needs met
they start worrying about the environment. This isn't to say that doom
forecasters aren't needed; someone has to point out the problems and
find the solutions. It also doesn't mean wealth is everything (standard
of living includes much more). But I don't think alarms that the world
is ending are called for or particularly useful.
kyle
--
------------------------------------------
"When applied to material things,
the term "sustainable growth" is an oxymoron."
Albert Bartlett