Bezos made a website. He made "Walmart online". Now, is he the world's best website creator? Did he win some online store creation world championship? Is he even in the top 1000 of the world's best website-coders? How about Gates: did he create the world's most popular operating system? Or the best? Or Steve Jobs: did he develop ANY of the technologies used in either the iPod or the iPhone? The answer to all these questions is a resounding NO.
It doesn't work like that. You get rewarded for the value that you bring to the market, not for working hard or being the best coder in the World. All three guys that you named brought a tremendous value to the market.
You can work your ass off but if what you bring to the market is not valued by it, you won't get rewarded. Just ask all those writers that spent years writing books that nobody wants to buy and read.
They didn't steal their money, people paid them voluntarily. Did you buy a PC running Windows? Xbox? iPhone? Used amazon to shop online? Then you contributed to their wealth.
If you want to make a solid case for the universal healthcare don't waste your time finding ways to say billionaires are evil in such a way that you can deny saying that.
Universal healthcare is a good idea that can stand on its own. No need to shit on poor ol' Gates.
Sure, we all know that. Except the billionaires who keep harping on how hard they worked for their money. They didn't. Stop pretending that the meritocracy exists, and then I'll stop using them as an example to the opposite.
Stop pretending that the meritocracy exists, and then I'll stop using them as an example to the opposite.
Meritocracy does exists, to a point. Pretending that it does not is foolish.
But, that's just part of the story. Regulatory capture exists as well. Shady dealings, too.
I'm pretty sure that you're using/having one of the services/products that those three put on the market. I'm willing to take that one step further and claim that you're pretty satisfied with their products and services. And I'm 100% sure none of them forced you to hand them your money. You did it gladly.
If you think it's easy (not hard work) to create online Walmart or Windows or iPhone, what are you waiting for? Create something that millions of people are willing to pay you cash money for and you'll be able to use yourself as an example in the posts like the one above.
The reward they got for their contribution is proportional to its value. Its so huge that you can safely say the World before Amazon/Windows/iPhone and the World after A/W?iP. They literally changed the World.
You picked the wrong billionaires to shit on. If you want some better examples take a look at those in finance. Mitt Romney, Paul Singer,... corporate raiders would be better examples. Getting wealthy by destroying companies and lives of their employees.
The reward they got for their contribution is proportional to its value.
Sorry bro, but that's nonsense. Having an idea does not create wealth. And in the case of Gates, he didn't even have the idea. There is no other method to create wealth than transforming nature through labor.
Its so huge that you can safely say the World before Amazon/Windows/iPhone and the World after A/W?iP. They literally changed the World.
Wrong again. There's a world before the internet and one after internet. Internet is created wholly through public funding, with tax dollars. All technologies used in the iPhone were created like that too.
You picked the wrong billionaires to shit on.
Nope, these will do just fine.
And besides: everything, and I do mean everything you say here only counts 1 kind of "value", which is the biggest problem to begin with. Men get payed more than women because they're the traditional breadwinners. Why? Because the women stayed at home, running the family; dad was able to go out to work because the women had an unpayed job at home. Capitalism has the nasty habit of not counting the wealth that's not measured in dollars. That, in a nutshell, is why you'll never be able to defend capitalism, because it's indefensible.
Getting wealthy by destroying companies and lives of their employees.
Sigh... That's exactly how money is made and true wealth is destroyed, and almost all publicly traded companies work this way. Meritocracy does not exist, not in the real world, if it did, housewives would be payed the same as their husbands who simply worked in another location. Now capitalism has forced the mothers, fathers and their education-craving children to do dad's job; there's that destruction of true wealth again.
I'm pretty sure that you're using/having one of the services/products that those three put on the market. I'm willing to take that one step further and claim that you're pretty satisfied with their products and services. And I'm 100% sure none of them forced you to hand them your money. You did it gladly.
I won't even grace this with a response and just say that this is the same kind of argument as "if you don't like it here, just move elsewhere"; that's a very poor argument to make.
Sorry bro, but that's nonsense. Having an idea does not create wealth. And in the case of Gates, he didn't even have the idea.
Having an idea does not. Implementing that idea and putting it on the market does.
And in the case of Gates, he didn't even have the idea.
He had the execution. Fun fact - Gates, Allen and Ballmer worked in the same motel used by prostitutes while debugging Basic that they were trying to sell to Atari. Thin walls and all that.
Now capitalism has forced the mothers, fathers and their education-craving children to do dad's job; there's that destruction of true wealth again.
Is there a better system out there? Slavery did it, feudalism did it, communism did it, capitalism does it.
We, as a species, started dirt poor wandering around searching for food. When you look at the historical development, of all the systems we tried - capitalism performed the best.
Your position that everything would be fine if only those dirty billionaires didn't steal all that money for themselves is indefensible. Judging capitalism by some idealistic system that doesn't exist is just not fair.
Try this for a change: Capitalism is bad when compared to X, where X is a system that actually exists (existed) in the real World.
Your position that everything would be fine if only those dirty billionaires didn't steal all that money for themselves is indefensible.
It would be if that were my position. I argue against capitalism, not the people in it.
Try this for a change: Capitalism is bad when compared to X...
That's so easy. Capitalism is bad when compared to communism, which has existed for 190,000 of the 200,000 years of the existence of homo sapiens; we just didn't have a name for it back then ;-)
Slavery did it, feudalism did it, communism did it, capitalism does it.
Slavery, feudalism and capitalism are the same, all modes of production in which the owners of the means of production exploit the labor of the working majority, there's no difference between the three in a systemic sense (hence the "wage slave"). The communism you refer to isn't communism at all; it's state-capitalism, again exactly the same model of production in which it's the government minority that owns the means of production. Learn what communism is and don't simply go by what countries like to call themselves; the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not a democracy, nor a republic and certainly isn't for the people...
That's so easy. Capitalism is bad when compared to communism, which has existed for 190,000 of the 200,000 years of the existence of homo sapiens; we just didn't have a name for it back then ;-)
I'll take the capitalism of today over that communism all day long.
Not the biggest fan of my wife dying during childbirth or getting my tribe raided by the neighbours.
Your UA account score is currently 3.896 which ranks you at #4553 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has not changed in the last three days.Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 99 contributions, your post is ranked at #38.
Evaluation of your UA score:
You're on the right track, try to gather more followers.
The readers like your work!
Try to work on user engagement: the more people that interact with you via the comments, the higher your UA score!
reminder that the only people that believe in this conspiracy theory are you and your ilk. Intersectionality is about equality and helping others, not about "out-oppressing" one another. Bizarre fantasy.
The real complacency is when you're well enough off not to care about your fellow citizen.
Paging all libertarians.
Posted using Partiko Android
Your a real thinker!
your
It doesn't work like that. You get rewarded for the value that you bring to the market, not for working hard or being the best coder in the World. All three guys that you named brought a tremendous value to the market.
You can work your ass off but if what you bring to the market is not valued by it, you won't get rewarded. Just ask all those writers that spent years writing books that nobody wants to buy and read.
They didn't steal their money, people paid them voluntarily. Did you buy a PC running Windows? Xbox? iPhone? Used amazon to shop online? Then you contributed to their wealth.
If you want to make a solid case for the universal healthcare don't waste your time finding ways to say billionaires are evil in such a way that you can deny saying that.
Universal healthcare is a good idea that can stand on its own. No need to shit on poor ol' Gates.
Sure, we all know that. Except the billionaires who keep harping on how hard they worked for their money. They didn't. Stop pretending that the meritocracy exists, and then I'll stop using them as an example to the opposite.
Meritocracy does exists, to a point. Pretending that it does not is foolish.
But, that's just part of the story. Regulatory capture exists as well. Shady dealings, too.
I'm pretty sure that you're using/having one of the services/products that those three put on the market. I'm willing to take that one step further and claim that you're pretty satisfied with their products and services. And I'm 100% sure none of them forced you to hand them your money. You did it gladly.
If you think it's easy (not hard work) to create online Walmart or Windows or iPhone, what are you waiting for? Create something that millions of people are willing to pay you cash money for and you'll be able to use yourself as an example in the posts like the one above.
The reward they got for their contribution is proportional to its value. Its so huge that you can safely say the World before Amazon/Windows/iPhone and the World after A/W?iP. They literally changed the World.
You picked the wrong billionaires to shit on. If you want some better examples take a look at those in finance. Mitt Romney, Paul Singer,... corporate raiders would be better examples. Getting wealthy by destroying companies and lives of their employees.
Sorry bro, but that's nonsense. Having an idea does not create wealth. And in the case of Gates, he didn't even have the idea. There is no other method to create wealth than transforming nature through labor.
Wrong again. There's a world before the internet and one after internet. Internet is created wholly through public funding, with tax dollars. All technologies used in the iPhone were created like that too.
Nope, these will do just fine.
And besides: everything, and I do mean everything you say here only counts 1 kind of "value", which is the biggest problem to begin with. Men get payed more than women because they're the traditional breadwinners. Why? Because the women stayed at home, running the family; dad was able to go out to work because the women had an unpayed job at home. Capitalism has the nasty habit of not counting the wealth that's not measured in dollars. That, in a nutshell, is why you'll never be able to defend capitalism, because it's indefensible.
Sigh... That's exactly how money is made and true wealth is destroyed, and almost all publicly traded companies work this way. Meritocracy does not exist, not in the real world, if it did, housewives would be payed the same as their husbands who simply worked in another location. Now capitalism has forced the mothers, fathers and their education-craving children to do dad's job; there's that destruction of true wealth again.
I won't even grace this with a response and just say that this is the same kind of argument as "if you don't like it here, just move elsewhere"; that's a very poor argument to make.
It's safe to say that we disagree.
Having an idea does not. Implementing that idea and putting it on the market does.
He had the execution. Fun fact - Gates, Allen and Ballmer worked in the same motel used by prostitutes while debugging Basic that they were trying to sell to Atari. Thin walls and all that.
Is there a better system out there? Slavery did it, feudalism did it, communism did it, capitalism does it.
We, as a species, started dirt poor wandering around searching for food. When you look at the historical development, of all the systems we tried - capitalism performed the best.
Your position that everything would be fine if only those dirty billionaires didn't steal all that money for themselves is indefensible. Judging capitalism by some idealistic system that doesn't exist is just not fair.
Try this for a change: Capitalism is bad when compared to X, where X is a system that actually exists (existed) in the real World.
It would be if that were my position. I argue against capitalism, not the people in it.
That's so easy. Capitalism is bad when compared to communism, which has existed for 190,000 of the 200,000 years of the existence of homo sapiens; we just didn't have a name for it back then ;-)
Slavery, feudalism and capitalism are the same, all modes of production in which the owners of the means of production exploit the labor of the working majority, there's no difference between the three in a systemic sense (hence the "wage slave"). The communism you refer to isn't communism at all; it's state-capitalism, again exactly the same model of production in which it's the government minority that owns the means of production. Learn what communism is and don't simply go by what countries like to call themselves; the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not a democracy, nor a republic and certainly isn't for the people...
But here's a point of agreement though ;-)
I'll take the capitalism of today over that communism all day long.
Not the biggest fan of my wife dying during childbirth or getting my tribe raided by the neighbours.
Healthcare should be universal; we all pay for it according to our ability and we all benefit equally.
Agree 100%
Thanks for using the point tag!
Thanks Isaria! And I'll use the point tag more often ;-)
Congratulations @zyx066! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!
Hi @zyx066!
Your UA account score is currently 3.896 which ranks you at #4553 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has not changed in the last three days.Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 99 contributions, your post is ranked at #38.
Evaluation of your UA score:
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server
reminder that the only people that believe in this conspiracy theory are you and your ilk. Intersectionality is about equality and helping others, not about "out-oppressing" one another. Bizarre fantasy.
Yeah, I'm sure our little toddler here also believes that "cultural Marxism" is actually a thing...
Scary cultural marxism! I don't want my kids to be happy on their own! I ONLY want them to be happy while stomping on others!