Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1

    Meyvn's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 24, 2004
    Posts
    726
    Specs:
    Black Colorware PowerBook 1.67 GHz G4, 2 GB DDR2, 100GB 7200 RPM
    Capitalism and Socialism.
    This thread was inspired by the many sentiments I've been hearing lately about computer businesses--such as Apple and Microsoft--"caring only about themselves." A Linux-user friend of mine talked about a Linux/Unix convention he went to and how he was just amazed by this one man there who ran some computer business or other, but was not in it for the money. He was just out to "support himself and his family," and make nothing more. He hailed this man's objective as great, and said that anyone who could not appreciate it was "thinking in conventional, selfish terms." I read here on these forums in some thread or other about how "if Apple, MS, AMD, and Intel's goals were not ultimately money, if they would all just collaborate, the results would be amazing. " Then of course, you'll say to them, "The way the world is, any company whose goal is not to make money will fail." Then they inevitably respond something along the lines of, "But if EVERYONE did it, then we would all be great! The world is flawed." and leave it at that. What I'm driving at, which I have never been able to get out of any of these people is: By what standard is this mentality GOOD? By what standard is selfishness wrong? Now, you could answer this right here and now and say, "by God's standard," and that would be it, because the existence of a creator that made everything imposes its own objective standard of good on all of its created. But for now, I'm setting God aside, because almost every single person I've ever heard espouse such mentalities does not believe in God. So I ask again: good? By what standard?
    'cause when it rains, you know it pours.

  2. #2

    rman's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 24, 2002
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    12,584
    Specs:
    2 x 3.0GHz Quad-Core, 6GB OS X 10.6.8 | 15in MacBook Pro 2.2GHz OS X 10.6.8 | 64GB iPad 2 WiFi
    Cool
    In what you stated earlier, I believe the fellow you are speaking of is in it for the money. He needs money to take care of his family. If he did not need the money, he would do it for free.

    As for the last item, the problem is the current genration is all about the moment. Everything must be done now, whereas the boomer generation was and is more about self.
    Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, It's about learning to dance in the rain!

  3. #3
    sursuciofla
    Guest
    Money is the root of all evil, just ask Judas. Or the one he sold for a dime. I personally would do it for the money. It is not always about greed or selfishness but 'Family' wealth. A lot of people build not only for themselves but for their children and their children. I want enough money to live the way I want and the rest I would leave for my children through trusts and investments, et cetera. I will show you a good article though that I read today:

    http://encarta.msn.com/column_philanthropy_tamimhome/Giving_Away_Millions_It's_Only_Human.html

    I believe you should do what is in your heart and what makes you feel good about yourself. If it means doing for nothing because you enjoy it then fine and if you are doing it for the money then good for you. Remember we all have to make a living and who do we to judge how much money is adequate. A doctor who wants to open a free clinic can find means to run it but initially these people had to be capitalists to do this. Usually they can't do that full-time because they have to make money for themselves to live on, just like RMAN said that's still capitalism. It is usually the people without the money who make comments like you mentioned. How about they get together and do it then and not complain about what isn't right about the computer industry. A lot of people complain but do nothing.

    Oh and to answer your question, Good, yes. But is it smart No. Everybody is not good in this world or have good intentions and they will end up exploiting you.

  4. #4


    Member Since
    May 16, 2005
    Location
    Wasilla, Alaska
    Posts
    416
    Specs:
    New MACBOOK
    the bottom line is it's survival. In the business world, if you don't strive to make money, than you cannot compete with the competition. Anyone who thinks that all companies should band together and create one product that is supreme, are not thinking about the future. Once that product is created, how can we afford it, if there is no competition? The company could charge outrageous prices, and we being impatient Americans, would find a way to get it, only making that company more money. People who say that Bill Gates is selfish, or that Steve Jobs is selfish, should really educate themselves, and look into how much money the two of them give to charities every year, and how hard they work to find ways to get computers into third world countries, and educate the poor. If we really want to be mad at anybody, it should be athletes, who sign a contract, then hold out the next year, because they think they deserve to make more than 8 million a year to play a game. Do soldiers who sign a contract, get to renegotiate their deals every year?

  5. #5
    sursuciofla
    Guest
    I agree with you although I don't agree about the charity givings and athletes. Jobs and Gates do benefit from that otherwise they would not do tax write-offs. I am pretty sure they indulge in itemization. At the same time I am sure their givings are sincere so I won't make a big deal. I do not agree with the athletes thing mainly football players. Owners don't have to stick to the contract, they can cut you and owe you nothing no matter what deal you signed. All they owe is what you signed as guaranteed by way of bonus. How F'ed up is that? Also people who work for companies get raises so why not? I mean the owners are greedy in my opinion when they try to shaft players early in their careers when they produce more than some of the higher paid players and don't get rewarded for it. They just get the minimum salary. I have no problem with the athletes asking for more money and holding out, I don't care if they are making 10 million or 500,000 that is their perrogative.

  6. #6


    Member Since
    Oct 01, 2004
    Posts
    3,378
    Quote Originally Posted by Meyvn
    this one man there who ran some computer business or other, but was not in it for the money. He was just out to "support himself and his family," and make nothing more.
    How much would you say is enough to "support himself and his family"? How would you expect them to live?

  7. #7


    Member Since
    May 16, 2005
    Location
    Wasilla, Alaska
    Posts
    416
    Specs:
    New MACBOOK
    Latrell Sprewell was offered 21 million dollars guarranteed money for the next 3 years, that is 7 million a year. He turned this down, because he felt it was not enough to feed his family. Now remember, Latrell Sprewell also owns Sprewell Racing, and is the first person to market the "spinner" wheels. Tell me that Athletes don't make too much by that statement, and I will agree with you. Athletes, are entertainers, therefore, I agree that owners should be able to cut them at any time. Just like all other jobs, you can be fired or laid off at any time. the average athlete (minus Maurice Clarett, what an idiot), will set their contract up, so that at least 60% of the money is in bonuses. Look at Peyton Manning, the man got almost 30 million signing bonus, yet alot of athletes, say that getting 7 million a year is not enough? I wouldn't mind making 1 million IN MY LIFETIME. I do agree that athletes have more expenses than many people, traveling, clothing, and such, but I still think they are overpaid, but it all comes down to business, if you make your teams owner rich, he will make you rich. Also about the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs writing their donations off, you can only write off up to a certain percent (not sure what it is exactly), but I know that Bill Gates gives at least 20 times that percent to charities every year.

  8. #8
    damontgo
    Guest
    I do think it's ridiculous how much money athletes and major actors/actresses make, but I also don't think it's their fault. If a rising star suddenly finds himself the prize of a bidding war, he would be dumb to not take the best of 2 deals. And athletes and actors are able to make so much money because the common people pay them in the form of movie tickets, game tickets, merchandise. It's what the market will bear. And the statement that any company not in it for the money will fail is a true one. A company that does not strive for extra profits compromises its own future. Without money, a company cannot exist. Companies are always looking for bigger profits margins and market share, and the consumers beneft because of this! It's why capitalism is so great. Companies have the ultimate motivation to provide the absolute best products and services for the lowest price; b/c if they don't, they may face extinction. Socialism failed because everyone was of the opinion that what the companies made for them was good enough. There was no "best" of anything. So workers slacked off, and companies kept makeing the same slipshod products as always.

  9. #9

    Graphite's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 25, 2003
    Location
    Tropical Island, Jealous?
    Posts
    5,279
    Specs:
    MacPro 3.0Ghz 16GB RAM, 4x256 Vid, 30''cinema display
    GZ anyone? mac addikt?.....

  10. #10


    Member Since
    Sep 21, 2005
    Posts
    75
    Specs:
    ibook 12", ipod photo 20gig
    i think capitalism and socialism isn't the right topic for this thread.

  11. #11

    Meyvn's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 24, 2004
    Posts
    726
    Specs:
    Black Colorware PowerBook 1.67 GHz G4, 2 GB DDR2, 100GB 7200 RPM
    ...I was worried this would happen. None of you has answered my question, and only one of you (rman) has even acknowledged it. This is exactly what I was talking about, the spouting of 'charity is good; Bill Gates and Steve Jobs aren't greedy, but athletes are!' and the sensless, endless debate that follows. What I wanted to know in the first place was: WHY do you say charity is good? WHY is the ideal world one without selfishness? By what standard?
    'cause when it rains, you know it pours.

  12. #12

    chouk's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 31, 2005
    Location
    dodo island
    Posts
    304
    Specs:
    ibook g4, 14'', 1.33 Ghz, 60gig, 768ram, Mac OsX 10.4.3
    even if bill gates or celebrities give millions of dollars for charity, it does not mean that they're so generous. It does not mean that they should be on tv holding a cheque.
    If they are so generous, why don't they just give money anonymously.

    What about a lady who give out 10 bucks out of her only $100 monthly salary? This is pure generosity.

  13. #13

    schweb's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 27, 2002
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Posts
    13,190
    Specs:
    MacBook Pro | LED Cinema Display | iPhone 4 | iPad 2
    I don't believe the ideal world is one without selfishness. Selfishness leads to a lot of great things. Selfishness is part of the core of human nature, to remove it completely would rid people of their humanity. I think the world would quickly become uninspired, bland, and boring.

    Now that being said, any impulse, including selfishness, taken to the extreme is also bad. But I do think that any governmental structure based on the principle of socialism or communism is doomed to failure in the long run since it's so contrary to human nature. For any system to survive in the long term it must embrace and learn to harness all parts of the human nature.
    schweb | community leader
    flickr facebook twitter tumblr google+ about.me

    Mac-Forums: On Twitter | On Facebook | On Flickr


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •