Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
The radical left doesn't hide their agenda
Published on September 22, 2007 By Draginol In Democrat

The smirking chimp is a site dedicated to not just insults of President Bush but also of promoting radical left-wing nonsense like the article "When the rich make too much money".

It never ceases to amaze me to see someone write, without irony on a computer, built by companies started by people who are now "rich" full of components made by companies whose founders are "rich"  running computer software made by companies whose founders are "rich" complaining how unfair it is that there are rich people and how it endangers us all.

How many people do you know whom you would happily claim to be worth 100 times what you are worth as a human and a citizen of a so-called "democracy"? How does the worth of people like Kenneth Lay and Warren Buffett stack up against the worth of people like Jefferson, Franklin and Lincoln? Have you ever considered the certainty that relative human worth does not have one damned thing to do with what you own or how much money you have accumulated?

Above is a quote from the article that is written without a hint of irony.  Apparently, being a politician or diplomat has more worth than Warren Buffet.  Who defines how valuable a human being is to society? Apparently in the liberal utopia, learned academics like Dr. Lower.

But before we are assigned a human worth value by the academics, I would ask -- how much has our life changed in just the past 100 years thanks to people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, and so on?  What would our lives be like today without the tiny percentage of people who go out and truly change the world?

If the government were to tell me that I had a maximum cap I could earn, then my answer would be "fuck you" and I would simply stop working.  I have a wife and 3 kids.  Sure, I employ 50 people but if I'm not going to be able to benefit beyond a certain point from my efforts, then I'm not going to work beyond that point either. How would that affect the 50 people that work at the company I run? Probably not very well. But being forced to work without compensation is slavery and I won't be a part of that. 

I could retire right now if I wanted and live comfortably.  I'm not driven by money or wealth accumulation, but I certainly expect to enjoy the fruits of my labor (see Draginol's new car).  I expect to one day be able to afford a lot more than what I have today.  That isn't what gets me up in the morning (making cool stuff does) but there are plenty of days when my job isn't fun and having goals that involve materialism do help (well, I sure don't enjoy having to deal with employee issues but on the other hand, I can afford to buy a nice lake house up north).

One of the things that drives people like me is the desire for new experiences and new frontiers and many of those new experiences take a lot of money because, as I've written before, money can buy time to allow people to experience more in the limited amount of years they have on this Earth.

The problem with left-wingers is that most of them are inevitably divorced from reality and have no conception to how we got from serfdom (where the "goverment" did put hard limits on how much one could earn) to where we are today in a fairly egaltarian society where the child of a single parent with no economic advantages can grow up and live the American dream.

Too many left-wingers think jobs and opportunity simply exist on their own and are not connected to anyone. But our society is a reverse pyramid. You remove the handful of movers and shakers from society and it would collapse in a hurry.  Supply and demand deterine where we are on that pyramid -- not some group of learned academics.

You'd think that academics would see the obviousness in this. After all, one presumes they have some grasp of history.  Yet, when they espouse short-sighted proposals like this which would, in essence, return us to a social structure more resembling feudalism (except where our lords are "elected" rather than born into) it's hard to take their words very seriously. 

It's ironic that a site that has so much venom directed toward the current elected political leader that they would, if they had their way, redirect so much power and wealth into the hands of such leaders and away from people who made their wealth from the voluntary choices of millions of people.


Comments (Page 3)
6 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last
on Sep 22, 2007

It never ceases to amaze me to see someone write, without irony on a computer, built by companies started by people who are now "rich" full of components made by companies whose founders are "rich" running computer software made by companies whose founders are "rich" complaining how unfair it is that there are rich people and how it endangers us all.


That is a really excellent and quote-worthy statement!

on Sep 22, 2007

That's why the individual in question said he NEARLY stole it. Gates bought it for $50,000 and made millions off of it.

So if someone buys a house for $50,000 and later sells it for much much more, they nearly stole the house?

on Sep 22, 2007

Let me give an example of real world economics. This is a true story.

Years ago IBM made the IBM Family FunPak.  While in college, I wrote a game called Galactic Civilizations for OS/2 that was very popular. So naturally IBM came to me for games for this fun pak.  I told them I had a game called "Havoc" that they could license for $50,000.  In actuality, I didn't have a game, I knew of someone who had done a free "Roids" asteroids game.   IBM asked for a copy to evaluate it.  So I contacted the person who wrote Roids and asked to license Roids from him and rename is Havoc and that I would pay him $25,000 to do it.  He agreed and had the game to me the next day.  I then showed it to IBM who liked it and paid me $50,000.

Now, some left-winger would probably argue that I ripped off the developer of Roids. After all, he spent a year writing that game and made only $25,000 on it.  By contrast, I spent no time on the game and made the same amount.

But the reality is that the author of the game was far better off. Without me, he wouldn't have made anything at all.  But liberals get obessessed with "fairness".  That's how you get idiotic and arbitrary ratios between rich and poor and what not. 

 

on Sep 22, 2007
So if someone buys a house for $50,000 and later sells it for much much more, they nearly stole the house?


Absolutely not. But that was that individual's impression.
on Sep 22, 2007
But liberals get obessessed with "fairness".


And yet, when insurance agents make billions acting as middlemen and jacking up health insurance costs at several times the rate of inflation, libs (see Hillary Clinton & John Edwards) support giving them MORE by making health insurance mandatory.
on Sep 22, 2007

You'd think that academics would see the obviousness in this.

There is the fallacy in your argument.  Academics are incapable of observing anything outside their world, and they do not live in the real world.  That is why most are liberals, and clueless.  If you had ever had the opportunity to go back to college after working in the real world for some years, you would see this. As they not only will not take correction from an eyewitness to the idiocy they are trying to indoctrinate the students with, but they get personally offended when you try to enlighten them.

Sad that the most ignorant people in society today, as a profession, are University Professors.

on Sep 22, 2007

Definitely check out the comments at: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/10079#comment

 

Very illuminating.

on Sep 22, 2007

actually, Gates bought DOS, danielost. He reworked it.


Many small companies and individuals wrote operating systems for microcomputers at the time. One of those makers were lucky enough to be noticed by somebody who knew where there was demand for the OS. Let's not think of Seattle Computer Systems (company that made what became MS-DOS) as the "victim" here. They got more money than most of those little OS makers.

And Tim Patterson, the guy who did the actual work, became a Microsoft employee and a millionaire (and more). Not exactly a victim either, him.

Nobody "invented" DOS. The concepts used in the operating systems for 8080 and 8086 computers back then had already been invented. DOS was an implementation of existing inventions, not an invention by itself.

Of course, customers were free to choose whatever OS they liked for their new IBM PC. The machines didn't have hard disks, the OS was not pre-installed. And apart from IBM there were hundreds of other companies making computers. The customers ultimately decided that

a) the IBM PC would be the standard hardware

and

IBM PC-DOS (and MS-DOS) would be the standard operating system

It wasn't so much Bill Gates' evil as it was millions of customers deciding what hardware and what software to buy. Blame dad.


The standard operating system back in the day was CP/M (running on 8 bit 8080 computers). But MS-DOS was cheaper and better.

And Bill Gates' wealth is not just a result of one 50,000 dollar deal. Microsoft produced and produce A LOT of useful software people want to buy. Windows NT (2000/XP/Vista, call it what you will) is an excellent product and the leader of the team who wrote it rightly became rich for doing so. (And Bill Gates made that possible.)

on Sep 22, 2007
Thanks for the rundown, Andrew.

I have long said Gates is more a MARKETING genius than a programming genius. He just knows how to assemble a good team.

As for "stealing" ideas, if Gates were the only one appropriating competitors' ideas, it would be one thing. But it's pretty much standard practice in "the biz".

No, DOS didn't MAKE Microsoft's fortune. But it sure gave it a good kickstart!

But again, as people tend to fail to realize, he paid a fair price for the program he built up.
on Sep 22, 2007
No, DOS didn't MAKE Microsoft's fortune. But it sure gave it a good kickstart!




no it wasn't dos

it was IBM which contracted bill gates to get the dos system.
on Sep 23, 2007
Another insightful article from the CEO.  Too bad the left-wingers can't do any better than they accuse G.W.Bush of doing because they're victims of the public educations they foisted upon the vast majority of U.S. citizens.
on Sep 23, 2007
The far left say that money shouldn't matter, but as you point out, to this person, money seems to be the total value of a human being.
on Sep 23, 2007
no it wasn't dos

it was IBM which contracted bill gates to get the dos system.


Oh, good Lord, danielost, you're an idiot! I'm honestly trying to figure out why I bother!

If you want to have a discusssion, PLEASE focus. I did not say that DOS was the first money Gates ever made. I simply said it gave I good headstart.

I did not bring UP DOS. I simply tried to explain why the perception exists that Gates "nearly stole" DOS.
on Sep 23, 2007
Having just trudged through all the posts on the original article, I have this impression of the majority of the posters on that site.

They're all just jealous that you have money that you've worked for, Brad. And they want your money. Despite all their diatribes of "helping society" and all that bullshit, let's be honest - they're just jealous of what you've built for yourself.

Damn 'em. And damn the horse they rode in on. They give regular, run-of-the-mill liberals a bad name.

Bastards.
on Sep 23, 2007
Oh, good Lord, danielost, you're an idiot


i am an idiot am i


then explain why ibm decided that they had made bill gates to rich.

and then developed their own operating system

6 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last