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 4)
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6 
on Sep 23, 2007

i am an idiot am i


I'm afraid so.


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


IBM needed an OS for their new computer system. Bill Gates provided one. IBM paid him very little money for it.


and then developed their own operating system


IBM never did develop their own operating system for their personal computer. When IBM wanted a replacement for DOS, they again contracted Microsoft to create it. That was OS/2. It was only with OS/2 1.3 that IBM took over development and the last version of OS/2 (4.52 or so) still contains lots of Microsoft code.


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


Not really. The DOS deal merely catapulted Microsoft into the right league. There were still many software companies that had the money and staff to produce the GUI for DOS and the replacement later for DOS and that GUI.

IBM were in a far better position than Microsoft to take over the PC OS market until the mid-90s. IBM's OS was even written by Microsoft (OS/2).

Digital Research just didn't offer what people wanted (a GUI that could only use 640 KB of RAM while Microsoft made Windows use 16 MB) and IBM's OS somehow lost against Windows NT.

The idea that the DOS deal is what made Microsoft rich is ridiculous. Microsoft sold IBM a licence to use DOS for a small amount of money, fixed, not per copy. That money did not make Microsoft rich.

What made Microsoft rich is this:

1. People bought IBM PC-DOS rather than CP/M for their new IBM PC because PC-DOS was cheaper and better.

2. People bought IBM PC clones and MS-DOS because MS-DOS was better than CP/M and 100% compatible with IBM's DOS.

Microsoft's IBM deal did not force people to buy the cheaper OS and did not force people to buy MS-DOS for the clones. And there were alternatives. There were MS-DOS clones, non-IBM compatible PCs, CP/M, 8 bit and 16 bit computers and so on.



on Sep 23, 2007
jardenep -

According to Forbes, 270 of the current 400 wealthiest individuals in the US are entirely self-made, meaning they started with essentially nothing. Only 37 of the 400 inherited their wealth.

That you aren't among them doesn't make it a bad thing to be wealthy.
on Sep 23, 2007
That you aren't among them


Yet.
on Sep 23, 2007
i will go back to what i said about bill gates

he did not steal his fortune despite what the idiots on the far left said.

on Sep 24, 2007

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

Preaching to the choir here!  I agree completely.

on Sep 24, 2007

2. People bought IBM PC clones and MS-DOS because MS-DOS was better than CP/M and 100% compatible with IBM's DOS.

In later years, after the romance was gone, IBM said that was their biggest mistake.  And why they could not corner the market.  It may have been IBM's mistake not to enter into an exclusive deal, but I think it was to the benefit of PC usage world wide.

on Sep 24, 2007
You were fairly reasonable Brad, even in the face of ignorance, hostility and just plain rudeness. I am pretty certain that the air in California is a whole lot less orange than in the 60's and 70's, even with lots more cars. Heck most Ultra Low Emissions vehicles leave the air cleaner as they drive to work during rush hour.
I don't think the folks at the chimp are going to be very receptive to your pro-business views.
on Sep 24, 2007

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.


I doubt the lords would be elected. The left seem more fond of court decisions than elections. Perhaps the lords would appoint each other like in the EU (but without the control of national governments). Perhaps the courts would name the lords. Perhaps the party would. But I don't just don't see how the same people who scream bloody murder when the people elect a president they don't like would allow elections as we know them.

on Sep 24, 2007
"Again, a right winger looking for scapegoats when his own kind slit his throat and he can't believe it. The thought of right wingers taking away our freedom, telephone taps, illegal searches of homes and persons, and the planned and osculating terror campaign against brown skinned people are all products of right wing thinking."

May I ask what you do for a living and which "brown skinned people" we are planning a "terror campaign" against?

on Sep 24, 2007
In order to be in power in the United States, elections are held. Whenever someone is in power, they won the last election. Therefore, when a new election comes up, they're feeling pretty good about it. Therefore, they allow the election, expecting their party to win again.

But in the end, it doesn't matter who's in the government, except to their respective corporate sponsors.
on Sep 24, 2007

I've got a much better idea of the crux of their argument:

Wealth exists because of labor. And the rich are simply people hogging that wealth created by other people.

on Sep 25, 2007
Gates bought DOS, danielost. He reworked it.
And DOS wouldn't have neen worth a dime if he hadn't grossly under bid CPM and IBM hadn't come up with the PC.
on Sep 25, 2007
Furthermore I think it was Basic on which DOS piggy backed. And where would Windows be w/o "stealing" from MacIntosh; btw, I believe Apple originated from CPM. The bubble nerds seem to think they invented everything--but where would they be w/o electricity? LOL  
on Sep 25, 2007
And DOS wouldn't have neen worth a dime if he hadn't grossly under bid CPM and IBM hadn't come up with the PC.




actually bill gates didn't use cpm. but his own version of it.



IBM partnership
In 1980 IBM approached Microsoft to make the BASIC interpreter for its upcoming personal computer, the IBM PC. When IBM's representatives mentioned that they needed an operating system, Gates referred them to Digital Research (DRI), makers of the widely used CP/M operating system.[25] IBM's discussions with Digital Research went poorly, and they did not reach a licensing agreement. IBM representative Jack Sams mentioned the licensing difficulties during a subsequent meeting with Gates and told him to get an acceptable operating system. A few weeks later Gates proposed using 86-DOS (QDOS), an operating system similar to CP/M and which Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products had made for hardware similar to the PC. Microsoft made a deal with SCP to become the exclusive licensing agent, and later the full owner, of 86-DOS, but did not mention that IBM was a potential customer. Gates never understood why DRI had walked away from the deal, and in later years he claimed that DRI founder Gary Kildall capriciously "went flying" during an IBM appointment, a characterization that Kildall and other DRI employees would deny. After adapting the operating system for the PC, Microsoft delivered it to IBM as PC-DOS in exchange for a one-time fee,[26] but retained the copyright so that it could sell the system to other hardware vendors.[27]

As several companies reverse-engineered the IBM architecture and developed clones[28] Microsoft was quick to license DOS to other manufacturers, calling it MS-DOS (for Microsoft Disk Operating System). By marketing MS-DOS aggressively to manufacturers of IBM-PC clones and by virtue of its undivided ownership of the operating system's source code, Microsoft went from a small player to one of the major software vendors in the home computer industry. Microsoft continued to develop operating systems as well as software applications.[29][30]



WWW Link


and what helped to make bill gates rich is that ibm allowed him to keep the program to license.
on Sep 25, 2007
And where would Windows be w/o "stealing" from MacIntosh;


your right but then where would macintosh be without stealing from xerox.
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6