Gates And Buffett: 1000 Times Worse Than Ken Lay (By Ted Rall)

[kurth]

GATES AND BUFFETT: 1000 TIMES WORSE THAN KEN LAY
By Ted Rall
Why Enron Chief Was Better Than "Philanthropists"

NEW YORK -- Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Ken Lay -- all thieves. Compared to the world's two richest men, however, Lay was small potatoes... Lay stole $43.5 million. Now consider investor Warren Buffett and Microsoft chairman Bill Gates, worth $44 billion and $50 billion, respectively. Each one has accumulated one thousand times more cash than Ken "#1 Bush Campaign Donor" Lay. But we're supposed to like, and even admire, these rogues. Buffett and Gates may not have broken any laws -- although, in Gates' case, the Clinton-era Justice Department thought he'd cheated millions of American consumers by violating anti-trust laws -- but it's hard to see how their billions are more ethically legit than Lay's misbegotten millions. Sorry, but "working hard" doesn't cut it. I don't care if you stay late at the office every night, work weekends and holidays, or you never go on vacation. It doesn't matter how smart, imaginative or lucky you are. It just isn't possible to earn $44 billion in a single lifetime. Not honestly, anyway.

Gates and Buffett have created a lot of pain and misery on their way to "earning" their combined $94 billion. (Bear in mind, that's what they're worth. That doesn't include what they've spent.) Gates scammed his dough the old-fashioned way: overcharging his customers and underpaying his employees. Somewhere along the way to accumulating $50 billion, doesn't it occur to a guy that he could charge a little less than $200 for buggy, instantly obsolete, software? Or that it's time for a company-wide raise? He could even hire (gasp) unionized American workers instead of building plants in the Third World and relying on the slave labor of prison inmates!

It's harder to draw a direct line between Buffett's convoluted arbitrage machinations and the reduced incomes of thousands of other people, but anyone who has been downsized by a shareholder-terrorized managing board has experienced the impoverishing of the workers whose employers he targets. Now we're supposed to be shocked and awed by Buffett's decision to give $37 billion -- about 85 percent of his assets -- to Bill Gates' foundation. "Stunning in its generosity," raved the Christian Science Monitor. "The scale of Mr. Buffett's philanthropy is matched by its good sense," chimed the Washington Post. Recent grants paid out by the Gates Foundation include $100,000 for the museum at Pearl Harbor, $241,500 "to provide sustainable public access computer hardware and software upgrades" to libraries in Los Angeles, and $21 million "to provide curriculum and support for teachers as a part of a transformation that aims to prepare...Chicago public school students for success in post-secondary education." Good causes all, but maintaining Pearl Harbor is one of the reasons we pay federal taxes. Why does a national war memorial need help from Gates? One can't help wonder whether L.A. libraries and Chicago schools might be less cash-strapped in the first place if so much of our society's wealth hadn't been monopolized by America's tiny, increasingly powerful oligarchy, rather than going to city taxpayers in the form of fair wages and affordable computers.

Factoid: the average member of the Forbes 400 list of the richest Americans has seen his income rise 3.5 times -- from $800 million (adjusted to 2006 dollars) to $2.8 billion -- in the last 20 years. Meanwhile, real income for more than half the population increased...zero. Nada. Zip. To his credit, Buffett acknowledges the rising income disparity. "What has gone on in this country in recent years is a huge benefit to the very rich and not much that relief to those below," he told Fortune in 2005. But philanthropy won't slow the United States' slide into Third Worlddom. And it doesn't help the philanthropists' victims. All things considered, a $45 million lout like Ken Lay hurts America less than a $44 billion one like Bill Gates. Consider a burglar who boosts your TV and then, thinking better of it, donates it to an orphanage. His act of generosity beats the alternative -- keeping it for himself. But you'd probably prefer that he'd returned it to you, or better yet, never stolen it at all.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20060711/cm_ucru/gatesandbuffett1000timesworsethankenlay;_ylt=AopKCWZgMtRkQ97Ed53bBO8HAswF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4MzQ0N2p2BHNlYwMxNzA0

[Schema Thing]

1. What absolute horseshit.

[acmavm]

3. What's horseshit? The article or Buffet and Gates actions?

[Schema Thing]

6. The article.

[greyl]

9. Article. Compare the suffering of Lay's victims to Gates' & Buffet's -nt

[burythehatchet]

14. Gates and Buffet spread their suffering over many millions of people

that's the way to do it.

[Schema Thing]

29. That's ridiculous in the extreme

[burythehatchet]

51. Well then

please allow me a few minutes to rethink my views of the world. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

[Moochy]

169. HOW DARE YOU

Criticize our modern american saints, the brazillionaires? How dare you?

I'm gonna be one someday, so why not defend them and their right to purchase small countries!!! :sarcasm:

[fishwax]

73. agreed

[IowaGuy]

163. agreed....

this is really convoluted reasoning (and I am giving the writer the benefit of the doubt and a lot of latitude wuth the meaning of "reasoning")....it's a really radical stretch just to hate and slander somebody for no more reason than they are rich and succesful (so of course, it follows, they have to be immoral, cheaters and crooks...comparing those two w/ Ken Lay is ridiculous - nothing either of these two has done in their life deserves this kind of nonsensical diatribe.

[Midlodemocrat]

166. I agree. People are always slamming Bill Gates about

the inferior quality of Microsoft. As far as I know, he was the one to build a better mousetrap.

Buffett is extremely philanthropic and has always been. I fail to see how his Berkshire Hathaway A or B stock funds ever hurt anyone.


Additionally, a lot, a lot of people have become extremely wealthy working for Microsoft and then a great number of them have turned around and given back.

I like Ted Rall, but this is crap.

[electron_blue]

2. He may have a point, but you can't prosecute "unethical", only "illegal"

[acmavm]

5. True, very true. But unethical usually means you're not the

great guy that your PR Department has made you out to be.

[Schema Thing]

8. Buffet and Gates are the great guys that they made themselves into

only very small people nip at their ankles.

I fucking hate small people.

[Greyhound]

107. Now there's a really progressive attitude.

I'll assume that you still have youth to blame for you utter lack of empathy. Either that or you are a Texan.

[Schema Thing]

130. lol, lack of empathy????

Assholes take potshots at good, decent folk like Buffett and Gates, and I have lack of empathy?

My empathy is just fine. Small, petty people can fuck themselves, however.

[Greyhound]

151. I've taken shots at either of them, it is your false assertion that they

are "great guys" and self made. I don't know too much about Buffet, but as I understand it he made his bucks spotting undervalued assets, investing in them and turning them around, sounds fine to me.

William Gates III however, is an entirely different story and I've been tangentially involved since the beginning. Micro$hit is, and always has, operated through the time-honored capitalistic traditions of lying, cheating, and stealing. It's very inception was brought about through the very definition of fraud, they sold a product to IBM that they didn't own, have any rights to, nor have the means to create, without informing IBM of these facts. The companies entire history is characterized by a constant stream of lies, theft, cheats, and betrayal. The former "Chief Architect" of M$ couldn't write "hello world" without a manual, and never could, yet he is hailed by those that don't know anything about computer software, as some kind of programming genius. He was just the poor little rich kid that stumbled onto the "next big thing".

BTW where's your argument that the are "great guys"?

Side note From the forum rules: "3. Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum." I'm pretty sure calling me an asshole, small, and petty, violates this.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

110. Well, THAT explains your username. -nt

[rustydog]

58. You are right, Gates is spending BILLIONs more than America

to alleviate hunger, disease and ignorance...The evil bastard....

[WHAT]

60. Do they have to pay for it? .PR, that is...

it's all very suspect.

Business seems to be morphing into "very good liars". These are oligarchs, not plutocrats...big difference that I'm glad the author picked-up on. There seems to be a deliberate confounding of the terms.

[Caution]

4. What a completely despicable article.

[bryant69]

7. If only we would abandon capitalism then things would go smoothly

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[tanyev]

10. Did I miss where Gates' and Buffett's employees lost

their jobs, their pensions, their health insurance...everything they had?

[Javaman]

27. Or totally screwed and entire state? nt

[BlooInBloo]

11. Looks like the author is a plant to me...

... So that republicans have someone to point to and say "Look at how much the liberals hate the rich! They even hate the rich when they give it all away to charity!".

Basically, now that there are 2 nice rich people in the world (just judging in terms of how humungously much they've given), it's reasonable to expect republicans to latch on to them as "examples" of what rich people are like, and wonder, with faux-hurt in their voices, "why don't liberals like rich people? Is is because they don't want anyone to give to the poor? So liberals truly hate the poor!".

LOL - those wacky republicans.

[bryant69]

13. Ted Rall is not a plant

He's wrong a lot of the time, but he's not a plant.

Or if he is he's been in deep cover a long long time.

Bryant

[greyl]

18. Hell no, he just enjoys being a contrarian with a novel pov. nt

[Schema Thing]

31. Contrarian for Contrarian's sake = Guaranteed Stupidity

this equation will never fail.

[WildEyedLiberal]

38. I wish I could recommend individual posts n/t

[Shipwack]

49. Or rather... Contrarism for Contrarians sake = ...

... column inches and the sale of an article.

[SmokingJacket]

97. Contrarianism sells.

I don't think this is what Rall is up to, btw -- but I work in a book store, and I can't believe the number of books being published whose basic premise is: I'm going to say the opposite of what you think!

Watching TV makes you smart!

I had a horrible childhood and I'm HAPPY!

Feminists hate women!

Etc.

[liberal N proud]

12. Anyone who knows anything about Warren Buffet should know this

article is pure bull shit designed to clean up the legacy of Kenny boy Lay

[deaniac21]

26. Ted Rall friend of Ken Lay....who'd a thunk it?

[warrens]

15. Gimme a break

Buffet, at least, made his money by investing in solid, profitable companies he could understand. And he made a lot of other people rich along the way. I may have problems with Microsoft, but I would hardly call their employees underpaid. Overworked, perhaps, but not underpaid.

Gates made his money in the increase in MS stock, not by charging $200 a pop for Windows. He happened to be at the right place at the right time with the right offer (a radical idea of licensing his software rather than selling it outright).

Ken Lay was looting his company, convincing people to buy his worthless stock while he enriched only himself and left the vast majority of employees with nothing. He supervised a company that attempted to corner the market on energy in certain markets and thereby reap incredible rewards, returns on investment of 10,000 percent and more, all of it directly aimed at those least able to pay.

Rall has gone off the tracks.

[ClassWarrior]

20. And from what I've heard, Buffett has always made an effort...

...to be responsible in his investments.

NGU.

[Cha]

24. And Buffet was against

repealing the estate tax. Not something kenny-boy would want..when he was alive, of course. ;)

Any word on gates's view?

[Schema Thing]

36. Gates Sr. has rallied for keeping the Estate tax in Op Eds and on...

public radio, and says his son echoes his views.

[progressoid]

42. Gates also opposes it. Not like the Walton kids that spent millions

lobbying for a permanent repeal.

[jmowreader]

162. Gates didn't invent that "licensing" thing all by himself

They've been licensing prepackaged software ever since there was prepackaged software.

What really made Gates rich? Phoenix Technologies' BIOS, which allowed anyone to build a computer that would run IBM PC-compatible applications. A lot of you whippersnappers had a Pentium III in your first computers, so let me tell you how the world worked before about 1984.

Back in the real old days, people couldn't make a good IBM PC compatible because IBM had their BIOS chips locked down--the only way to get a set of real IBM BIOS chips was to buy it in an IBM PC. There were three ways to go: the "MS-DOS Compatible," which ran MS-DOS but not the same version IBM used (which was called PC-DOS), and the "PC Clone," which was a certain percent compatible with the IBM PC. What you had to do when you went computer shopping was to buy all your software first, then try it in whatever computer you were interested in to see if it ran. Or...you just remembered that "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" and bought an IBM PC.

Or you called the nearest IBM sales office and bought a Selectric (which is an electric typewriter), a handful of balls (which is where the letters that imprinted onto the paper were), and a case of carbon-film ribbons (they're kinda like ink cartridges, except bigger and only in one color) because you KNEW that would run anything you threw at it.

The last one is what most people did--no sense in buying something that would wear out in a year when you could buy something that would wear out in twenty or thirty IF you dropped it out the back of a truck four or five times in that period...and that was a third the price.

Then Phoenix wrote and released a BIOS chipset that would run any IBM-compatible application you threw at it. Now you could buy a PC that would run any DOS application you cared to buy.

[furman]

16. This is a terrible article, very disappointing from Ted Rall

Ted Rall should stick with politics.

He obviously does not know much about how Warren Buffett operates.

The worst thing I could criticize Buffett for is for holding on to his fortune for so long without giving it away for philanthropy.
He originally stated he would keep it until his death but the death of his wife caused him to reconsider.

In the world of capitalism, Buffett is one of the good guys.

[bryant69]

19. That's the point isn't it?

"In the world of capitalism, Buffett is one of the good guys."

Rall would clearly like to see us abandon capitalism. Because in his mind, even one of capitalism's good guys is a villian.

[furman]

25. Ethics should still apply

If capitalism is a criminal enterprise, Buffett is about as guilty as a jaywalker.
It's not how much you earn, it's how you earn it and how you redistribute it.

[warrens]

54. Yes. When does the hit piece on George Soros arrive?

I truly distrust great fortunes, but if you're gonna go after people for just BEING rich, there are a lot better places to start. People who didn't earn it, for instance. Like the Waltons and Scaifes, just for starters.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

75. Buffet actually addresses this point...

He held onto it because his money isn't money - it's Berkshire Hathaway stock. It's worth a lot more now than had he given it away earlier.

[fishwax]

77. giving away his wealth sooner would also have meant

giving away control of berkshire-hathaway, since most of his wealth was in the form of b-h shares.

His philosophy was also that the beneficiaries of short-term wealth should handle short-term philanthropy, while those involved in long-term wealth creation (as he was) should handle long-term philanthropy. His investment strategy has always been steady and long-term. And with B-H's rate of return over the last quarter century, every %100 he donated in the early 70s would mean about 50,000 less available to give today. His wealth has steadily grown faster than the economy as a whole, and so it is more efficient for him to continue gathering that money in order to distribute it later (which, as you point out, was always his plan).

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[pnwmom]

95. Rall's a cartoonist. This is a caricature.

Maybe he should stick with his cartooning.

[DinahMoeHum]

17. Sorry, but Ted Rall really laid a stinker with this one.

n/t

[tridim]

21. Should be an Onion article

That's what I assumed it was until I saw it was from Yahoo News.

[On the Road]

22. It is True that Microsoft Committed Anti-Trust Violations

and should have been broken up. Having said that:

-- You have to admire how Gates has used his money.
-- His earnings came from useful products that enriched many people's lives and created employment.

Warren Buffet doesn't even have the knock against him that Microsoft does.

Ken Lay's traders laughed about the freezing grandmothers their trade manipulations were creating. Even more importantly, he used his wealth to lobby for political changes that would make the rich richer and impoverish the poor. Gates and Buffett have a much more Democratic slant to their personal views (eg, take Buffett's comments on the inheritance tax).

In the Gilded Age, there were industrialists like Vanderbilt and Westinghouse who got rich by building infrastructure, expanding into new markets, lowering prices, raising quality, and making people's lives better. There were also the Ken Lays of the time, people like Jay Gould, Jim Fisk, and Daniel Drew, who lied and manipulated their way to wealth without ever creating anything of value. Ted Rall should be able to tell the difference.

[MamaBear]

23. Some people are goldblinded.

Not Rall. Good on Ted.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

28. Underpaying his employees?

LOL

Microsoft made more than one receptionist millionaires via their pay and stock plan.

I know more than few Microsoft engineers who live VERY well.

This article was written by a moron.

[eallen]

62. Yep. I lost a few engineers to Microsoft in the 1980s. Lucky stiffs.

That was one of the most stupid lines I have ever read.

[RobertSeattle]

71. Agreed

I bet the 'softies in Redmond are getting a chuckle out of this - including my Microsoft Millionaire Cousin.

[IowaGuy]

187. ditto...my cousin barely graduated HS....

was dyslexic...went to work selling TRS-80's for Tandy - loved word Processing software, because it helped so much with spell check and was much easier to go back and edit than a typewriter...met Gates in the early 80's, went to work for MS on the early MS word app development team (basically a secretarial position)...now she's a multi-millionaire, about to to retire (@ age 47) and raise horses.

I kind of have a hard time with those that want to bust the chops of a person that did that for my cousin, considering where she came from and where she got to, because of the opportunities he (Bill Gates) created.

[lonestarnot]

30. Sorry capitalists, but I believe this to be true.

"It doesn't matter how smart, imaginative or lucky you are. It just isn't possible to earn $44 billion in a single lifetime. Not honestly, anyway."

[bryant69]

37. So what economic model do you favor?

Bryant

[lonestarnot]

67. Simple Supply and Demand will do.

[bryant69]

74. So if Demand sets the price of $200 for Windows

You are ok with that?

Bryant

[lonestarnot]

78. Why should I know about prices for windows?

[bryant69]

82. Because that was ralls point - did you read his article?

"Gates scammed his dough the old-fashioned way: overcharging his customers and underpaying his employees. Somewhere along the way to accumulating $50 billion, doesn't it occur to a guy that he could charge a little less than $200 for buggy, instantly obsolete, software? Or that it's time for a company-wide raise?"

Just asking.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[lonestarnot]

84. Yes I read the article, but have no personal knowledge re price

of windows.

[bryant69]

87. So what ever Price Bill Gates sets for his WIndows Software

you are fine with, so long as people are willing to pay that much to get it?

[lonestarnot]

99. depends, any collusion with others in the market?

[Schema Thing]

40. The facts show otherwise.

Buffet did it, and it is no mystery how he did it.

[lonestarnot]

131. precisely on point. No fucking mystery how he did it.

[Schema Thing]

136. Oh sheesh. Ok, how was it dishonest?

[lonestarnot]

144. By dishonesty I assume you mean against the law?

Do you know the average wage for the common worker at microsoft?

[Schema Thing]

158. No, by "dishonesty" I mean "not honest"

And no, I do not know the average wage for the common worker at microsoft. For that matter, I do not know what you mean by "common worker".

[lonestarnot]

173. Hierarchical management, so the common worker would be located

with the other commons, at the bottom. And since you have no knowledge of the average wage, the rest of anything you have to offer re this argument is not going to help either of us, but thanks though. :rofl:

[Schema Thing]

177. Ok then.

yikes... you're like a democratic Bill ORielly.

Have fun with bringing down the house of Gates :eyes:

[Rabrrrrrr]

183. Since you're the one who brought it up, what IS the average wage

of the common worker at Microsoft? Since you brought it up, I assume you must know, and that it must be at poverty level, or else you wouldn't have mentioned it.

And please provide references to your statement, and also to how you define "average wage" and "common worker", and what those jobs are?

[eallen]

64. That is an article of faith, no better than other such beliefs.

[lonestarnot]

132. What are you talking about?

[Spazito]

32. Wow, I had to check twice to believe this was written by Rall

It is a hatchet job, pure and simple, not something I would have expected from Rall re Lay, etc. Disappointing to say the least.

[rinsd]

35. You wouldn't expect a hatchet job from Rall? You're kidding right?

That's his whole freakin schtick.

[Spazito]

50. I had obviously not paid enough attention to his columns if this is

his normal practice. I have always found his columns, the ones I have read anyway, somewhat "off the wall" at times but didn't think he was this bad. I now know differently.

[rinsd]

56. His columns tend to be "gentler" than his cartoons.

But he can be quite vicious.

[theboss]

89. Has Rall ever written an article that wasn't a hatchet job?

That's the real question.

[Spazito]

112. LOL, good point, he certainly likes to make waves across the political

landscape. This one struck me as particularly empty of any real points, just a hatchet job on Gates and Buffett for no reason other than pure venum. I must say his attempt to tie them together with Lay in any way, shape or form was what stood out to me as more ridiculous than his usual tripe.

[ComerPerro]

33. Reads like Lay apologist, Blame Clinton First bullshit

[kmla]

34. Boo-freakin'-hoo.

This article is a bunch of sour-grapes horse shit.

Ted Rall can be a dumb-ass without much effort these days.

[Taverner]

39. I have always thought Rall was a foil

Meant to make the liberals look bad. He's always on O'Reilly, confirming the neo-cons fears that all of us hate America, by publically hating America and claiming his a progressive. After all, this man was the FIRST one to go after the 9/11 wives, not Annthrax Coulter.

[Canuckistanian]

52. Even Hannity speaks well of him

They knew each other and were friends at one time. But now everyone thinks that Rall crosses the line.

You're not winning any respect or credibility by outraging people on a constant basis.

[Taverner]

57. "You're not winning any respect or credibility by outraging people"

Dead on my friend.

I saw him once on O'Reilly and he seemed like he was literally filled with glee at the idea of outraging people.

[Carni]

119. I agree he and Christopher Hitchens should get a room eom

[CBGLuthier]

41. worst op-piece ever

Ann Coulter has made more sense than this incoherent crap.

He blames Buffet and Gates because they gave money to causes he feels the governement themselves should be paying for.

I just have to wonder, what color is his Mac?

[WildEyedLiberal]

55. His argument is ridiculous and actually anti-working class, too

He opposes giving money to good causes that are also publicly funded? So if the Pearl Harbor Museum receives 1 million dollars from the government, and the Gates Foundation gives it more money, he opposes the improvements that could be made with Gates' additional money?

Well shit, I go to a publicly funded university, but we sure as hell appreciate wealthy alumni donating millions of dollars to build nice new facilities for students to use. I guess I should just be content with the paltry money from the government and be content to go to class with 50 other kids in a ramshackle falling-apart 100 year old building because the government's money isn't adequate to pay sufficient faculty members or provide upkeep on the buildings. Guess what, Ted? The more money public institutions receive from private donors, the more resources they have to provide a better service to the public! The more money my university has, the more students it can support. I guess Ted wants to decrease enrollment at state universities? So much for being "for the people."

Pardon me for not sharing Ted's vision of a grim Soviet-style state supported economy which is constantly collapsing under the weight of its inadequacy and which consequently cannot provide any services to anyone.

[WildEyedLiberal]

43. Allow me to add my voice to the chorus

Ted Rall has been an embarassment to the "left" for a long time. This pathetic hit piece amounts to nothing more than petty jealousy of the rich. I'd like to ask Ted Rall what he has done to improve the lives of Africans, since he is so morally superior to Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Bono, et al.

This kind of anti-rich anti-capitalist rhetoric does not help worker's rights at ALL. You don't fight for workers by spreading the vicious smear that if someone is rich they are obviously evil and immoral.

[progressoid]

44. Somebody paying him to deflect attention from Kenny boy?

[bryant69]

53. I really doubt that

This is the natural progression of the way Ted Rall thinks. If Capitalism is evil, those who profit from it are evil or are doing evil regardless of their niceness as individuals.

[Johonny]

45. Ted has a point

I think the thesis of the article isn't that Gates and Buffet are horrible humans. I believe the point is why does society allows people to acquire such vast wealth while the large majority of Americans simply tread water or worse. Ken Lay = bad guy is easy to understand. The weird social structure that simply sits back and allows tax cuts and plea bargain deals to the ultra rich is simply incomprehensible. Does a growing vast economic disparity hurt the country MORE than a white collar scammer. Ted thinks it does. I have to side with him.

[pnwmom]

94. He says they are "rogues" who scam people and cause pain & misery.

I think he IS attacking them personally.

[Crabby Appleton]

46. every great fortune

"Behind every great fortune there is a crime."

Honore de Balzac French realist novelist (1799 - 1850)

[sendero]

47. Loose cannon..

... I don't see how anyone can compare Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. The only thing they have in common is their wealth.

Buffet made his by investing. Gates is a modern day robber baron. I have no admiration for Bill Gates, and cannot fathom how anyone who has watched the way Microsoft does business possibly could.


But neither of them is remotely comparable to Ken Lay.

[Schema Thing]

59. Buffet and Gates would disagree with you

They are the best of friends, and both's true fortune came from the compounding of value.

I'll never understand Gatred.

[sendero]

65. I'll never understand anyone..

.. who and approve of a company that lies, cheats, steals and basically works continually to create a monopoly situation because they could not compete any other way.

[OhioChick]

66. I agree with you 100% n/t

[LSK]

48. Warren Buffett is a lifelong democrat

Who is troubled by the increasing gap between incomes of the rich and everyone else.

He made his money with obsession over the stock market since he was a teenager.

[SoCalDem]

63. Philanthrophy is an odd duck..

Since small acts of philanthrophy often go unnoticed, the bigbucks types get most of the attention. That poor people need help everywhere is a no-brainer, but what sometimes worries me about these grand gestures , is that long-term it may help, but in the short term, it CAN just mask emerging countries' poor leadership, and may allow it to continue longer than it might otherwise have lasted.. example: a country has horrendous health problems and water safety issues... It SHOULD be the responsibility of the country's LEADERS to tackle these issues, but if well-meaning rich people from someplace else come to the rescue, the money that would have/should have been spent is now free to spend on arms and military expenditures. All the clean water, schools and vaccinations are meaningless in the face of a bloody civil war. Over time, enough people might be empowered to step up and oust their corrupt governments, but we have all seen the results of long-running civil wars, and know how LONG that can take..

and extreme-giving (like modern countries have been expected to do in the past) done by individuals is a kind of privatization that puts outsiders in charge in an almost colonial way.(We are your betters, and we know what's best for you)

Buffett and Gates seem to be trying their best to "give back" almost as "penance" for their good fortune. Could their vast wealth be distributed differently, better? Maybe, maybe not. The whole system that allowed them to become wildly rich, is creaking at the seams, but there seems to be little or no hope for the 99%ers who indirectly gave the few all their wealth.

It's almost like there's an invisible conveyor belt where most of the wealth travels in only one direction, and only the rich know where the switches are.. There will be no adjustment of direction, anytime soon.

It's nice that they are at least doing good things with their money, but that money was not always theirs.. At one time or other, it slipped through most of our fingers on its way to them:(

I guess we can take comfort that these three super-rich people have compassion and at least realize there is a problem.

[Schema Thing]

69. They don't need to do any "penance", and they show not a trace

of evidence that that is how they view their giving, or their place in the world.

Small people will always snipe at large people, and Buffet and Gates (and their wives) are very large people.

[lonestarnot]

157. I don't care if he is a lifelong democrat, that is not the point.

No one makes the kind of money Buffett has made without stepping on people on the way.

[LSK]

170. i guess you missed the point about him doing stocks since his teens

[lonestarnot]

172. No, I didn't miss it. But I don't swallow either!

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spinoza]

68. And Soros?

Who unlike Buffett or Gates actually took down a nations currency. (The British Pound)If we are looking for capitalist devils, Soros has to head the list.

However, the point is Lay left impoverished and betrayed employees and shareholders. Gates and Buffett enriched employees and (long term) shareholders.

[Sanity Claws]

70. This has to be the stupidest piece of crap I've read in a while

This idiot is unable to distinguish between two successful capitalists who became philantropists from a thief who built an empire on lies, forced western states to go on rolling blackouts and suffer high energy bills, and stole employees' pensions. The only money that thief ever gave away was to the Republican party who then returned the money four or five fold.
Idiot.

[Freddie Stubbs]

72. How much money does Ted Rall make by having his work published

in non-unionized newspapers?

[mark414]

76. he's got a damn good point

in that NOBODY SHOULD MAKE THAT MUCH MONEY, ever

capitalism is the dumbest thing ever

[Beaverhausen]

80. Buffet and Gates are doing good things with their money

Lots of wealthy people contribute millions to worthy charities and causes.

I think you might want to rethink your very broad statement.

[mark414]

85. i have thought much about it

no one person should have that much money, period. this is completely separate from what buffet and gates are doing with their money, the fact is they shouldn't have ever had that much.

[Bake]

152. So who gets to decide how much someone can have?

And what happens to the rest?

YOU?

I certainly don't want that job.

Bake

[mark414]

154. i didn't say that a position like that was necessary

more, it was a commentary on the fact that it's despicable that that some people are that rich when there's so much poverty in this world

eat the rich to feed the poor

[onenote]

81. I take it you are not a Democrat

There are political parties that may espouse the abolition of capitalism. The Democratic Party isn't one of them and isn't going to become one of them.

[mark414]

86. i'm not anything

but myself with my own ideas and my own opinions.

capitalism is bad and is responsible for some of the greatest crimes and injustices this world has ever seen.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

103. I'm a Democrat and espouse the the abolition of capitalism.

Been one since 1965. You?

[onenote]

108. I've been a Democrat for just as long -- and here's a question for you

Do you vote for Democratic party candidates who are defenders of capitalism (which basically is all of them)? Do you give them financial support?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

109. Sure I do.

So?

[onenote]

111. just curious

Its interesting to me that you regard yourself as a Democrat yet are in opposition to a fundamental point of view that virtually every Democratic officeholder (and the party itself, through its platform) espouses.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

115. The "lesser of two evils".

The Democrats, at least, seek to curb some of the more egregious rapacity of capitalism. I have no problem voting for third parties if the Democratic candidate embraces laissez-faire capitalism too arduously.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson

[bloom]

125. I like that quote. nt

[onenote]

127. thanks for the response

I hope you realize I'm not trying to pick a fight. While I don't share you're point of view, I respect it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

148. As I do yours.

[NickB79]

93. Buffet just said he'd donate 30 BILLION of his fortune

If we want to solve world problems, we need funding. Without philanthropists like Buffet and Gates, there is no funding.

[fishwax]

79. what bullshit

Buffett is no robber baron, and he's made more than a few people rich. He never willfully defrauded employees and shareholders, the way Lay did. He made his money investing, and always with the intention of giving the bulk of it away. He recognized at an early age that he had a unique gift for allocating capitol, and used that gift to comfortably provide for his family and to amass wealth, pretty much for the purpose of giving it away, since it has long been his stated intention to distribute his estate largely to charity.

[ProfessorGAC]

83. You Understate Buffet's Contribution

He's made tens of thousands of people's retirements more comfortable. Tens of thousands. I know you said "more than few" but that is a little too mild, i think. Comparing Buffet to Lay is outrageously stupid. About that, we completely agree.
The Professor

[fishwax]

155. yeah, but I'm an understated guy

Many is the time I've told a friend "I could think of one or two reasons why I don't like bush." :)

People have made a lot of money just riding on his coat tails--even without buying shares of b-h, one could make money just following his lead in other investments. Investors in mutual funds with no formal connection to buffett can benefit, indirectly, from his wisdom. Thousands and tens of thousands indeed.

And he did it, by and large, not by buying companies and gutting them off in order to sell them piece by piece, but rather by identifying undervalued properties and actually investing in them so that they would have the chance to succeed.

I remember when the announcement of his donation was first made, there were some people on du who were skeptical, etc., which I suppose I expected, but this article takes the cake. I've known many people who have said (and I've said it myself) that they wished they could have plenty of money just so that they could redistribute it. But most people who get rich keep most of it for themselves. Buffett, who has never had to suffer poverty, is actually redistributing it, and I admire that. Whatever the number of people who have benefited from buffett's market wizardry, millions of people around the world will be better off for what he's done with the wealth he accumulated.

[huskerlaw]

88. Complete Horse SHIT

I can't believe I'm about to defend Bill Gates. But I am.

When did Buffett or Gates ever steal their workers' pensions, lie about finances, run their companies into the ground such that their workers lost their jobs but they kept everything...I could keep going, but we'll start with that.

When did Ken Lay ever donate a single dollar to anyone or anything besides BushCo and the Republican party?

One brief glimpse at the Gates Foundation or the Buffett Foundation (which recently essentially merged) and you'll see that both organizations donate billions of dollars to things like AIDS research in Africa, and underprivileged youth in America.

Sure, they're ridiculously rich and they could afford to do more. But to demonize them by comparing them to Ken Lay is fucking insane. Like it or not, we live in a society where rich people get to decide what to do with their money. If they want to keep it all, there's no law against it. Buffett and Gates have chosen to give parts of their fortunes away (in Buffett's case, he's giving damn near all of it to charity, eventually).

Ken Lay, on the other hand, not only kept all of his legitimately earned wealth to himself and his good buddies at the GOP, but he STOLE money from everyone who worked for or with him.

Not the same. Not even close.

[ALago1]

91. Nicely said

This holds true especially for Buffett, who made his fortune solely by investing. It's kind of hard to exploit people if you are not in the business of employing them or selling them a product.

[theboss]

90. Rall and Coulter should go on the road together

I even have a title for their show: "Distillation."

They are the distillation of every nutty belief that extremists on both sides hold.

And they have remarkable stories. Coutler is an attorney who hates the law; Rall is a cartoonist who can't draw.

[goforit]

92. An article showing jealousy of the rich.

[Raydawg1234]

98. I agree. The American dream needs people like this to show that

through hard work you can become wealthy. Bill Gates started in his basement after all.

[lonestarnot]

101. Oh yeah sure, that's any easy sidestep, allege fucking jealousy,

fucking stupid tactic. Ignore the facts and put forth an allegation of jealousy.... hmmmmmf. Reeeee fucking diculous

[Moochy]

171. defend the rich

who knows you may be one someday! :eyes:

[earth mom]

96. Wow I'm amazed at the people on this thread who don't get it!

What is being said is that there is no difference between Lay, Gates and Buffet because they earned their money at the expense and sacrifice of others!

Did you people EVEN READ this part: ???!!!

"Gates and Buffett have created a lot of pain and misery on their way to "earning" their combined $94 billion. (Bear in mind, that's what they're worth. That doesn't include what they've spent.) Gates scammed his dough the old-fashioned way: overcharging his customers and underpaying his employees. Somewhere along the way to accumulating $50 billion, doesn't it occur to a guy that he could charge a little less than $200 for buggy, instantly obsolete, software? Or that it's time for a company-wide raise? He could even hire (gasp) unionized American workers instead of building plants in the Third World and relying on the slave labor of prison inmates!

It's harder to draw a direct line between Buffett's convoluted arbitrage machinations and the reduced incomes of thousands of other people, but anyone who has been downsized by a shareholder-terrorized managing board has experienced the impoverishing of the workers whose employers he targets."

This commentary is SPOT ON! Lay, Gates and Buffet are ALL blood suckers! Wake up and stop admiring them and their ill gotten billions because the majority of the country is NOT better off financially because of any of them! Oh for sure, Lay is the bastard of the bunch because he never did and never will make restitution for his sins. While Gates and Buffet are trying to buy their way into heaven with their billions. :puke:


Which may or may NOT work. :eyes:


Frankly, I'd rather see the average person here in America-where Gates & Buffet are CITIZENS mind you-making a decent living and working at those jobs at Microsoft that Gates bitches can't be done here in the US. Ever hear of TRAINING people Bill?! But NO! Bill, the greedy bastard that he is would rather employ people in India because it is MORE profitable to him. :puke:


It's gonna take a helluva LOT of charity to be forgiven for that! Because Karma's a Bitch!!! :grr:

[lonestarnot]

100. ding ding ding weeeeenner! Understanding is in the pudding!

Eat up!

[earth mom]

102. So you agree?

:shrug:

[lonestarnot]

105. 100% Mr./Ms./Mrs.? poster.

[earth mom]

114. I'm a Mrs. but I like to use Ms. instead.

Makes me feel younger and cooler somehow. LOL. B-)

[lonestarnot]

123. MPTY!

Cool!

[ProfessorGAC]

106. I'm Amazed At The Sweeping Generalizations

I GET what Rall and the OP are saying. I'm in disagreement.

Look, Rall uses the word "arbitrage" and everyone assumes that Buffet engaged in that sort of technique and that if he did, it was in an unethical way. Well, i don't think Rall is an expert in finance, and just because he says it, if he doesn't offer proof, i'm not going to accept it. I want proof.

Now, i am not going to defend Gates. His early years were rife with predatory practices and gross lapses of ethics. But, for one thing, arbitrage does NOT always end up with someone taking a negative hit. (Unless it's just some speculator who took the risk and got burned. In which case, no "little people" got stung.) And, i don't know that Buffet was really an arbitrageur.

So, absent proof that he really did something wrong, i'm not going to buy it. So, i really do "get it". I just don't agree.
The Professor

[earth mom]

121. Ripping off people, overcharging, underpaying, outsourcing

making money off of the success and the FAILURE of others (i.e. companies)...just how does that become "sweeping generalizations"?!

Those are the FACTS. And billions of dollars to charity doesn't make any of it go away.

[Hamlette]

113. yeah, I read it, yeah, I "get it" it is STILL horseshit.

frankly, most of us are blood suckers. They are just better at it.

Ever buy anything not made with/by union labor? You're a blood sucker by this definition.

Could you live on a few hundred less per year? You're a blood sucker.

Invest any money in a bank or the stock market hoping for something when you retire? Blood sucker.

Planning on social security or Medicare when you retire? Blood sucker.

Get a student loan, free education, drive on roads built with tax dollars? Blood sucker.

To compare Buffett to Lay is liberalism gone insane.

And in the spirit of harmony usually reserved to Dems who don't agree with you 100% of the time: Rall is dead to me.

[earth mom]

116. There is NO comparison

The majority of people in this country are just trying to survive. Meanwhile Gates & Buffett possess ill gotten gains that they are now giving away! And who did they get that money from in the first place? People who are just trying to survive! If that's not wrong, I don't know what is! :crazy:

Anyone who doesn't get that must be living quite well.

[Beaverhausen]

118. Where do you get this "ill gotten gains" stuff?

Did they steal from their employees?

[earth mom]

122. I'm not gonna repeat myself. See post 121 upthread. eom

[lonestarnot]

124. No they fucking steal from the public at large.

[stepnw1f]

165. "Anyone who doesn't get that must be living quite well"

Yup... until they themselves are effected, they won't care to even find out how others live. Most just survive... I'm one of those folks. And I agree with your posts.

[bloom]

133. Seems to me

that part of the problem is that so many people think it's so wonderful for some people to make so much more than others to begin with.

A lot of extreme wealth would be the fault/consequence of our tax code - and people with money being able to get away with stuff - with the help of the right tax lawyers and all. Other laws also contribute - anti-trust and it's enforcement or not, etc. - though with that, as well - part of it is what privileges or anti-regulation your lawyers can buy.

I think that countries where the highest earners and the lowest earners are closer together make more sense. It's societal expectations, for one thing. What people think makes a good society. Some people here seem to think that it's great that some people in a society make so much more than others. Some people don't.

I am one that doesn't. I would expect progressives to question it - at the very least.

[onenote]

137. what countries are you referring to?

"countries where the highest earners and the lowest earners are closer together"...which particular countries do you have in mind?

[bloom]

147. scandinavian countries nt

[onenote]

156. true, although Ingvar Kamprad arguably is as rich as Gates

He's the Swedish founder of Ikea.

[fishwax]

179. i agree with you about the disparity of wealth, but I don't think that

means one has to attack those who are rich, or to accept the (imo) absurd suggestion that warren buffett, who amassed a great wealth basically for the purpose of giving it away, is 1000 times worse than ken lay, who deliberately mislead shareholders and employees because all he cared about was himself.

I read an article in which Buffett said he knew at the time he got married that he would be rich--not because of any virtue on his part, but because he was born with a talent for allocating funds at a time and place where that talent would be extremely profitable. But as he amassed his vast wealth over the last several decades, his plan was not to spend it (it wasn't in liquid form anyway, but rather in the form of stock), nor was his plan to distribute it to his children (because he has always said that the children of rich parents benefit from the circumstances and opportunities of their upbringing, and adding a massive inheritance to that makes the society less egalitarian and less of a meritocracy). Rather, he basically amassed the wealth with the intention of giving it a way to philanthropic causes. In other words, he recognized his talents, was aware of how they fit within the system he inherited, and figured out how to apply those talents in order to benefit the world at large. Had Buffett not been around, that money would not likely have wound up in the hands of the poor or the middle class--it most likely would have wound up in the hands of people who shared Buffett's talents but were much less inclined to give it away to the world at large.

I'm with you regarding the disparity of wealth. I don't think it's great that some people in our society make so much more than others. But I think it's silly to say someone who plays by the rules of the corrupt system (and by all accounts I've read attempts to play fairly and honorably) in order to create wealth that he plans to give back to society is 1000 times worse (or even half as bad) as someone who abuses the system for his own selfish ends.

[Iowa]

153. Good post...

My take on this:

There is a $ number, or perhaps a $ range, beyond which one who has more probably lacks a moral compass. Both Buffett and Gates have taken it WAY beyond immoral... they have set the bar for obscenity.

How much can one accumulate before it becomes immoral? As long as there are people in the world without the basic necessities of life, I would suggest that any person who has more than it would take to cover a fairly simple lifestyle (for that individual's life - or the life of a couple) has crossed a very big line. It is a moral crime to hold on to far more than one needs amidst the screams of those who have nothing.

In this day and age I'd put that number at somewhere in the vicinity of a net worth of one to two million dollars in assets, plus a small home owned free and clear - perhaps a bit more in higher cost areas. Much more than that is indefensible. There is a moral limit to the assets one person should accumulate, and a wealthy person who surpasses much beyond that limit is deserving of scorn - capitalism or not... ill-gotten gains or not.

[fishwax]

174. but that's exactly where the article is wrong

What is being said is that there is no difference between Lay, Gates and Buffet because they earned their money at the expense and sacrifice of others!

I'm interested in seeing the evidence about the wake of suffering and sacrifice buffett left behind him. :shrug: The bolded text simply shows that Rall apparently has no such evidence, he just wants it to be so. But, of course, that doesn't make it so. Buffett's a blood sucker?

[OhioChick]

175. Well Said!

:applause:

[Orangepeel]

104. Is this a joke?

If it is supposed to be sarcasm, it doesn't really work. If it is straight-up, then it's stupid.

[Rabrrrrrr]

117. Wow- that's about the most ignorant piece of shit I've read in a long time

Hey Ted - why don't you go get yerself some larnin' about economics and the stock market and then shut the fuck up anyway?

Such ignorant, foolhardy, dumbass, stupid, sophomoric and unstudied assholery.

[lonestarnot]

128. You don't agree so he should shut the fuck up?

bwwwaaa :rofl: sounds like a bushitler attitude.

[Rabrrrrrr]

140. Well, that's a completely convoluted and ignorant logic.

As well as insulting.

I'm saying that if someone is so patently wrong and clueless about what they're talking about, like Ted Rall is in this instance, they should shut the fuck up.

[lonestarnot]

146. As you have nothing to offer but your ass on a plate, I will

not waste my fucking time with you.

[Rabrrrrrr]

185. Wow - how nice.

What a wonderfully irreverant non sequitor.

Yes, feeeeeeeel the hate... let your anger floooooooow through you...

sheesh.

[LincolnMcGrath]

120. We just sh*t-canned our CEO who made $5600+ dollars an hour.

Our new one, who we hired back, will make even more.

Not a single soul on this planet earns that much money.

That is the gist of the article. Suddenly here at DU, you're a commie if you question the validity of someone earning more than many nation states.

[lonestarnot]

129. Totally afuckinggree

[LincolnMcGrath]

186. Thanks

[dcfirefighter]

126. Capitalist Billionaires wouldn't exist without the government's support

I am an absolutely firm believer in free and open markets, private enterprise, competition, and many of the facets of 'Capitalism'. However, without most of government's regulation, competition would be fiercer, consumer prices would be lower, wages would be higher, and there would be vastly fewer billionaires.

The thing that determines how much a person will earn is his group of options for working. If his options are few, he'll earn little. If he has many options, he'll earn more. Jobs require investment, commerce, and trade. The free market has proven itself much much better than bureaucracies at providing these.

Unfortunately, our governments provide PRIVILEGE to a select few: patent protection, various licensing, land titles, broadcast rights, corporate liability protection, etc. These privileges are a wonderful financial boon to a few, and a slight burden to a great many others. In some cases these privileges should be eliminated. In cases where they cannot be eliminated, their owners should pay the market rate, as taxes. These taxes would then allow all of us to share in the benefits of privilege, through public spending on public goods.

This would have the effect of more efficiently allocating scarce natural resources, increasing productivity, and increasing wages. Concurrently, eliminating, or at least sharing, privileges would mean that while especially industrious or lucky individuals might earn millions, almost none would amass billions.

[lonestarnot]

134. You didn't address stolen pension plans for retirees.

But other than that, you post is right on point and perfect! Thanks hero dcfirefighter!

[Beaverhausen]

135. Are you trying to say that Gates and Buffett stole pensions?

Can you prove that?

[lonestarnot]

138. No, I'm talking about CEO's pension money coming directly

out of workers' retirement and yes I can prove dat.

go here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1590468

[Beaverhausen]

139. that doesn't prove anything about Gates and Buffett

But go ahead and think that they are worse than Ken Lay. You are entitled to your opinion.

[lonestarnot]

143. I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to dcfirefighter.... but since

your brought it up, I will thank you. Theives both!

[dcfirefighter]

145. Theft is theft

While I don't believe that all property is theft, I do believe that uncompensated exclusive rights to natural resources is theft, theft of the commons. Two people (or two buildings, or two wheatfields) cannot occupy the same space at the same time, so some means has to exist to allocate property rights, however, I would like to see compensation due to those who are excluded.

Of course that has nothing to do with pensions either. But I felt like saying it.

One of the chief jobs of the government should be to enforce honesty.

As for pensions, I'm not really a fan. Pensions tend to benefit the employer more than the employee. A pension makes people stay with a company longer than they otherwise would. I also think that there should be a universal citizen's dividend funded out of the payments for exclusive rights to commons. I've seen a study where the amount of all such payments would be sufficient to fund current government, plus give each person $5000/y. Think of the Alaska Permanent Fund, except applied to all natural resources nationwide.

[lonestarnot]

150. How bout something on the order of tribes and casino money

distribution?

[dcfirefighter]

161. Yes

Though I don't know exactly how tribes distribute their money, it sounds about right.

Most of the funds could be collected and distributed locally. Using the casino example, if your community (city, county, state) wanted to allow casino gaming, they could issue 1 or 2 'licenses', good for 5-10 years, and given to the highest bidders (all at the lowest winning bid). One of the reasons casinos are so profitable is that there's so little competition. A similar situation exists, in most states, with liquor licenses. A liquor license may cost a bar a few thousand dollars a year, and can usually be sold for tens, or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Communities usually limit the number of bars in their jurisdiction, which eliminates potential competition for existing bars. Instead Communities should determine how many liquor licenses they'll issue, and give them to the highest bidders. If an existing business loses it's bid, it should be given the chance to match the winning bid, in order to keep their license (and have a use for their investment in building and bar equipment).

Such licensing schemes would not be a burden on these businesses, as 1) they'd only bid what they could afford and 2) such fees would necessarily come from their unearned profit: patrons will only pay so much for drinks, employees will only work for certain conditions. Such fees would not enable these businesses to charge more - if they could charge more, they certainly would already be doing so.

If the financial benefits of such 'licenses' are shared with the community, many communities would be more likely to approve such uses. Perhaps not casinos, or even bars, but when such a scheme is applied to zoning issues, or land titles, communities would have a common benefit from development - which means more homes (lower housing costs), more places of business, and more jobs.

[lonestarnot]

167. I like it!

You have put much thought into this reasoned suggestion. Have you contacted your representatives?

[dcfirefighter]

184. Actually my state reps are in on it.

Maryland is taking tentative steps towards changing property taxes, such that they bear more heavily on the land title than on the building value (which, although only slowly, should mean more buildings on less land).

The Metro Washington Area Transit Authority has recommended such a levy to help fund the METRO system: spending money on fixed transit infrastructure raises property values (really just land values) more than the cost of the construction.

Now just to get a national carbon tax, change the banking laws, enact pollution taxes, and stop handing out the use of our federal lands, airways, airwaves, and waterways.

[OxQQme]

141. If we didn't have 'capitalism'

"Fifteen Conch shells for this bag of popcorn? What's the exchange rate for sand dollars/apple seeds/camel turds?"
If we had NO government regulations (totally free market) we would be involved in a chaotic world.
imho

[dcfirefighter]

149. Even the Soviets had money.

at the very least, we'd barter with bits of copper, silver, and gold. Or possibly, paypal. Or bank notes.

Most property rights require government regulations. It's awful hard to defend property that isn't nearby, unless you have a government or a quasi-government.

Explainign where 'Capitalism' fails is a two step process:

First, capitalists usually conflate Land with Capital, when considering the factors of production. (the others, depending on whom you ask, included Entrepreneurship and Labor).

The first error is that Land is inherently different than Capital. Capital is made by people. Land is made by nature. Capital can be created out of Labor and Land. Land can't be created.

The second error is that, once conflated, returns to Capital are legally preferred over all others. What we tax, we use less of. If we use less of something that varies in supply, we'll supply less of it. We tax the crap out of Labor. We tax Capital very lightly. We have unemployed Labor, we have very little unemployed Land and Capital.

If we tax labor-made capital, we'll use less labor than otherwise. Wages will be low.
If we tax Land (use of natural resources, including pollution), we'll use less land, by using it more efficiently. If we use land more efficiently, wages will be higher.

[bunyip]

176. I agree 100%

Unfortunately, our governments provide PRIVILEGE to a select few: patent protection, various licensing, land titles, broadcast rights, corporate liability protection, etc. These privileges are a wonderful financial boon to a few, and a slight burden to a great many others. In some cases these privileges should be eliminated. In cases where they cannot be eliminated, their owners should pay the market rate, as taxes. These taxes would then allow all of us to share in the benefits of privilege, through public spending on public goods.

This would have the effect of more efficiently allocating scarce natural resources, increasing productivity, and increasing wages. Concurrently, eliminating, or at least sharing, privileges would mean that while especially industrious or lucky individuals might earn millions, almost none would amass billions.

Buffett and Soros agree. Soros has written a number of books on these points.

Gates was a greedy, hard-working, law-abiding near-monopolist, but his liberal wife is changing that.

None of the above made their money from 'patent protection, various licensing, land titles, broadcast rights, corporate liability protection'. Buffett and Soros are liberal role-models, and suffer a constant barrage of lies from Marxists and Conservatives alike.

Without the Revolution, Ted's life would have no meaning.

[Cocoa]

142. Rall's approach won't lead to progress

progress will take the form of laws, not ideology. Rall doesn't seem much interested in the law here.

[Tactical Progressive]

159. Gates is 10,000 times the thief that Ken Lay was

Assuming that Ken Lay really was a thief, which I believe he was, his offense was lying to investors as the bottom caved in. Which isn't even in the same LEAGUE as Microsoft's running an operation whose primary method of success consisted of cheating, stealing, lying and the most massive antitrust violation in world history, for over a decade and a half. And while those antitrust violations are too complicated for most to understand, they are destructive in the extreme.

I don't know why Rall included Warren Buffet in his screed. As far as I know he was never anything close to a crook. On the other hand I have about as much respect for stock 'investing' as I do for gambling. You can call it productivity in the sense of resource allocation I suppose, but you can call day-trading 'resource allocation' or 'providing liquidity' by the same token.

As far as Gates is concerned though, Rall is spot on.

[Deja Q]

160. This is where I disagree.

Gates is a slimeball who can get any fool to think he is a great benevolent man, when in fact he's just a avaricious, sloppy, and extremely lucky vulture with good networking and social skills (Aspie my ass...).

Lay is a pure, unfettered, selfish, conniving, rotten degenerate nasty creep. Pure and simple. At least Gates has given back. Though whether the organizations he gives to (his own!) and the people he helps (those solely in countries we're offshoring to!) can be seen as purely altruistic, if really altruistic at all, it's still at least doing something for somebody. Though it can still be argued he's doing it for his own reasons; since when do the humanitarians get as powerful as he? Never. He's a businessman. He does things for his own self first. And his history, down to the start, is replete with events. So what's my point? Maybe I don't disagree after all and Rall is being unfairly maligned...

And, yes, regarding Gates, the article isn't entirely off its rocker. Being in the industry in which Gates has made himself "king", I have seen a lot of bizarre moves take place. He says it's for the good of the customer, but I wholly disagree.

[lonestarnot]

168. There is not a rich fucker on the planet that I'd give two cents for or

wouldn't kick to the curb, money and all! And don't even suggest that I am jealous!

[Boojatta]

164. "have about as much respect for stock 'investing'..."

Do you intend to buy, at any time in the future, any goods or services from any company that is listed on a stock exchange? There are lots of companies that are not listed on any stock exchange.

Suppose somebody knocked on your door and then offered a copy of a 20-page essay on economics that he or she wrote. Suppose the offer is one copy for two dollars. Would you flip through and read a bit to see whether or not you wanted to buy it?

[SensibleAmerican]

178. How dare he attack the rich?

:eyes:

Honestly though, The Gates-Buffet foundation has twice as much money than is the circulation. They could tank our financial economy in a heartbeat if they wanted to.

[Terran1212]

180. His overall point is right I would say

But maybe he needs to reframe ho whe is saying it somewhat.

[Boojatta]

181. If Ted Rall were a Muslim, then would he say...

"JK Rowling is a 1000 times worse than Salman Rushdie"?


http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/12/29/riches.rowling/

[dysfunctional press]

182. at one point, i had a lot of respect for ted rall...

but he just keeps on getting more and more bitter about EVERYTHING.