|
| Thread: Confessions of an Economic Hitman |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
posted December 10, 2008 05:02 PM |
|
Edited by Totoro at 17:22, 10 Dec 2008.
|
A reply to Corribus' post:
Quote:
You know, I'm not really interested in getting into another discussion with those who impugn capitalism for no reason at all, but I will say that I find it rather sad that someone would question the motives of Bill Gates when he formed the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I don't know Bill Gates, and I won't speculate on whether he "deserves" his money or not (whatever that means). What I do know is that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is an unbelievably large charity that has done a lot of incredible things, and you would be well served to take a look at some of the projects the Foundation has funded, and then honestly ask yourself whether Bill Gates really did it just to get a little PR payoff. And let's not forget Warren Buffet, who gave over 30 BILLION US dollars to the foundation and didn't even ask to have his name attached to the foundation. If Buffet was doing it for a little fame, don't you think he would have wanted his name attached to the foundation?
Now this Warren Buffet sounds like a man to me. 30 billions to charity!? I do hope you're not confusing billions with millions but that is really something. As I said, not all of them are just greedy bastards.
I just read that this Gates foundation has an endowment of 35$ billions. So that means 5 billions of it are given by Bill Gates, which is approx. 10% of his known property (who knows what it is in reality, Swiss banks have confidentiality about what is the amount on their accounts). I could also give away 10% of my property to charity, easily.
But hey, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Bill Gates is the worst of them all. He is a philanthropist, there is no question about that, but I'm saying that if he actually cared for something else more than himself or his own posterity he would give everything away before his death.
Quote:
and maybe you could explain why he needs to "promote his image" if he's just an evil person who doesn't care about people - doesn't really make much sense to me
You kind of answered your own question. He promotes his imago so people wouldn't see him as an evil, greedy, careless person.
Quote:
I think your unwarranted hate of capitalism is clouding your reason.
You're not confusing me with someone else, are you?
I haven't made many posts, please read and make sure you understand them before you start making such statements.
I advocate capitalism, I think it is great to have a language that the whole world understand (money) and a global item of exchange which has no limits in the amount of versatility in use (again money)
Quote:
Your arguments make no sense, have no logic, and are colored only by hate, distrust, and envy, and are actually quite insensitive.
I grew up being taught that way. My arguments are totally legitimate. My father (a carpenter and also a truck-driver in his youth) has done more work than any millionaire in the whole world. Do you want me to tell how I can be so sure? Millionaires aren't born from hard physical work what my father has done his whole life.
Millionaires are born from speculation with money, I would never call such thing work.
So my father has done physical work his whole life and what wealth does he have? An average row house apartment with 1/4 of its debt still unpaid and basic amenities of a welfare state.
My whole life I have heard his complaining about how people get rich by doing nothing while he works and works and pays taxes and in the end he is left couple of funny hundreds.
That is disgusting I say.
Quote:
Just because a person has money does not necessarily mean he is evil.
Do you have any idea how the biggest moneys are made? Watch those three videos and you'll know. They're made by exploiting the weak. Do you know who has the biggest money? The owners of corporations that exploit others.
Now I don't know about you but I consider exploiting others very evil.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 05:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Do you have any idea how the biggest moneys are made? Watch those three videos and you'll know. They're made by exploiting the weak. Do you know who has the biggest money? The owners of corporations who exploit others.
"Steal a little and you go to jail, steal a lot and you become a king." 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 05:18 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 17:18, 10 Dec 2008.
|
I'd say the WORST part is that that exploitation happens through corrupting / assassination those that actually wish to be honest and help their own country. Typically those seem to appear as "bad people" on western media. I clearly remember the black picture that was painted about Chavez, and I even believed it.
What I also find particularly interesting is what he says about Saddam and Iraq
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 05:58 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 18:00, 10 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
Now this Warren Buffet sounds like a man to me. 30 billions to charity!? I do hope you're not confusing billions with millions but that is really something. As I said, not all of them are just greedy bastards.
I just read that this Gates foundation has an endowment of 35$ billions. So that means 5 billions of it are given by Bill Gates, which is approx. 10% of his known property (who knows what it is in reality, Swiss banks have confidentiality about what is the amount on their accounts). I could also give away 10% of my property to charity, easily.
Uh, that's not exactly how it works. I think before making judgements about people based on their wealth you'd do a little research. Warren Buffet's donation to the charity first of all was not in one lump sum. It is given over a period of time assuming certain conditions are met (such as, for instance, that the Foundation must continue to be a charity and that his money cannot just go into expanding the charity's endowment - i.e., it has to be spent). So your math doesn't really work. (btw Warren Buffet was the world's richest man in 2006 - kind of funny that the paragon of evil capitalism would be such a generous guy, giving away 50% of his net worth)
But even aside from that, if we pretend for a moment your "10%" number was correct, that still doesn't account for the fact that Bill Gates left his day-to-day operation of Microsoft so that he could spend a larger amount of time exclusively working for the charity. Not really something you'd expect from someone just interested in making more money.
Btw have you given away 10% of your wealth to charity?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 06:42 PM |
|
Edited by Totoro at 18:44, 10 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
Uh, that's not exactly how it works. I think before making judgements about people based on their wealth you'd do a little research. Warren Buffet's donation to the charity first of all was not in one lump sum. It is given over a period of time assuming certain conditions are met (such as, for instance, that the Foundation must continue to be a charity and that his money cannot just go into expanding the charity's endowment - i.e., it has to be spent). So your math doesn't really work. (btw Warren Buffet was the world's richest man in 2006 - kind of funny that the paragon of evil capitalism would be such a generous guy, giving away 50% of his net worth)
But even aside from that, if we pretend for a moment your "10%" number was correct, that still doesn't account for the fact that Bill Gates left his day-to-day operation of Microsoft so that he could spend a larger amount of time exclusively working for the charity. Not really something you'd expect from someone just interested in making more money.
Well, I guess you have opened my eyes and I can start thinking little more positively of Bill Gates.
But does he deserve his fortune if we take into account that he hasn't had hard work for it. And with hard work I mean physical work, toil, drudgery. He has just used his clever mind and I don't, again, consider that hard work. So I think he doesn't. But I also believe that a human cannot righteously judge what everyone deserves so I don't actually want argue about that.
Quote:
(btw Warren Buffet was the world's richest man in 2006 - kind of funny that the paragon of evil capitalism would be such a generous guy, giving away 50% of his net worth)
What is your point in that? And why keep stating capitalism evil?
Quote:
Btw have you given away 10% of your wealth to charity?
Do I have to prove it to you, shall I send you a picture of me dropping a twenty in a red cross box?
Yes, my economic situation is not the very best at the moment, my cash amount equals somewhere around 200.
But if I had billions of dollars it would be an enormous glee for me to just use them to make the world a better place as I feel passion for charity.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 10:49 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
In this case, the hard work is NOT RESPONSIBLE for you being rich, since an average joe has it as well.
Showing up to a job and working until lunch and then just sitting there =/= working hard. But that's exactly what unionized workers do in Detroit.
Quote:
How do you know? Guess?
No, you think about it. A well-informed, capable populace is more productive and generally more knowledgeable. This clearly benefits rich and poor alike. And, as history has shown, it indeed works that way.
Quote:
No I mean compared to people who also took a similar risk doh.
Many people play the lottery. Only one wins. They accept those terms whenever they buy the ticket. They all had an equal chance to win. They all took the same risk. That's the whole idea of "taking a risk". Not all risks pay off, but some of them pay off big. It's like this: I roll a die. If it lands on a 6, I give you a million dollars. If it lands on anything else, you give me $500,000. If you agree to these terms, you are taking a risk. It might pay off. It might not. But if the risk doesn't pay off, don't go crying about it.
Quote:
Because we should be evolved to understand those with worse situations, not being their fault.
Yes, I understand that, but it's not my fault, either, so why should I pay for it?
And not everyone can be a billionaire. And I think that's perfectly fair.
Moonlith:
Quote:
That's nothing but a retarded dogma pushed through by Capitalism for ignorants to believe.
Will somebody call the WAAAAAHmbulance?
Quote:
Einstein didn't gain ANYTHING from his research, yet he is recognized as one of the most influential people in human history. He did it because he had a PASSION for it, not because he wanted to gain wealth with it or anything.
Emotional benefits?
Quote:
You do not need a prospect of wealth to be motivated to work hard. You only need a good education to uncover your passions.
For every Einstein, there are a million welfare bums.
Quote:
If you own a store and tell your customer honestly that the products sold next door are of better quality, you wouldn't be in business.
So? Then don't tell him that! It's the customer's job to gather information.
del_diablo:
It's not a random "something happened" to Bill. Maybe somebody noticed that he had potential, and put him in a job where he could be more productive - and Joe was incapable of doing that job. Maybe instead of working overtime, he was going to college and got a degree that enabled him to get a better job.
Totoro:
It doesn't matter how hard people work. It matters how productive they are. And millionaires enable other people's productivity, so they should certainly get a share of the profits. And physical labor is hardly the most productive form of labor.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted December 11, 2008 05:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But does he deserve his fortune if we take into account that he hasn't had hard work for it. And with hard work I mean physical work, toil, drudgery. He has just used his clever mind and I don't, again, consider that hard work.
Bill Gates was famous for being a hard an intense worker in his younger days. He'd program from the time he woke to the time he'd fall asleep on the floor for days on end (with all its consequent body odor). In fact he missed an invitation to go see the first space shuttle launch so he could work on his business instead. If he hadn't struck the lucky combination of finding a mostly functional operating system and then repackaging it for sale to IBM right at the beginning of the home pc era, he probably would have made a lot of money some other way.
Myself, I do some hard physical labor at the beginning of the day, and then I go home and work hard doing intellectual work. I measure them both by the number of hours I spend on them, not by the number of glucose molecules that I burn. To me, only qualifying physical labor for the word "hard" strikes me as a medieval philosophy. Something that some hard bit farmer who tills his own field would say about them new-fangled mechanical contraptions that roll along and till the ground for you.
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted December 11, 2008 02:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
He'd program from the time he woke to the time he'd fall asleep on the floor for days on end
Let me ask you, which one you would choose: Pressing keyboard buttons for two days or try dig as big hole on the ground as possible in one day?
Quote:
I measure them both by the number of hours I spend on them
Well, that's your way; I measure them by how tiring they are as more pain = harder work in my philosophy.
Quote:
Something that some hard bit farmer who tills his own field would say about them new-fangled mechanical contraptions that roll along and till the ground for you.
There is no deny to the fact that along with new machines that came to do all the hard work people have become lazier.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 11, 2008 02:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, that's your way; I measure them by how tiring they are as more pain = harder work in my philosophy.
Okay, except the labor theory of value is completely wrong.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 11, 2008 02:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Many people play the lottery. Only one wins. They accept those terms whenever they buy the ticket. They all had an equal chance to win. They all took the same risk. That's the whole idea of "taking a risk". Not all risks pay off, but some of them pay off big. It's like this: I roll a die. If it lands on a 6, I give you a million dollars. If it lands on anything else, you give me $500,000. If you agree to these terms, you are taking a risk. It might pay off. It might not. But if the risk doesn't pay off, don't go crying about it.
That doesn't mean the one who won the lottery deserves it any more than anyone else, as long as the chances are equal. And of course, this 'chance' happens out of our will (i.e situation, environment, inheritance, etc). Is that so hard to see that it is unfair? Why does X deserve it more than Y when both had the same chance against their will?
Quote:
And not everyone can be a billionaire. And I think that's perfectly fair.
That means it is not fair since it is not only motivation/dedication/will that makes you money -- i.e you are dependent on your situation or luck, not on your hard working/dedication/whatever. (by hard work, I mean any kind of labour, not just physical, which requires skill or motivation etc...)
But if skill (aka what we do/how much we work) is NOT the thing that sets apart average joe from billionaires, then it is unfair since it happens outside our will. It's like being born with a disability, even though you would have had the same skills as a billionaire for example, you CANNOT get as much money because you simply can't, it's not because you don't want -- BIG difference. When you can't, and someone else can, and this happened outside our will (i.e "who would choose to be born with a disability?") then it is unfair.
When both people have the same dedication and will towards something (i.e they are not more lazy than another), then everything they aren't capable of doing while someone else with the same dedication has is unfair since it happens outside their will!
I know, you say that it's not your fault, but think of it like this: People constantly use to say "Life is cruel, get over it!" or "Life sucks, get over it" or "Life is unfair, get over it" right?
But it turns out, it's not just life, it's the unwillingness to make it more fair. We can make it more fair, but we don't want. So next time, use the phrase "Life is unfair, and I do not want to make it more fair, k?". It's way more descriptive.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 11, 2008 03:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That doesn't mean the one who won the lottery deserves it any more than anyone else, as long as the chances are equal.
No. But one of them deserves to win. Which one of them it is is random. They can't all win equally as it would defeat the whole purpose.
And I don't see why I should have to be punished for somebody else's problems. What matters is how productive somebody is. What matters is how successfully people meet demand. How they actually do it doesn't matter, as long as they don't initiate force. It's unfair that people who meet demand the most successfully would, under your system, be punished for something that has nothing to do with them. And it would ultimately hurt rich and poor alike.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C. S. Lewis.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 11, 2008 03:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No. But one of them deserves to win. Which one of them it is is random. They can't all win equally as it would defeat the whole purpose.
I said X doesn't deserve to win more than Y when they have equal chances... I mean, if you want to be fair of course...
Quote:
And I don't see why I should have to be punished for somebody else's problems. What matters is how productive somebody is.
What does "matters" mean? Of course that's what matters if you want to be a billionaire, but that's not what matters if you want to make a more fair world.
Example to make this simplified: Guy A is lazy, Guy B is not. Same opportunities, Guy B wins more money. Fair.
Guy A is Guy B's clone, in short equal skill/dedication/whatever. Different opportunities. Guy B wins more money. Unfair.
Why wouldn't it be unfair? It's like being born with a disability. Even though you have the same skill or dedication, in short it's not your fault that you don't have opportunities, you are an average joe, while someone else is a billionaire.
What's even more unfair is when:
Guy A is not lazy, Guy B is lazy. Guy B has more opportunities. Guy B wins more money. This is even more unfair.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 11, 2008 03:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Example to make this simplified: Guy A is lazy, Guy B is not. Same opportunities, Guy B wins more money. Fair.
Guy A is a lazy engineer who barely works (but does work). Guy B is a trash collector who works so hard that he is nearly passed out at the end of the day. Who deserves to get paid more? Unless there is a massive shortage of garbage collectors or a huge surplus of engineers, the engineer should get paid more, since he is more successful at meeting people's demand. In other words, what he does is more socially useful, even if he doesn't work as hard. Opportunities are irrelevant when looking at how much somebody gets paid.
Or look at this. Guy A works hard all day. Guy B made a lucky investment, made a lot of money, and reinvested it. Who deserves more money? Guy B, because his actions have resulted in greater productivity than those of Guy A. Anything otherwise is unfair.
From college graduation to retirement, the average person is not my problem.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 11, 2008 03:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Guy A is a lazy engineer who barely works (but does work). Guy B is a trash collector who works so hard that he is nearly passed out at the end of the day.
You're confusing my posts with Totoro's though. I never said something like that. I said they both have the same skills. However, only one of them can make a business (you need waaay more than skills to be successful). In conclusion, both an average joe and a billionaire have the same skills, so whatever happens and sets them apart is OUTSIDE THEIR WILL.
this means unfair.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted December 11, 2008 05:50 PM |
|
Edited by Totoro at 17:51, 11 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
Guy A is a lazy engineer who barely works (but does work). Guy B is a trash collector who works so hard that he is nearly passed out at the end of the day. Who deserves to get paid more? Unless there is a massive shortage of garbage collectors or a huge surplus of engineers, the engineer should get paid more, since he is more successful at meeting people's demand. In other words, what he does is more socially useful, even if he doesn't work as hard.
At first, it's not like you could really say is carrying of 50 tons of carbage to dump pit more productive than construction of a cruiser.
But regardless this is exactly how it is, the one who is more productive gets paid more in normal situation (of course there are also occasions where people aren't socially productive at all and still gain millions: those who speculate in stock market for example) but it's not the engineer's merit if his work meets people's demands with less work than what does trash collector's.
So, he doesn't deserve that money but he still gets it and that is what I call unfair. Besides, if everyone were engineers the society wouldn't work because we need trash collectors as well.
____________
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted December 11, 2008 08:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
That's nothing but a retarded dogma pushed through by Capitalism for ignorants to believe.
Will somebody call the WAAAAAHmbulance?
You can ridicule it all you like, it doesn't change the statement. Sucks being kicked in the balls doesn't it
Quote:
Quote:
Einstein didn't gain ANYTHING from his research, yet he is recognized as one of the most influential people in human history. He did it because he had a PASSION for it, not because he wanted to gain wealth with it or anything.
Emotional benefits?
Duhr... But not money! Which is what this whole fricking argument is about: The dogma that people supposedly need to have a prospect of gaining wealth in order to be motivated. I simply argumented that that is not true whatsoever. To which your answer was rather poor
Quote:
Quote:
You do not need a prospect of wealth to be motivated to work hard. You only need a good education to uncover your passions.
For every Einstein, there are a million welfare bums.
Only in a country where the educational system sucks monkeyballs.
Quote:
Quote:
If you own a store and tell your customer honestly that the products sold next door are of better quality, you wouldn't be in business.
So? Then don't tell him that!
As I said, you cannot expect decency or honesty in this system You basicly admit it yourself right there.
Quote:
It's the customer's job to gather information.
And in turn you'd have NO reason to be honest if you wish to remain in business. That's why you always see the same adds: "our product is the BEST."
Is it that hard to admit?
Quote:
It doesn't matter how hard people work. It matters how productive they are. And millionaires enable other people's productivity, so they should certainly get a share of the profits. And physical labor is hardly the most productive form of labor.
That statement validates the existance of overpriced "managers".
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 11, 2008 08:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
To which your answer was rather poor
Well to be honest with you, mvass always uses that poor (and on some forums I visit, childish) answer with 'emotional benefit' when he can't answer with any other benefit, even when I tell him to ignore those benefits (i.e which means that when I say 'benefit' I mean every benefit except those, but he still continues nonetheless).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 11, 2008 10:40 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
this means unfair
It's fair because only one of them is meeting more demand than the other.
Totoro:
Quote:
At first, it's not like you could really say is carrying of 50 tons of carbage to dump pit more productive than construction of a cruiser.
Obviously, no individual could say that. However, through the combination of the needs and desires of numerous individuals, it can be said that someone who can produce cruisers is in higher demand than somebody who can carry 50 tons of garbage, and is therefore more productive.
Quote:
of course there are also occasions where people aren't socially productive at all and still gain millions: those who speculate in stock market for example
Speculators don't make up a large part of the stock market - at least, they don't affect it too much. The stock market isn't for gambling, it's for aligning production and raising capital. Thus, essentially what you're doing when you buy stocks (if you buy them directly from the company), then you're giving money to that company and hoping that your investment will pay off. At a later point, you may want to sell your stocks, since they're valued higher now, and somebody who expects an even bigger rise would buy them. Nothing wrong or unproductive about that.
Quote:
it's not the engineer's merit if his work meets people's demands with less work than what does trash collector's
But it is the engineer's merit! That's the whole point. He decided to get an education and become an engineer, thus being able to meet people's demands more easily. He deserves the money even if he doesn't work hard, because he meets people's demands through the merits of his work.
Quote:
Besides, if everyone were engineers the society wouldn't work because we need trash collectors as well.
If there were more engineers than trash collectors, then trash collectors would be paid higher than engineers, and more people would become trash compactors, and so on, until the situation would have reached an equilibrium. Society needs both, of course. But there are more trash collectors than engineers, and there is a higher demand for engineers, so naturally they get paid more. As they should.
Moonlith:
Quote:
The dogma that people supposedly need to have a prospect of gaining wealth in order to be motivated.
You said that Einstein didn't get anything from his research. I replied that it was to the contrary: he got emotional benefits. And he did get paid for it. Regardless of whether that was his primary motivation or not, I doubt that he would've done it full-time if he wasn't paid for it. And he was engaged in a productive activity. Many people would do something that they like but would not be productive.
Quote:
Only in a country where the educational system sucks monkeyballs.
There's only so much an education system can do. I'd like to hear your suggestion about how an education system can effectively wipe off the influence of a family of abusive bums and similar peers.
Quote:
As I said, you cannot expect decency or honesty in this system
There's no deception involved. You're not lying to them. Nothing dishonest. If they ask, "Are the goods next door better?" then the business just replies, "That has nothing to do with us." And rightfully so. Nothing indecent or dishonest.
Quote:
And in turn you'd have NO reason to be honest if you wish to remain in business.
Ad: Our product gets rid of all your problems! Depression, indigestion, cold, flu, diabetes, everything!
Reality: People who take it die.
Result: No one buys the product, and the company gets sued for false advertisement. The company loses money.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 11, 2008 10:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's fair because only one of them is meeting more demand than the other.
This is not what I said. Do you even pay attention to what I say?
I said that, if BOTH of you have the SAME skills, then why does he "meet" demands better than? In this example, if you were in his shoes, you would be able to do exactly as him. Point is, you aren't, and let's say you are in a very poor family and don't have a computer to start your business (like Bill did).
See why it's unfair? It's not because of your own will (i.e lazy) but you simply CANNOT. In fact, it's more deep than that, since it's impossible for a lot of people to be billionaires (it contradicts that definition) since they depend on poorer people.
Quote:
Ad: Our product gets rid of all your problems! Depression, indigestion, cold, flu, diabetes, everything!
Reality: People who take it die.
Result: No one buys the product, and the company gets sued for false advertisement. The company loses money.
Yeah yeah go and prove stuff like "X is better than Y" in court.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 11, 2008 11:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I said that, if BOTH of you have the SAME skills, then why does he "meet" demands better than?
Let's say Bill Gates and Bob the Programmer have exactly the same skills. Usually, they're doing the same work and getting paid the same. But then Bill Gates tries something a little bit different, and starts using his skills differently. He starts working for himself, taking a risk - he could lose everything - and programs a successful OS. Meanwhile, Bob the Programmer is still doing his old job. Then Bill Gates succeeds in meeting a lot of unexpected demand and becomes a billionaire. If Bob the Programmer had taken that same risk and gotten everything exactly right, then he, not Gates, would be the billionaire. They have the same skills, but apply them differently. It's perfectly fair.
Quote:
Yeah yeah go and prove stuff like "X is better than Y" in court.
That's why you don't see businesses saying "X is better than Y".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
