It is certainly a fact that the majority of humans do not consciously hold rationality as a virtue or even hold that the realm of ideas and beliefs should "make sense" or be internally consistent.

Humans have only relatively recently in evolutionary terms developed much of their abstraction ability much less more formalized reasoning methodologies. The neocortex itself is a relatively recent brain development. It should not be too surprising that much of what humans do in aggregate is not terribly rational.

Capitalism builds wealth not because it exploits workers, is heartless, etc. It builds wealth because it is an equitable system. As such, it allows for incentives for people to perform at their best capacity, mentally and physically. Socialism, on the other hand, is attractive to those that do not see beyond their noses (the majority) because it promises them something that others have. And the people are too stupid to connect the dots and realize that socialism also promises to give away what they have. While doing that, regardless of intentions or proclamations, socialism always kills incentives to be productive – why, after all, when someone else can bring the bacon? Any amount of socialism injected into any society will metastasize and eventually kill the host. Treat it, along with its promises of “fairness” as a cancer – the sooner it is removed, the better. This includes most elements of any government, for the pus is most vile in the center.
As to Gates, two anecdotes for you – back in the early days of DOS (mid-80’s), Microsoft DOS was one of the competing versions and was generally rated inferior to DR DOS. When MS released the first versions of Windows (3.x), which ran on top of DOS, Windows was designed to test for the version and sometime after detecting DR DOS it would crash with a message to call MS customer service. The rep was instructed to ask if the customer used DR DOS and to “inform” the customer that DR DOS had “bugs” and it should be replaced with MS DOS. DR DOS sued MS; it took 10 years to win the lawsuit (for an undisclosed amount), while MS monopolized the market. Second story – back in the early days of pc’s, Apple spend a fortune giving away free computers and software to schools in an effort to get the students used to Apple products and then request them from their future employers. Then, MS has the well-publicized Internet Explorer anti-monopoly lawsuit. MS lost the suit and, as is well known, was hit with a $1B penalty! What is less well known, is that $900M of that was for MS software (at retail prices) to be delivered to schools and $100M for installation of that software! Goodbye Apple…
There is an old fable that goes like this – the forest animals put a Pike on trial. The Pike was accused of being a very bad, mean, selfish fish. She ate other fishes, babies and children and mothers all alike. Many animals offered testimony, one after another. Unanimous – the Pike was bad, mean and guilty. And it was sentenced to death, by drowning in the river…

The problem is over regulation that the government imposes which places burdens on small competitors that large corporations support because they can afford it, while placing roadblocks in front of smaller competitors. The mega corps. donate and lobby politicians that create the regulations. Then use the force of government to enforce them, thus giving advantage to the large corporations. There are also trade affiliations/guilds like Barbers unions that stifle competition by enforcing licensing regulations for things as nonsensical as hair braiding and other anti-competition measures. The problem is lack of integrity on the part of the politicians and bureaucratic regulators. They should be telling these would be cronies to pound sand. Only the government has the legitimate use of force. That is not to say that the crony corporatist that wishes to buy favors is not also corrupt, but to point out where the true abuse of power is. Some monopolies exist without the use of coercion, only because they have with integrity offered a better value to the consumer than anyone else has yet matched, or there is a particular condition that creates a natural monopoly. For instance if there is only one place geographically where it is feasible to build a bridge one bridge builder may have a monopoly on bridge fares if you wish to take the shortest route. When you say the private sector I assume you mean monopolies enforced by unions. Any other monopoly in the private sector can be overcome by competition unless they are committing some illegal act such as intimidation or collusion etc. which can be overcome by lawsuit.

I've been a user of MS products since the days of MS-DOS (early 80's) and professional IT guru for more than 20 years and your criticisms of Microsoft's product quality and tactics are not without merit. Gates' true brilliance was in understanding the business models of the time and inventing a new one: software licensing. And Microsoft's monopoly was as much about their competitors' (IBM, Novell, Apple, etc.) blowing it as it was about Microsoft's tactics. I'm not defending Microsoft, just recognizing history (my thesis paper on the matter didn't hurt, either).

By the way, Microsoft and the Gates Foundation donated - - $26 MILLION - - to the Clinton Foundation.

"In a free market where government regulations do not favor the large corporations, only those that provide a superior service and price are immune to competition and can maintain a monopoly."

That's pretty good, except that I'd strike that part "...where government regulations do not favor the large corporations. That's the problem with all governments -- all have the powers of Force which are used to pick and distort "favorites". Force is prohibited to the People, after all, and that prohibition should apply to both government and to all people within the private section, which of course includes (also people) private businesses of any size.

Somehow the root of this dilemma is forceful/sideways application of patents/copyrights being misapplied. Oh, that government would be required to stand aside, the dilemma disappears, does it not?

A person like Gates is not an economist. His talents lie in other directions, so his comments on such things as corporate tax rates have zero validity. He should be applauded for what he did to build Microsoft, but besides dropping out of Harvard, looks like he didn’t take economics 101.

Hello DeanStriker,
To the best of my knowledge, she only had problems with "coercive monopolies."

."A “coercive monopoly” is a business concern that can set its prices and production policies independent of the market, with immunity from competition, from the law of supply and demand. An economy dominated by such monopolies would be rigid and stagnant.

The necessary precondition of a coercive monopoly is closed entry—the barring of all competing producers from a given field. This can be accomplished only by an act of government intervention, in the form of special regulations, subsidies, or franchises. Without government assistance, it is impossible for a would-be monopolist to set and maintain his prices and production policies independent of the rest of the economy. For if he attempted to set his prices and production at a level that would yield profits to new entrants significantly above those available in other fields, competitors would be sure to invade his industry." Capitalism The Unknown Ideal, pg. 68

In a free market where government regulations do not favor the large corporations, only those that provide a superior service and price are immune to competition and can maintain a monopoly.
Respectfully,
O.A.

Gates was of sound mind only because he figured out how to run a monopoly and get away with it. His M$ software has been a disaster serving only to waste the time of millions while continuing to get paid for building security holes.

Bill Gates and his sleazy M$ Monopoly is to blame for one heckuva lot of today's problems. I made a post at the source which may have been lost in a power outage, even tho it reappeared when our net resumed.

I am wondering just what Ayn Rand might have said about monopolies? It's been about 50 years since I read Atlas Shrugged 3 times, but I don't recall anything about that.

True, however those dozen are for a dozen different things. Adobe Flash, as an example, is only patching Flash, weekly, for years, and still haven't managed to fix it.

Bill Gates is a thief and swindler. Name one original invention by Microsoft. Everything Gates has is the result of stealing Intellectual Property. I am sure he has a full staff of attorneys exploiting every tax code loop hole. What is the actual tax rate Billy Gates is paying?

As opposed to Microsoft saving theirs up and dumping them a dozen or more at a time?

this guy is doing the legacy thing like BHO -- he wants
to be remembered as a compassionate fellow who
didn't mind taxation, since it benefits the less
fortunate among us . . . he thinks. -- j
.

I have a reaction to Gates and Buffett that is similar to yours, but my next response is to ask "what would motivate such wealthy people to decide to 'give away' their wealth?"

As I've said so many times before, here and elsewhere, 'the first answer to that kind of question is simple, easy, obvious and wrong.'

Root Cause is at least 5-6 layers deeper.

Love the comments... especially the stupid ones!
And at least one of the longest ones has the least valuable content. Amazing.

But the ruling elites want you to think that they know best. What social issues you want addressed, how much money you want to go to education, what foods you're told you can and can't eat. Why if you had money, you might hurt yourself.

Even though I immencely dislike Bloomberg's politics - antisecond amendment. His organization prints a fairly well written "Bloomberg Markets" magazine. This months has an article on China titled "Searching For the Next Jack Ma" discusses the expansion of Investment Bankers searching for entrepeneurs to push China's economy but also to create wealth for themselves and their client entrepeneurs. So, it seems China's corporate income tax of 25% has not stopped cinese entrepeneurism.
So, when Gates, Bloomberg & Warren Buffet saying the US corporate income tax of 36% isn't hurting entrepeneurs here they're wildly mistaken. Look at them, they are the Oligarch's of the US and no better than their Russian counterparts. It's possible that China could economically bury us in the next decade,despite their theft of high tech product information of recent.

He may be the richest man in the world but he is certainly not the smartest.

The whole point of capitalism is that is not a tool of the wealthier classes. If it is a true, pure capitalism, not the crony type that we have had in the 20th century. And I really don't want neither the capitalists, nor the socialists, and least of all the government, to care a whit for me. I want them all out of my life. Once you allow others to care for you, or rather, submit to others caring for you, they will care for you in the ways that they think you need to be cared for. Save me, please, from such care. The failure of socialism was not in the adaptation, or implementation, but in the flawed and corrupt logic used to justify the basic premise of socialism, which is against human nature. Any and all implementations will not work because of the flawed foundation.

You want an alternative - it's rather simple: privatize everything except the very top level part of the legal system (Supreme Court; maybe one or two levels below) and national defense (and I would argue that even parts of the defense can be privatized). Will there be taxes? Sure, but minuscule compared to what we pay now. And this part I am borrowing from Robert Heinlein: Have every law periodically reviewed and put to a vote - if 2/3 of the voters do not support it, get rid of it. A very rational assurance against the government bloating of it's own volition. Yes, I know I'm dreaming, but you asked!

Of course this is a trick question and we shouldn't be arguing about it. It is not up to people to prove that it is better for the public for them to keep their own money -- it's their money, they have a moral right to the fruits of their labor.

So it doesn't matter whether high taxes are impeding development or not, you don't have to prove that the money in your wallet is doing more good there than it would in the hands of a thief -- it's your money.

Mr. Gates has gone soft in the head. Curious if he would have had the same take back say in the early 1980's? When one can pay lawyers, and pay them less, to figure out how to get around that 35% his Liberal slip is showing.

As a professional techie I must take exception with one part of your comment. I think a fair case could be made that Adobe might make worse software... I mean really, they patch reader and flash nearly every week and still haven't secured it...

I blame religion not for altruism but for dangling the possibility of everlasting life, in any form. Fear of death is rational because our life is the ultimate value. Religion saps away the joy and celebration of this single event in our existence and wastes millions of humans. Rather I would have been a beast of burden, perhaps a mule.