rhys 0 #1 July 22, 2009 These guys are the type of people that should be organising our communities. we could all live a safe, fun and sustainable lifestyle http://www.thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project-introduction/about-the-venus-project A very interesting theory, and in my mind definately feasable. Knowing human beings However, (specially you lot in here) I would assume that this would take some type of cataclysm in order to become a reality. I particularly like this part of the guys resume'; QuoteInventions and Designs- many of which have been patented and have had wide commercial acceptance. * Systems for noiseless and pollution free aircraft * A new aircraft wing structural system, patented by the US Air Force * An electrostatic system for the elimination of sonic boom for Raymond DeIcer * Boundary layer control and electrodynamic methods for aircraft control that dispenses with ailerons, elevators, rudders, and flaps * A three-wheel automobile consisting of only 32 parts... * http://www.thevenusproject.com/jacque-fresco/resume"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #2 July 22, 2009 Quote Simply stated, a resource-based economy utilizes existing resources rather than money and provides an equitable method of distributing these resources in the most efficient manner for the entire population. It is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter, or any other form of debt or servitude. On the surface it sounds great. But eerily familiar....to so many others in the past with their promises to create a eutopia, so long as everyone cooperates with Our Glorious Revolution. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #3 July 22, 2009 >A very interesting theory, and in my mind definately feasable. This sounds a lot like communism, which is also a very interesting theory and is, in theory, feasible. However, in practice, there are some problems with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #4 July 22, 2009 Not unlike capitalism. Hooray! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GaVak 0 #5 July 22, 2009 QuoteNot unlike capitalism. Hooray! Not unlike *.* ; The problem with any perfect solution is the human element.Life doesn't need reasons, just participants. D.S.#21 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #6 July 22, 2009 >Not unlike capitalism. Exactly. Pure communism doesn't work. Pure capitalism doesn't work. Pure socialism doesn't work. Pretty much any "ism" is going to place more importance on ideology than on actually, well, working. Which is why the system in the US works as well as it does. We have a primarily capitalist economy, with regulation to prevent some of the excesses. We have a socialist school, air traffic, police and firefighter system, and our roads are primarily socialist. Our national parks? Communist through and through. By taking parts of all these systems, rather than being a slave to an "ism," we get the better parts and don't have to deal with the bad parts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GaVak 0 #7 July 22, 2009 Quote Which is why the system in the US works as well as it does. We have a primarily capitalist economy, with regulation to prevent some of the excesses. Quote Oh, that doesn't seem to be working so well lately. The concept of a 'public' company is unrealistic; you simply can't force a profit increase for every product/service there is. It's insane. However, it's the mantra of everything done these days at the detriment of the planet or our race as a whole. "It was for the good of the shareholders..." Bullshit. It was for the good of the Board, and everyone else that bleeds public companies dry like ticks... Until the host can't sustain them anymore and they move on to another. Companies that are focused on being profitable without being forced to try to consistantly increase said profit are the only realistic option... ~GavLife doesn't need reasons, just participants. D.S.#21 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #8 July 22, 2009 >"It was for the good of the shareholders..." Bullshit. It was for the >good of the Board . . . Of course. The board is elected by the shareholders. >and everyone else that bleeds public companies dry like ticks... Like shareholders who buy low and sell high? >Companies that are focused on being profitable without being forced to >try to consistantly increase said profit are the only realistic option... And will you pass a law to force shareholders to invest in these slow-growth companies? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chasteh 0 #9 July 22, 2009 >Pure communism doesn't work I was hoping someone would say this. Can you please provide an example of a society that has ever existed while remaining true to the tenants that Karl Marx laid out in his writings? You'll have to find one that preserves not only Political equality, but one that has preserved Economic and Social equality as well. (Hint: No one has done this. Every "communist" society either ends up with a dictator (not communist, this is authoritarianism in communist disguise- read that twice you libertarians) with a major economic inequality (think about the wealth that has been spread around Russia in a method that is not consistent with "from each according to his ability, and to each according to his needs.") >Pure capitalism doesn't work. You mean, a genuinely free-market society doesn't work either? The nerve! Come get 'em, Tom! >Pure socialism doesn't work. Of course, you would be referring to the authoritarian states that have been made in the past. You can thank the USSR and the people of the U.S. for claiming that the USSR actually represented socialism. We have done the greatest disservice to socialism by acknowledging such a label on the USSR. >Pretty much any "ism" is going to place more importance on ideology than on actually, well, working. Is the same true for democracy? Can we say there has been a solid example of a democracy that has "worked" (whatever that means) without problems? (whatever those are) >Which is why the system in the US works as well as it does. Heh. Hahaaa! I'll admit it works quite well relative to other societies, but I won't admit that it works very well. >We have a socialist school, air traffic There are people who would say both have been a disaster. Air traffic controllers have one of the most underfunded working conditions in government. Oh, by the way, a majority of the ATC centers in the U.S. are actually privately owned facitlities employing certified and approved controllers. (edit:) Wait a minute, with the assistance of socialism (government funds) and the ability of a firm to control the costs of an ATC facility, why is it that such facilities are in such deplorable condition? Why is it that the Europeans aren't using 30 year old radar screens like ours? Why is it that the ATC facility on one side of my town had such a difficult time staffing its facility during the year and a half that it was ready for use, but not operational? Hmmmmmm >police and firefighter system There is much to be changed about the police system. See Tom Aiello. Surely he has enough to be said about that. Firefighter system? Well done. This is an area not to be skipped out on. >By taking parts of all these systems, rather than being a slave to an "ism," we get the better parts and don't have to deal with the bad parts. Well, ok, but you will want to ignore everything inthis post but this statement. We have a police-state, a democracy that is ruled by a tyrannical majority, an over-the-top taxation system, and greedy corporate executives. We have to deal with the bad parts. Maybe you can list some more of those "good parts" again for me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GaVak 0 #10 July 22, 2009 Quote Of course. The board is elected by the shareholders. [/Reply] Right. Like generic 401k investors really know what their money is being used for. Corporations are spring boards for a sub-set of business elites. I make CEO of X company, I get my buddies Y and Z (CEO's of other companies) on board and they get on the 'compensation' committee. They give me a nice chunk of shares a year that I sell (at the expense of the company) to increase my personal wealth. In return, I get hired on as a member of their board... oh wow, look, I'm on a compensation committee. .. Rinse. Repeat. And when a company fails? The CEO et al golden parachute out, and some new CEO picks up the pieces and rides the same money pony back to the top. [Reply] Like shareholders who buy low and sell high? [/Reply] Exactly. The entire ‘public’ system is broken. ‘Quick’ money is unrealistic. It has no basis in actual goods or services. [Reply] >Companies that are focused on being profitable without being forced to >try to consistently increase said profit are the only realistic option... And will you pass a law to force shareholders to invest in these slow-growth companies? Personally? I think the public corporation is a broken model in its entirety. Anything that is driven by greed will end up in short-cuts and short comings, period. You can’t continually sell more at a lower cost to generate. It starts with shipping jobs overseas, then support standards being lowered, on to cheaper materials… It’s foolish. It’s why companies like Microsoft try to develop sub-standard operating systems… they don’t WANT it to be something you use for ten years. In fact, they can’t make something that successful AND SATISFY THE SHARE HOLDER. ~GavLife doesn't need reasons, just participants. D.S.#21 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chasteh 0 #11 July 22, 2009 >One of the cornerstones of the organization's findings is the fact that many of the dysfunctional behaviors of today's society stem directly from the dehumanizing environment of a monetary system. In addition, automation has resulted in the technological replacement of human labor by machines and eventually most people will not have the purchasing power to buy the goods and services turned out. Hmm. Nice. Does that mean that this Venus project is a viable means of eliminating those problems? We would have to see. I think we ought to delve further into the philosphical issues we already have before wasting our time and money on a hopeful society like this. >The Venus Project proposes a social system in which automation and technology would be intelligently integrated into an overall social design where the primary function would be to maximize the quality of life rather than profits. Nice. >There is no single philosophy or point of view whether religious, political, scientific, or ideological, that someone would not take issue with. Hence, you are prone to having wars and crime. Shit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #12 July 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteInventions and Designs- many of which have been patented and have had wide commercial acceptance. * Systems for noiseless and pollution free aircraft * A new aircraft wing structural system, patented by the US Air Force * An electrostatic system for the elimination of sonic boom for Raymond DeIcer * Boundary layer control and electrodynamic methods for aircraft control that dispenses with ailerons, elevators, rudders, and flaps * A three-wheel automobile consisting of only 32 parts... QuoteJacque Fresco is the founder of Sociocyberneering, Inc., now known as The Venus Project. With his associate Roxanne Meadows, he has designed and built the entire twenty-five acre research facility. The function of this project is to prepare approaches and solutions to the major problems that confront the world today. Television and magazine coverage on the project has been worldwide. Mr. Fresco is available for lectures. For more information... BWAHAHAHHAAH . . . yeah, right. Ok, let's really decode what's going on here. He's a con artist that can't hold a gig, shacking up in a tent with his girlfriend at a swamp in Florida. Send him money and he'll lead the way to a brighter future. This guy ought to get together with Moller.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #13 July 22, 2009 >Like generic 401k investors really know what their money is being used for. Most of them don't - because most of them don't care as long as they're making money. The ones that lose money care, as evinced by the lawsuits brought against companies that lose money for shareholders. >And when a company fails? The CEO et al golden parachute out, >and some new CEO picks up the pieces and rides the same money pony >back to the top. Yep. And the shareholders that get out at the right time laugh all the way to the bank. >The entire ‘public’ system is broken. ‘Quick’ money is unrealistic. It >has no basis in actual goods or services. Nevertheless, it makes people millions. And given a choice between having millions and having a mediocre salary, most people will go for the millions. And many do indeed make millions - which is why people keep doing it. >Anything that is driven by greed will end up in short-cuts and >short comings, period. Why? A greedy company might well decide to make a better quality product than its competitors because they want to corner the market on reliability. (Think Toyota.) Another company might want to sell the cheapest stuff they can to undercut people who don't care about quality (think Wal-Mart.) You then get to choose what you want, low cost or quality. That's how capitalism works. >In fact, they can’t make something that successful AND SATISFY >THE SHARE HOLDER. Sure they can. Microsoft, by anyone's standards, is an incredibly successful company whose products are used worldwide. If they sucked really badly a Linux would take over - so they have to maintain a certain minimum level of quality. Many people hate Microsoft because it is fashionable to hate any large company. That's fine. That doesn't change the fact that they are very successful, have made a lot of money for their shareholder, and are often emulated by others wishing to be that successful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chasteh 0 #14 July 22, 2009 >If [Microsoft or Windows] sucked really badly a Linux would take over - so they have to maintain a certain minimum level of quality. Wow. You don't happen to be a software engineer for Microsoft, do you? >Many people hate Microsoft because it is fashionable to hate any large company. Aaand it was founded by a thief. Shit. Microsoft must not be a very good example of how businesses can be responsible on their own. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GaVak 0 #15 July 22, 2009 [Reply] Nevertheless, it makes people millions. And given a choice between having millions and having a mediocre salary, most people will go for the millions. And many do indeed make millions - which is why people keep doing it. Everything has a price; the short sited gain of this generation will be the global emergency of the next. Who cares if some old fuck loses their retirement and has to go be a door greeter at Wal-Mart, or if a company I invest in exports defunct computer equipment to china that ends up ruining the local ecosystem as they break it apart trying to salvage bits of gold. It's ok; I'm laughing all the way to the bank with my millions, right? Seriously, if the personal profit of a short-term few is enough justification for that sort of practice and behavior, I doubt there is much in the way of collaborative debate that will bring us to any sort of subjective middle ground. ~GavLife doesn't need reasons, just participants. D.S.#21 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #16 July 22, 2009 >Wow. You don't happen to be a software engineer for Microsoft, do you? Nope. >Aaand it was founded by a thief. Shit. Microsoft must not be a very good >example of how businesses can be responsible on their own. I didn't claim they were responsible, just that they were successful and had made a shitload of money for a lot of shareholders. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chasteh 0 #17 July 22, 2009 Quote >Many people hate Microsoft because it is fashionable to hate any large company. Aaand it was founded by a thief. Shit. Microsoft must not be a very good example of how businesses can be responsible on their own. >just that they were successful and had made a shitload of money for a lot of shareholders. You also made the statement that "many" people hate Microsoft "because it is fashionable to hate a large company." I am willing to say that even those people found other reasons to hate Microsoft, just like the hate many other large companies and their business practices. Many people hate Microsoft because it was founded by a guy who stole the software and ease of use from another company who created that software and ease of use. Many people hate Microsoft because it isn't realistically prone to a competitor's providing a worthy alternative. Macintosh is an expensive and worthless alternative. Buy a mac. Have zero compatibility. Spend a shitload of money to be a part of a "community" of other Mac-buyers. edit: Buy a Linux-box and enjoy spending the rest of your life making it user-friendly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #18 July 22, 2009 >Many people hate Microsoft because it was founded by a guy who stole >the software and ease of use from another company who created that software >and ease of use. Right. But Apple, who stole the concepts for their interface from Xerox PARC, is often supported by those same people, because they're smaller, cooler and are sorta edgy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chasteh 0 #19 July 22, 2009 >Right. But Apple, who stole the concepts for their interface from Xerox PARC Brilliant! Thus Microsoft stole something that Apple stole from Xerox. Scum all around! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #20 July 22, 2009 >Brilliant! Thus Microsoft stole something that Apple stole from Xerox. Scum all around! Yep. Everyone is scum. The Constitution stole from the Magna Carta. Ford stole the assembly line from Eli Whitney, who stole the idea from England. Heck, we here at Qualcomm "stole" stuff from Hedy Lamarr. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chasteh 0 #21 July 22, 2009 >The Constitution stole from the Magna Carta Isn't that like saying Spanish stole from Latin? Thats kinda different from one business stealing from another business. >Ford stole the assembly line from Eli Whitney, who stole the idea from England (edit) But did he steal the idea of using an assembly line for the purposes of mass producing automobiles from Whitney? Thats a bit harder to relate to stealing an operating system that had the same code and the same interface, with different labels. In this case, with Microsoft, Apple, Xerox, were talking about "stealing" something from another person, that would just so have happened to make that person the wealthiest person on Earth. That's a pretty big deal, bucko. (I will admit it was stupid of both Xerox and Apple to allow a competitor to tour their facilities in the way they did. What a disaster) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #22 July 22, 2009 QuotePure communism doesn't work. Pure capitalism doesn't work. Pure socialism doesn't work. How do you know? Has pure anything ever actually been created and used? FWIW, I do think that pure communism works very well--in extremely small groups, like nuclear families.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #23 July 22, 2009 QuoteRight. But Apple, who stole bought the concepts for their interface from Xerox PARC, is often supported by those same people, because they're smaller, cooler and are sorta edgy. Let's reflect history accurately, shall we? Apple gave Xerox quite a lot of Apple stock to examine and use the GUI concept.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #24 July 22, 2009 QuoteQuotePure communism doesn't work. Pure capitalism doesn't work. Pure socialism doesn't work. How do you know? Has pure anything ever actually been created and used? FWIW, I do think that pure communism works very well--in extremely small groups, like nuclear families. As I recall, didn't they try (and then move away from) this in the original Plymouth colony?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #25 July 22, 2009 QuoteAs I recall, didn't they try (and then move away from) this in the original Plymouth colony? I don't know. The largest groups I know of using real communism in practice are Israeli Kibbutzes (I'm sure I spelled that wrong). I've also seen some anthropological studies of Andean villages set up that way, and apparently functional. The most accessible example for a modern American audience is the traditional nuclear family. The family unit typically shares resources and makes decisions in a very communistic fashion, with a smaller group (the parents) making decisions in the best interest of the whole group (and the children). Sometimes it's dysfunctional, of course, but on the whole it seems to work pretty well. At least, so far my kids have failed in their efforts to reform the system through revolution. Basically, you need a small enough group that everyone knows everyone else, and a situation and/or cultural ethic that impresses the primary need for group survival/prosperity upon the people.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 2,991 #8 July 22, 2009 >"It was for the good of the shareholders..." Bullshit. It was for the >good of the Board . . . Of course. The board is elected by the shareholders. >and everyone else that bleeds public companies dry like ticks... Like shareholders who buy low and sell high? >Companies that are focused on being profitable without being forced to >try to consistantly increase said profit are the only realistic option... And will you pass a law to force shareholders to invest in these slow-growth companies? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #9 July 22, 2009 >Pure communism doesn't work I was hoping someone would say this. Can you please provide an example of a society that has ever existed while remaining true to the tenants that Karl Marx laid out in his writings? You'll have to find one that preserves not only Political equality, but one that has preserved Economic and Social equality as well. (Hint: No one has done this. Every "communist" society either ends up with a dictator (not communist, this is authoritarianism in communist disguise- read that twice you libertarians) with a major economic inequality (think about the wealth that has been spread around Russia in a method that is not consistent with "from each according to his ability, and to each according to his needs.") >Pure capitalism doesn't work. You mean, a genuinely free-market society doesn't work either? The nerve! Come get 'em, Tom! >Pure socialism doesn't work. Of course, you would be referring to the authoritarian states that have been made in the past. You can thank the USSR and the people of the U.S. for claiming that the USSR actually represented socialism. We have done the greatest disservice to socialism by acknowledging such a label on the USSR. >Pretty much any "ism" is going to place more importance on ideology than on actually, well, working. Is the same true for democracy? Can we say there has been a solid example of a democracy that has "worked" (whatever that means) without problems? (whatever those are) >Which is why the system in the US works as well as it does. Heh. Hahaaa! I'll admit it works quite well relative to other societies, but I won't admit that it works very well. >We have a socialist school, air traffic There are people who would say both have been a disaster. Air traffic controllers have one of the most underfunded working conditions in government. Oh, by the way, a majority of the ATC centers in the U.S. are actually privately owned facitlities employing certified and approved controllers. (edit:) Wait a minute, with the assistance of socialism (government funds) and the ability of a firm to control the costs of an ATC facility, why is it that such facilities are in such deplorable condition? Why is it that the Europeans aren't using 30 year old radar screens like ours? Why is it that the ATC facility on one side of my town had such a difficult time staffing its facility during the year and a half that it was ready for use, but not operational? Hmmmmmm >police and firefighter system There is much to be changed about the police system. See Tom Aiello. Surely he has enough to be said about that. Firefighter system? Well done. This is an area not to be skipped out on. >By taking parts of all these systems, rather than being a slave to an "ism," we get the better parts and don't have to deal with the bad parts. Well, ok, but you will want to ignore everything inthis post but this statement. We have a police-state, a democracy that is ruled by a tyrannical majority, an over-the-top taxation system, and greedy corporate executives. We have to deal with the bad parts. Maybe you can list some more of those "good parts" again for me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GaVak 0 #10 July 22, 2009 Quote Of course. The board is elected by the shareholders. [/Reply] Right. Like generic 401k investors really know what their money is being used for. Corporations are spring boards for a sub-set of business elites. I make CEO of X company, I get my buddies Y and Z (CEO's of other companies) on board and they get on the 'compensation' committee. They give me a nice chunk of shares a year that I sell (at the expense of the company) to increase my personal wealth. In return, I get hired on as a member of their board... oh wow, look, I'm on a compensation committee. .. Rinse. Repeat. And when a company fails? The CEO et al golden parachute out, and some new CEO picks up the pieces and rides the same money pony back to the top. [Reply] Like shareholders who buy low and sell high? [/Reply] Exactly. The entire ‘public’ system is broken. ‘Quick’ money is unrealistic. It has no basis in actual goods or services. [Reply] >Companies that are focused on being profitable without being forced to >try to consistently increase said profit are the only realistic option... And will you pass a law to force shareholders to invest in these slow-growth companies? Personally? I think the public corporation is a broken model in its entirety. Anything that is driven by greed will end up in short-cuts and short comings, period. You can’t continually sell more at a lower cost to generate. It starts with shipping jobs overseas, then support standards being lowered, on to cheaper materials… It’s foolish. It’s why companies like Microsoft try to develop sub-standard operating systems… they don’t WANT it to be something you use for ten years. In fact, they can’t make something that successful AND SATISFY THE SHARE HOLDER. ~GavLife doesn't need reasons, just participants. D.S.#21 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #11 July 22, 2009 >One of the cornerstones of the organization's findings is the fact that many of the dysfunctional behaviors of today's society stem directly from the dehumanizing environment of a monetary system. In addition, automation has resulted in the technological replacement of human labor by machines and eventually most people will not have the purchasing power to buy the goods and services turned out. Hmm. Nice. Does that mean that this Venus project is a viable means of eliminating those problems? We would have to see. I think we ought to delve further into the philosphical issues we already have before wasting our time and money on a hopeful society like this. >The Venus Project proposes a social system in which automation and technology would be intelligently integrated into an overall social design where the primary function would be to maximize the quality of life rather than profits. Nice. >There is no single philosophy or point of view whether religious, political, scientific, or ideological, that someone would not take issue with. Hence, you are prone to having wars and crime. Shit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #12 July 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteInventions and Designs- many of which have been patented and have had wide commercial acceptance. * Systems for noiseless and pollution free aircraft * A new aircraft wing structural system, patented by the US Air Force * An electrostatic system for the elimination of sonic boom for Raymond DeIcer * Boundary layer control and electrodynamic methods for aircraft control that dispenses with ailerons, elevators, rudders, and flaps * A three-wheel automobile consisting of only 32 parts... QuoteJacque Fresco is the founder of Sociocyberneering, Inc., now known as The Venus Project. With his associate Roxanne Meadows, he has designed and built the entire twenty-five acre research facility. The function of this project is to prepare approaches and solutions to the major problems that confront the world today. Television and magazine coverage on the project has been worldwide. Mr. Fresco is available for lectures. For more information... BWAHAHAHHAAH . . . yeah, right. Ok, let's really decode what's going on here. He's a con artist that can't hold a gig, shacking up in a tent with his girlfriend at a swamp in Florida. Send him money and he'll lead the way to a brighter future. This guy ought to get together with Moller.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #13 July 22, 2009 >Like generic 401k investors really know what their money is being used for. Most of them don't - because most of them don't care as long as they're making money. The ones that lose money care, as evinced by the lawsuits brought against companies that lose money for shareholders. >And when a company fails? The CEO et al golden parachute out, >and some new CEO picks up the pieces and rides the same money pony >back to the top. Yep. And the shareholders that get out at the right time laugh all the way to the bank. >The entire ‘public’ system is broken. ‘Quick’ money is unrealistic. It >has no basis in actual goods or services. Nevertheless, it makes people millions. And given a choice between having millions and having a mediocre salary, most people will go for the millions. And many do indeed make millions - which is why people keep doing it. >Anything that is driven by greed will end up in short-cuts and >short comings, period. Why? A greedy company might well decide to make a better quality product than its competitors because they want to corner the market on reliability. (Think Toyota.) Another company might want to sell the cheapest stuff they can to undercut people who don't care about quality (think Wal-Mart.) You then get to choose what you want, low cost or quality. That's how capitalism works. >In fact, they can’t make something that successful AND SATISFY >THE SHARE HOLDER. Sure they can. Microsoft, by anyone's standards, is an incredibly successful company whose products are used worldwide. If they sucked really badly a Linux would take over - so they have to maintain a certain minimum level of quality. Many people hate Microsoft because it is fashionable to hate any large company. That's fine. That doesn't change the fact that they are very successful, have made a lot of money for their shareholder, and are often emulated by others wishing to be that successful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #14 July 22, 2009 >If [Microsoft or Windows] sucked really badly a Linux would take over - so they have to maintain a certain minimum level of quality. Wow. You don't happen to be a software engineer for Microsoft, do you? >Many people hate Microsoft because it is fashionable to hate any large company. Aaand it was founded by a thief. Shit. Microsoft must not be a very good example of how businesses can be responsible on their own. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GaVak 0 #15 July 22, 2009 [Reply] Nevertheless, it makes people millions. And given a choice between having millions and having a mediocre salary, most people will go for the millions. And many do indeed make millions - which is why people keep doing it. Everything has a price; the short sited gain of this generation will be the global emergency of the next. Who cares if some old fuck loses their retirement and has to go be a door greeter at Wal-Mart, or if a company I invest in exports defunct computer equipment to china that ends up ruining the local ecosystem as they break it apart trying to salvage bits of gold. It's ok; I'm laughing all the way to the bank with my millions, right? Seriously, if the personal profit of a short-term few is enough justification for that sort of practice and behavior, I doubt there is much in the way of collaborative debate that will bring us to any sort of subjective middle ground. ~GavLife doesn't need reasons, just participants. D.S.#21 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #16 July 22, 2009 >Wow. You don't happen to be a software engineer for Microsoft, do you? Nope. >Aaand it was founded by a thief. Shit. Microsoft must not be a very good >example of how businesses can be responsible on their own. I didn't claim they were responsible, just that they were successful and had made a shitload of money for a lot of shareholders. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #17 July 22, 2009 Quote >Many people hate Microsoft because it is fashionable to hate any large company. Aaand it was founded by a thief. Shit. Microsoft must not be a very good example of how businesses can be responsible on their own. >just that they were successful and had made a shitload of money for a lot of shareholders. You also made the statement that "many" people hate Microsoft "because it is fashionable to hate a large company." I am willing to say that even those people found other reasons to hate Microsoft, just like the hate many other large companies and their business practices. Many people hate Microsoft because it was founded by a guy who stole the software and ease of use from another company who created that software and ease of use. Many people hate Microsoft because it isn't realistically prone to a competitor's providing a worthy alternative. Macintosh is an expensive and worthless alternative. Buy a mac. Have zero compatibility. Spend a shitload of money to be a part of a "community" of other Mac-buyers. edit: Buy a Linux-box and enjoy spending the rest of your life making it user-friendly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #18 July 22, 2009 >Many people hate Microsoft because it was founded by a guy who stole >the software and ease of use from another company who created that software >and ease of use. Right. But Apple, who stole the concepts for their interface from Xerox PARC, is often supported by those same people, because they're smaller, cooler and are sorta edgy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #19 July 22, 2009 >Right. But Apple, who stole the concepts for their interface from Xerox PARC Brilliant! Thus Microsoft stole something that Apple stole from Xerox. Scum all around! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #20 July 22, 2009 >Brilliant! Thus Microsoft stole something that Apple stole from Xerox. Scum all around! Yep. Everyone is scum. The Constitution stole from the Magna Carta. Ford stole the assembly line from Eli Whitney, who stole the idea from England. Heck, we here at Qualcomm "stole" stuff from Hedy Lamarr. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #21 July 22, 2009 >The Constitution stole from the Magna Carta Isn't that like saying Spanish stole from Latin? Thats kinda different from one business stealing from another business. >Ford stole the assembly line from Eli Whitney, who stole the idea from England (edit) But did he steal the idea of using an assembly line for the purposes of mass producing automobiles from Whitney? Thats a bit harder to relate to stealing an operating system that had the same code and the same interface, with different labels. In this case, with Microsoft, Apple, Xerox, were talking about "stealing" something from another person, that would just so have happened to make that person the wealthiest person on Earth. That's a pretty big deal, bucko. (I will admit it was stupid of both Xerox and Apple to allow a competitor to tour their facilities in the way they did. What a disaster) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #22 July 22, 2009 QuotePure communism doesn't work. Pure capitalism doesn't work. Pure socialism doesn't work. How do you know? Has pure anything ever actually been created and used? FWIW, I do think that pure communism works very well--in extremely small groups, like nuclear families.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #23 July 22, 2009 QuoteRight. But Apple, who stole bought the concepts for their interface from Xerox PARC, is often supported by those same people, because they're smaller, cooler and are sorta edgy. Let's reflect history accurately, shall we? Apple gave Xerox quite a lot of Apple stock to examine and use the GUI concept.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #24 July 22, 2009 QuoteQuotePure communism doesn't work. Pure capitalism doesn't work. Pure socialism doesn't work. How do you know? Has pure anything ever actually been created and used? FWIW, I do think that pure communism works very well--in extremely small groups, like nuclear families. As I recall, didn't they try (and then move away from) this in the original Plymouth colony?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #25 July 22, 2009 QuoteAs I recall, didn't they try (and then move away from) this in the original Plymouth colony? I don't know. The largest groups I know of using real communism in practice are Israeli Kibbutzes (I'm sure I spelled that wrong). I've also seen some anthropological studies of Andean villages set up that way, and apparently functional. The most accessible example for a modern American audience is the traditional nuclear family. The family unit typically shares resources and makes decisions in a very communistic fashion, with a smaller group (the parents) making decisions in the best interest of the whole group (and the children). Sometimes it's dysfunctional, of course, but on the whole it seems to work pretty well. At least, so far my kids have failed in their efforts to reform the system through revolution. Basically, you need a small enough group that everyone knows everyone else, and a situation and/or cultural ethic that impresses the primary need for group survival/prosperity upon the people.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
