Date: Sun Feb 03 2002 - 14:08:43 MST
In a message dated 2/3/2002 3:15:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,
<< Does Bill really need $60 billion? Sheesh, won't a paltry couple of
do anymore? >>
Far be it from me to defend this generations' Citizen Kane, but, he and Paul
Allen marketed a mediocre product very well, and wisely have shared their
operating system codes for over 20 years. Thus, has pushed them as the
chieftans of operating systems, browsers and software. Apple Computer, with a
superior operating system, held on like a miser to a copper penny and was
thus trounced in the market, and has been, if memory serves, supported by
their chief rival, MicroGod. So who should control the wealth that Apple
essentially handed over to him? Is Bubba Clinton or Richard Nixon the correct
people to have us decide how rich one can get?
<<Granted, again, this is from my own personal experience ... but it is the
overwhelming majority of rich people I've known who have avoided doing real
work and it is the middle class or poorer people I've observed who have done
the most work, often to ease the life for the "poor" rich blokes.
Well, if the middle class folks wish to continue being the victim, whose
fault is that? The rich who have inherited their wealth are, indeed,
frequently schmucks, but give money to the kiddies is kind of a right, don't
you think? Also, what's real work, as you define it. Does the poor ditch
digger or burger flipper, deserve more money then some lazy insurance
salesman, or some keyboard cowboy, such as myself? A Union Bricklayer
assuredly gets more valuta then I, but I don't wish to bust my ass working
physically as hard as said, Bricklayer.
Envy is a piss-poor reason to push for changes. There are more useful reasons
to honk for change, such as better, fairer, freer, technologies. Even,
Freeman (the socialist) Dyson has advocated this. So lets focus on thangs
that make people happier, richer, and more secure.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:37 MST