From: Robbie Lindauer (robblin@thetip.org)
Date: Mon Aug 25 2003 - 09:53:07 MDT
On Sunday, August 24, 2003, at 02:52 PM, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> Huh? Microsoft owns a few acres over in Redmond and perhaps a few
> other places -- can hardly be considered a "feudal" landlord.
Interesting story. Look again at the institutional ownership of
Microsoft. Bill Gates managed to retain a significant amount, but not
MORE SIGNIFICANT than Barclays which, as you probably know, is in fact
run by the great-grand-son of a feudal lord who retains the title Lord.
And Microsoft HARDLY runs the world. They are rent-payers
> The Microsoft Empire was built in less than 25 years. It started,
> relatively speaking, from zero property and zero means of production --
Well, this is an interesting take on it. The original price of QDOS
was either 50k or 75k, not sure which. I understand that the story
about how he acquired that money and the contract from IBM, then as now
one of the biggest companies on the planet, is interesting and not
officially published.
In any case, I wouldn't call 75k "NO PROPERTY" even today, certainly
not 25 years ago.
> it also does relatively little for the "military" compared with say
> Boeing or Lockheed.
Yes and no. The military won't use windows because it's too crappy.
But this doesn't mean that the Military isn't protecting Bill's
interest. You didn't notice the sudden shift in Microsoft's legal
problems during the last two years compared with, say, the previous 10
when it was being sued monthly for unfair business practices (and
losing). Now they might be considered the luckiest guys on the block -
you can't use Linux for free anymore. It's like God gave Bill a gift.
> The same could largely be said for Oracle.
You didn't notice the news about the unreviewed Oracle Contracts for
the state of California?
> If
> you want to take the discussion out of the software realm, one might
> look at 3M or even GE.
You think that 3M and GE are somehow "outside" of the money nexus?
> The idea that the "rent-collectors" drive things now-a-days is absurd.
That you can point to a handful of billionaires that have shifted in
some small way the power-structure in the short-run (Dell, Gateway,
Microsoft, Oracle, Seibel) the long-money still controls just about
everything. Just because Bill Gates doesn't pay rent every month
doesn't mean that the rest of us don't. So that would be ONLY
99.9999999% of people pay roughly half their money to rent-collectors.
Is that your point?
In any case, obviously you didn't look at the institutional ownership
list. Here it is again for future reference.
http://www.thetip.org/snptotals.txt
Not very nicely formatted, but useful information.
The BANKS that own upwards of 40% of every company on the S&P 500 and
control more than 70% are the rent collectors - they own both the
companies, the underlying land, and the means of acquiring capital.
They are protected by our government VERY WELL, better than the people
are! If you want to continue the metaphor to feudal times, the feudal
lords had several kinds of knights - the warriors, the management and
the tax collectors. For the disney version, check out Robin Hood.
Since the advent of global capitalization (not to say Global Capital),
the value of the management/banking people has increased, but the
underlying threat of violence is still there, and nowadays not so
veiled, cf. the thread on Incarceration rates in the US.
Best,
Robbie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 25 2003 - 10:04:10 MDT