Buffet and Gates (1 Viewer)

[cranston36]

Well, he’s gone.
Or good as gone.
Bill Gates is out.
Mr. Buffett, the second richest man in the world, is giving him billions of dollars for his charity foundation.
That is probably the best thing that Mr. Buffett has done for the world.
By getting Bill Gates out of the corporate world and into charity Mr. Buffett has done great things for the world economy.
There is no guarantee that things will change at Microsoft.
Maybe the new CEO Steve Ballmer will run things the same.
My friends call him ‘that screaming, hopping, monkey-man’ - in an affectionate sort of way, of course.
Perhaps now we will begin to see real advances in software for business and scientific use.
Can we look forward to a flowering of software companies across the nation that will now be free of a company whose main product seems to have become litigation rather than innovation?
Mr. Buffett has given Mr. Gates a chance to correct what he wrought with his army of lawyers. He will dole out cash to hungry and starving men and women that might be doing well right now if his company hadn’t worked so hard to stifle competition and interfere with the operation of our court system.
The man with the golden touch is going to touch the poor.
Let us hope they do not wither and die under his attention like competition and fair trade have done.
‘Ding-dong, the witch is dead. Which old witch? The wicked witch.’

 

[Spartacus FPV]

And just what unfair trade practices did Mr Gates commit in order to stifle competition?

 

[Kelzie]

Moderator's Warning:

Moving to...economics?

 

[SFLRN]

Yeah but the thing is people actively choose to go with Microsoft. Thus reinforcing the idea of consumer sovereignty wherein the consumer votes with their dollar for which product they want on the market. Sure after awhile it became a case of brand loyalty by the consumer. But the key thing we have to remember is that it was the consumer who picked Microsoft, and thus lead to their (Microsoft's) success.

 

[cranston36]

Surely you recall Microsoft was locked in court about unfair trade practices and monopoly. You do remember that don't you?

 

[SFLRN]

Yes I do recall that. But what you're forgetting is how they got to the position where it seemed they had no relative competition, consumers. Consumer picked their product and they liked it. So they kept with it. Thats how they were originially able to gain such a strong share of the market, making something people wanted to buy. They also helped lead the way for the technical revolution. Sure, they did violate trust laws and they've paid for it. But to say that on the whole their policies have had a negative economic impact is simply incorrect.

 

[Kelzie]

So am I the only one who looks at these two fine human beings donating a combined $61 BILLION dollars to charity and thinks that was rather kind of them?

 

[cranston36]

Kelzie,

They haven't given the money to anyone. They put it in a foundation. What form does the money have? Is it stocks? Bonds? Cash? Is there a limit on the dispersal rate other than the whims of Bill Gates, his wife and whoever is on the board?

They possess a wealth of cash that would otherwise, upon Buffet's death, proceed back into the general economy.

By holding money back and directing it to those items they feel are important they are :
1. Slowing the economy
2. Attempting to play God
3. Giving power to the unelected

Imagine if you child needed a vaccine and the only place you could get it from was the Gates Foundation. (Of course your government wouldn't consider it a concern because the Gates Foundation was handing it out). But then you found out that your child couldn't get the vaccine because the Gates Foundation determined that the children across the river were either poorer than your child or had more promise in the future. Imagine again your relief when you find out that the vaccine that had been distributed across the river was contaminated and many of the children treated had been disfigured or killed.

Buffet did the world a favor by getting Gates out of the software business. You can't imagine how competition has suffered in this country. We can only hope it will not continue now that the driving force behind that oppression is gone.

The money will be redistributed slowly anyway. That much money will not be handled efficiently.

I pray that not too many die at the hands of these amateurs.

 

[SFLRN]

Yes Kelzie I got a bit caught up in the economic debate, it is great they're giving this to charity. cranston you're whole story holds no economic weight. It won't slow the economy by investing in science and development of vaccines and treatments for diseases. In fact it helps because more people (since less would die) equals more productivity, not to mention the fact that more treatment equates to more lives saved. Who will die from them investing in disease prevention in poor countries along with the developement of infrastructure of those said poor countries? It is quite apparent that this was a great contribution by them and that it will be much more beneficial by spurring research and development and saving lives.

 

[cranston36]

They give most of their money to 501 (3) (c) charities in the United States. They are not really charities - they are usually community funds that local individuals can put money in to get taxes deferred or to get their taxes lightened. One of the funds I am acquainted with gives college money to children of affluent parents for various reasons after they take certain tests made available to them. Recently one child received thirty thousand dollars to go to college to learn how to make video games.

Maybe your kids can get some free coloring books from them sometime - on subjects like how to brush their teeth and why watching tv is good for them.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/ForGrantSeekers/

Some which might fit this are :
Masonic Foundation
Abbot Evangelical Free Church
Carabana Ensemble Theater Company Inc.
115Th and 196th Field Artillery Battalion Association Inc.
4th Royal Artillery in America

So much for saving the world.

 

[Kelzie]

They give most of their money to 501 (3) (c) charities in the United States. They are not really charities - they are usually community funds that local individuals can put money in to get taxes deferred or to get their taxes lightened. One of the funds I am acquainted with gives college money to children of affluent parents for various reasons after they take certain tests made available to them. Recently one child received thirty thousand dollars to go to college to learn how to make video games.

Maybe your kids can get some free coloring books from them sometime - on subjects like how to brush their teeth and why watching tv is good for them.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/ForGrantSeekers/

Some which might fit this are :
Masonic Foundation
Abbot Evangelical Free Church
Carabana Ensemble Theater Company Inc.
115Th and 196th Field Artillery Battalion Association Inc.
4th Royal Artillery in America

So much for saving the world.

You're joking right? I do not even begin to understand how you can trivialize what this foundation does. Here's some of the groups they fund:

Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH)
$27,844,078 over 5 years to strengthen the capability of developing countries to reduce cervical cancer incidence and deaths.

Global Solutions for Infectious Diseases
$7,991,181 over 3 years to acquire and disseminate information that will further the development of a safe and effective HIV vaccine.

Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam
$357,500 over 1 year to support the AIDS Vaccine 2006 conference which will bring together scientists in the field of HIV vaccine research.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
$22,577,887 over 5 years to conduct Phase III trials and obtain egulatory approval for an oral drug for early stage African sleeping sickness

International AIDS Society
$230,000 over 9 months to convene an HIV/AIDS conference in Eastern Europe and Central Asia to address the particular characteristics of the epidemic in the region

University of Witwatersrand
$997,138 over 42 months to determine whether application of a safe, cheap disinfectant to the birth canal during labor and newborn at birth prevents maternal and newborn bacterial infections in resource poor settings with high maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality

And that's just the beginning! Anyone who says Gates isn't doing any good needs to reevaluate their opinion on human life.

 

[Jay R]

Yeah but the thing is people actively choose to go with Microsoft. Thus reinforcing the idea of consumer sovereignty wherein the consumer votes with their dollar for which product they want on the market.

Consumer picked their product and they liked it. So they kept with it. Thats how they were originially able to gain such a strong share of the market, making something people wanted to buy.

I don't actually know of anyone who has gone out made a decision to purchase Microsoft product over an alternative, most people buy a computer and it has an operating system already installed, this is usually a Windows system as Microsoft makes deals with the companies assembling hardware packages to ensure they ship with it's operating systems. For most people the decision of what operating system to use is made by the the company they bought from, there's no competition for their dollars. You could argue that they could choose a hardware manufacturer that uses an alternative OS but for most people price is a major concern, and sourcing from a smaller manufacturer may be prohibitively expensive, again they don't have a choice as if they wish their computer to be affordable they have to go with one of the larger manufacturers, most of whom use Microsoft exclusively. The market could be seen to be loading the dice in Microsoft's favour.

Gates is stepping out of the day to day running as I understand, he still maintains his controlling stake in the business, in that case I'd imagine he'll still be keeping a close eye on things. Both of them can afford to put their hands in their pockets, which is far better than those rich boys Geldof and Bono telling me and you to give as much as we can.

 

[drobforever]

You could argue that they could choose a hardware manufacturer that uses an alternative OS but for most people price is a major concern, and sourcing from a smaller manufacturer may be prohibitively expensive, again they don't have a choice as if they wish their computer to be affordable they have to go with one of the larger manufacturers, most of whom use Microsoft exclusively. The market could be seen to be loading the dice in Microsoft's favour.

There are other OS that's FREE for you to install right now. How expensive is it to use something free?

 

[SFLRN]

Yet again their cheap price is another example of market economics. You produce something thats cheaper then manufacturers would choose that over a comparable and more expensive product. Its like me telling you its unfair that McDonalds picked a wrapper that costs 50 cents over a wrapper that costs one dollar. Of course it would harder for a smaller company and more expensive for them to produce something, thats how it is in any modern day market economy, not just software. They (the consumers) could also decide to use another OS as indicated above. What kind of statistics are there to prove that Microsofts huge success is leading to higher prices (the sign of monopoly)? Furthermore, if this OS was so flawed then people would have demanded something else, and some have which they are free to do under the market economy. But many like it, or like it enough that they do not wish to switch to another product (which enforces the concept of brand loyalty).

 

[Jay R]

There are other OS that's FREE for you to install right now. How expensive is it to use something free?

I couldn't tell you. How difficult is it to remove and replace an operating system?

If I buy a cell phone I get a choice of the network I wish to use to provide my connections I don't have to buy a more expensive phone for an alternative network. As a consumer I get the choice of my hardware and network. When I buy a PC I can choose my hardware, then I get the software package that the manufacturer has decided I can have, if I want an alternative I have to choose a manufacturer who uses my preferred OS, probably at extra cost, or I have to undertake sourcing and replacing the OS myself. It may not be a major problem, as you correctly point out most people will just make do with what comes in the box and couldn't care less, but it's still not exactly conducive to competition.

 

[drobforever]

I couldn't tell you. How difficult is it to remove and replace an operating system?

Pretty low if you have a friend that knows how to do it. If you don't, you can always buy a system with other OS on it so you don't have to replace it. In case you don't know, you can now buy PC system on DXXL with OS that's not windows.

 

[SFLRN]

I couldn't tell you. How difficult is it to remove and replace an operating system?

If I buy a cell phone I get a choice of the network I wish to use to provide my connections I don't have to buy a more expensive phone for an alternative network. As a consumer I get the choice of my hardware and network. When I buy a PC I can choose my hardware, then I get the software package that the manufacturer has decided I can have, if I want an alternative I have to choose a manufacturer who uses my preferred OS, probably at extra cost, or I have to undertake sourcing and replacing the OS myself. It may not be a major problem, as you correctly point out most people will just make do with what comes in the box and couldn't care less, but it's still not exactly conducive to competition.

How else does a company effectively sell computers then? Do they simply not sell the OS? Do they offer multiple OSs? Thats not necessarily cost effective for them so they decide to stick with one. Sure that may not be complete competition.

 

[Kelzie]

How else does a company effectively sell computers then? Do they simply not sell the OS? Do they offer multiple OSs? Thats not necessarily cost effective for them so they decide to stick with one. Sure that may not be complete competition.

Such is life. Perfect competition exists in...umm...agriculture and that's about it. Least, I can't think of any others.

 

[drobforever]

How else does a company effectively sell computers then? Do they simply not sell the OS? Do they offer multiple OSs? Thats not necessarily cost effective for them so they decide to stick with one. Sure that may not be complete competition.

Actually as long as the demand for other OS is not too low, it's cost effective to sell systems with different OS. You just go from 1 line to 2 line before finish, and since other OS are free, the only additional cost would be the cost of setting up another line, which is fixed.

Like I said, companies have started doing that.

 

[Kelzie]

That's pure competition. There are many imperfections in pure competition (such as the lack of response to differences in quality).

It's perfect competition, and in perfect competition, there is no difference in quality. That's the point, otherwise it's not perfectly matched. There's no difference between wheat. There is a perceived difference between Prada and Payless, even though they both offer shoes.

It's not an imperfection, per se, it's just the way it is. Doesn't make it better or worse than say monopolistic competition.

 

[Kelzie]

But I'm assuming Prada makes better shoes than Payless (I get all my shoes at Walmart), and thus it would be an imperfection in the market if Payless shoes cost the same as Prada (if you consider it possible for there to be imperfections in markets)

For example, say someone works really hard, and tries new agricultural tactics and ends up with the most delicious corn imaginable. Barring actually creating one's own business and that farmer differentiating his corn (which is just about impossible), that person will get paid the exactly the same as the dude who's growing corn that's just above feed quality.

I was reading a PJ O'Rourke book (yeah, I know, I was reading, SHOCKING!) and he was describing his experiences in Ukraine relatively soon after the fall of the USSR. He pointed out that one of the most notable problems in the market is that all products are classified broadly, and there's standardized pricing, for example all meat costs the same, be it the highest quality veal or the type of **** they use to make cheeseburgers in public high schools.

And a problem one could point out is, without differentation based on quality, you remove motive for the producer to make a higher quality product.

Now on the other hand, I would argue that markets make up for these problems. This is why Georgia peaches cost more than run of the mill peaches, because there is a higher demand for higher quality peaches. I would argue that it is this aspect that makes markets perfect, but this is not a feature that is exclusive to pure competition markets. Barring collaboration (which I'm pretty sure is illegal, although since when did that ever stop anyone), as long as a market is not a monopoly, than this feature exists, and thus all competitive markets could be considered perfect.

Okay fine. Gap and Guess. Burger King and McDonalds. There is no huge difference between them, but they still produce different products and so cannot be held to the same rule as in perfect competition.

If a wheat farmer raises his price, he will sell absolutely nothing because the next guys wheat is a perfect substitute. If McDs raised their price, they might lose some customers, but some would stay because they prefer their product. All competitive markets are not perfect.

 

[Kelzie]

If they are percieved by the consumer to be perfectly interchangable, then if one costs more than the other, the consumer will go to the cheaper one. This is true in all markets.

Thus if McD's raised their price, the ones that switch over to Burger King percieve them to be interchangable, or at least interchangable enough that it is not worth sticking with McD's. Now the ones that stick with McD's do perceive a superiority in quality. This is not an imperfection at all, that's people liking something more than something else.

So yeah, I'm confused what makes you think product preference is an imperfection, so if you could explain that to me, then I might have a better idea what you're getting at.

Man I don't think so. It's a phrase used in economics to describe a certain market. There's perfect competition, monopolistic competition, oligopoly...some others I can't remember now.

 

[Kelzie]

yeah, we covered this too, except it was called pure competition.

We only had 4, pure competition, monopolistic competition, oligopoly, and monopoly.

Oh. They should really decide on one and stick to it.

 

[Kelzie]

I prefer pure, because perfect is too subjective, since there are obviously people who get somewhat ****ed in any market.

Well I don't think they mean perfect like "ideal" more like "completely" competitive.

 

[Kelzie]

Completely? Hmmm, that would be sort of like saying, what's that word, starts with a p...oh yeah, pure! :2razz:

We suck, we're debating absolutely nothing

No you suck. :nahnah: