Republican voters in South Carolina presidential primary are all white

[heironymouspasparagus]

The laws prescribe the minimum amount he is required to pay.  Part of his claim of being unfair is that he is not paying enough.  He could pay more.

The maximum is ALSO dictated by the principal of fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders.  He can donate his own money - as he has stated in a matching donation scenario, so he already IS paying more.

[Conan71]

The maximum is ALSO dictated by the principal of fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders.  He can donate his own money - as he has stated in a matching donation scenario, so he already IS paying more.

So Warren is just another greedy corporatist.  Come on, you can say it!

[heironymouspasparagus]

So Warren is just another greedy corporatist.  Come on, you can say it!

Absolutely, he is.  But he does it in a fundamentally different way.  And shows that being a true capitalist can be very rewarding.

(Contrast that to the mixed performance of Bill Gates - wildly successful, but with a proven inability to perform without questionable actions as proven by numerous corporate convictions.  A very mixed bag.)

[Gaspar]

Absolutely, he is.  But he does it in a fundamentally different way.  And shows that being a true capitalist can be very rewarding.

(Contrast that to the mixed performance of Bill Gates - wildly successful, but with a proven inability to perform without questionable actions as proven by numerous corporate convictions.  A very mixed bag.)

The wealthier you get the more remoras surround you.  No matter how ethical you are, the parasites will attempt to bleed you or burrow into your flesh.  The only way you can avoid this is to make money by proxy.  

Mr. Buffet knows the value of making money by proxy.  No one can choke on his product, slip in his isles, or claim intellectual property rights to his invention.  With a single decision he can make millionaires or put thousands of people on unemployment, but those decisions carry little liability as long as they are within his right to make.

You are comparing two men from two very different worlds.  One designed products that changed the world forever, and made it possible for thousands of new industries to emerge.  The other placed bets, moved money, and manipulated markets.  Both of these men are to be admired.  One as an inventor and innovator, and the other as a gambler.

Both took great risks and are far more worthy of having their pictures on the school room walls then most dead presidents.

[heironymouspasparagus]

You are comparing two men from two very different worlds.  One designed products that changed the world forever, and made it possible for thousands of new industries to emerge.  The other placed bets, moved money, and manipulated markets.  Both of these men are to be admired.  One as an inventor and innovator, and the other as a gambler.

Both took great risks and are far more worthy of having their pictures on the school room walls then most dead presidents.

As with Steve Jobs, Gates is a master at copying what others have done and marketing it - seldom or never as an inventor or innovator - he and his have always been "first to be second".  Or even third or fourth to be 'second'.  And as we see, that can be an excellent place to be - put him at the top of the 'rich guy' list.  Doesn't hurt that IBM had such poor vision - another one of those 'bad management' cases.  

[Gaspar]

As with Steve Jobs, Gates is a master at copying what others have done and marketing it - seldom or never as an inventor or innovator - he and his have always been "first to be second".  Or even third or fourth to be 'second'.  And as we see, that can be an excellent place to be - put him at the top of the 'rich guy' list.  Doesn't hurt that IBM had such poor vision - another one of those 'bad management' cases.  

I guess I'm unfamiliar with what Steve and Bill copied. 

Are you saying that some poor bloke invented DOS, Windows, iPhone, iPad, and all of the technologies that followed?

Sure, once you get to the top, everything else is just a race to market, but that in itself is also worth admiration.

I'm sure that there are successful people that you don't hate?

[we vs us]

You are comparing two men from two very different worlds.  One designed products that changed the world forever, and made it possible for thousands of new industries to emerge.  The other placed bets, moved money, and manipulated markets.  Both of these men are to be admired.  One as an inventor and innovator, and the other as a gambler.

That's a fascinating formulation.  Does the "gambler" moniker hold true for Mitt, too?

[Conan71]

I guess I'm unfamiliar with what Steve and Bill copied. 

Are you saying that some poor bloke invented DOS, Windows, iPhone, iPad, and all of the technologies that followed?

Sure, once you get to the top, everything else is just a race to market, but that in itself is also worth admiration.

I'm sure that there are successful people that you don't hate?

He probably took "Pirates of Silicon Valley" as gospel in geekdom.

[Gaspar]

That's a fascinating formulation.  Does the "gambler" moniker hold true for Mitt, too?

Somewhat?  What's wrong with gamblers?

Without risk-takers, everyone would be on welfare and no one would be around to pay for it.

[we vs us]

Somewhat?  What's wrong with gamblers?

Without risk-takers, everyone would be on welfare and no one would be around to pay for it.

Nothing in particular wrong with gambling, per se . . . but I could hear your disgust for Buffet over here at my desk, though.   Not a lot of glowing superlatives in your description.

[Gaspar]

Nothing in particular wrong with gambling, per se . . . but I could hear your disgust for Buffet over here at my desk, though.   Not a lot of glowing superlatives in your description.

On the contrary.  I admire Buffet.  I just admire Jobs and Gates far more.  I in no way mean to downplay the importance of money-movers.

[nathanm]

I just admire Jobs and Gates far more.

I would think you'd admire the people who actually invented the technologies more. As Gates once said to Jobs regarding Windows copying MacOS,
"Hey, Steve, just because you broke into Xerox's house before I did and took the TV doesn't mean I can't go in later and take the stereo."

Also, how private equity works:

http://baselinescenario.com/2012/01/27/what-is-private-equity/

[heironymouspasparagus]

I guess I'm unfamiliar with what Steve and Bill copied. 

Are you saying that some poor bloke invented DOS, Windows, iPhone, iPad, and all of the technologies that followed?

Sure, once you get to the top, everything else is just a race to market, but that in itself is also worth admiration.

I'm sure that there are successful people that you don't hate?

Please pardon the repetition here...

Bill copied CP/M, then copied Apple (Macintosh).
There were variations from which DOS was derived.  CP/M (Gary Kildall) was DOS where you had to swap floppies between each operation.  DOS' big improvement was to make it so you could leave the disk in between times - essentially the only difference.  Got to DOS 6 which was finally a pretty decent little way to move around in the system.  (Kildall was kind of stupid - he let IBM cool their heels when he should have been selling his product.)

Then came Windows 3.  Almost a useable "monitor" system for a computer - notice I did NOT say operating system.  It wasn't.  But derived from stealing from Apple, who stole from Xerox.

Multi-tasking came from all the computer operating systems before Windows - and was LONG overdue by the time they finally released it.  Then took another 15 years to get it workable!  (20+ years behind the Macintosh...)

Word exists because of Wordperfect.  Excel after Lotus.  



Steve Jobs copied everything that Apple does.
Steve copied Xerox for the 'windows' type system that he put in the Macintosh.  The i-Everything is a copy of what other people had been doing for years.  Pod as a smaller version of Sony Walkman.  Phone - well that's obvious.  Pad - something that has been talked about for decades and arguably started with the little "electronic address books" of the late 70's.  If want to go back far enough, it is an electrification of a clipboard - with lots of bells and whistles.

Copied Altair which came out in 1975, while Apple I didn't come along for a year or so later.

Xerox Alto was first 'desktop' style machine to use a mouse and graphical user interface (Mac and Windows).

Lot of things going on in the 70's (and 80's) and a lot of people were seeing new product niche's for things others had done.  Almost an "infill" process going on - fill the gaps in areas made obvious from an advance in one area.  Infill still going on.  We are still trying to fill all the holes where technology has not yet penetrated.  Not much that is truly "new" going on - we are deriving!


I don't hate Bill.  Or Steve Jobs.  Or Buffet.  I admire them and what they have accomplished.  Have worked with the first two's 'stuff' since the early days.  First IBM PC in 1982 using DOS 1.1, them upgraded to 2.0, then 2.2. - see link below for picture of first one that I still have (another first to be second or third or fourteenth).  First Mac in 1984 - much nicer, but the screen was too small.

I don't lionize or deify them, though.  They have all done fantastic things that I can only dream about through abilities that I don't have.  Or haven't been able to capitalize on....

http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/pc25/pc25_intro.html

[JCnOwasso]

I am not sure I would look at Buffet as a 'gambler'.  Although his acquisition of BN seemed to be a little bit of a gamble, 99.8% of his other investments have been in areas where growth is inevitable.  He does not make off the cuff decisions, they are well thought out.  They are not short term decisions either.  If he is buying, he is buying to hold, not sell in 3 months.  From what I remember of Berks acquisitions, it is to acquire a company or business that is already well run and secure in its financials... whereas Bain bought, evaluated and either completely reorganized or shuttered... or Completely reorganized, took 500 Million in funds and then went into bankruptcy (Stewart or Colbert had something on that the other day).

Buffet is a Business man who wants to make money and does not want to make bad decisions and wanted to make sure all the employees were not put at risk.

Bain (Mittard) would turn a bad situation into a good one, for his company, I don't think he really cared much for the employees of the companies they bought out.  Of course that is really just my opinion on him.  

[heironymouspasparagus]

On the contrary.  I admire Buffet.  I just admire Jobs and Gates far more.  I in no way mean to downplay the importance of money-movers.

Buffet has been a massive "enabler" for the companies he invests in.  Allowing them the luxury of getting a capital infusion to grow/expand.  Creating jobs, markets, new products, etc. etc.