Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Problems with Capitalism?

  1. Dec 26, 2015 #141

    WWGD

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think it is only fair to ask you: do you automatically approve of anyone who is successful?
     
  2. Dec 27, 2015 #142

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I find your choice very interesting and curious, considering that Jobs was generally considered an ultra-selfish a-hole (and so much of a selfish nut that he probably caused his own death), whereas Gates basically retired in 2006 to become a full-time philanthropist.

    But Jobs did make trendy ("insanely great!") products, I guess -- at least that's what I've heard; I've never bought one, since he overcharged for them.
     
  3. Dec 27, 2015 #143

    WWGD

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You're right, I should have said along this particular dimension. I don't condone the way Jobs treated people, though I have heard that Gates was not much better in that respect. And Jobs' (meaning Apple's) record in China is questionable.
    Gates' selfishness ended when he decided to become a philanthropist. Before that, his purpose was to win no matter what. He consistently put out products of questionable quality. You would most likely have s**t phones and no music , many other features in computers without Jobs' contribution.


    Bill Gates grew up with a rich father who would bail him out of any mistake, with privileged access to technology by age 15, and despite all of this made no real contributions. His is a record of winning by playing hardball , consistently putting out products of questionable quality. Those who, like me, lack a strong technical background do not have a real option of using Lynux or some other alternative OS; selling to non-technically-savvy people like myself (though this has changed by now) is the means by which microsoft became rich and powerful . So, Gates is a bored rich guy, who never took any real risk, who played to win no-matter-what, who never made any real original contribution. I do give him credit for being a philanthropist, but being one when you have been rich all your life, never taken any real risk, and wining by playing hardball makes his philanthropic record seem less impressive to me.

    Jobs, yes, an a-hole, but he came up from a humble position, had a vision and paid a personal price to see it through -- though he also made others pay for that . He made many original contributions.

    Note that I don't resent Gates being born wealthy, more the fact that he did not make any real sacrifice to give back. I respect the fact that , e.g., George Bush Sr served voluntarily , and so did JFK. And both ran for the presidency. So they did make real sacrifices and gave back. Unlike Gates.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2015
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Problems with Capitalism?
  1. Capitalization? (Replies: 3)

  2. Future of Capitalism (Replies: 49)

Loading...