Friday Food For Thought

[Mizar]

Ever heard of a loan. You have a house, mortgage it. along with the car and use the money in your bank account. There are no shortage of stories of people who did. Most didn't make it of course. The failure rate is high. And you would likely fail as well and you know it. That is why you won't take the risk. But some who do will be very successful. And deservedly so.

For you, I suggest you stick to the middle class successful career you have made for yourself like so many others. It is very worthy of respect. But stop making excuses for not having an opportunity to join the 0.1%. The opportunity is always there, but the likelihood is small.

[inchman]

Gates did not buy CP/M. He had recommended it to IBM (so he was clearly on the inside track, to be talking with IBM), but its developer, Gary Kildal, did not cooperate to sell his software to IBM... one of those guys who should have been in the top 0.1% of the unbelievably rich but passed on the chance. Gates bought a product supposedly based on QDOS and improved on it before selling it as MS-DOS. Interestingly, Kildall was trying to sell copies of CP/M for 8086 at $240 while Microsoft was selling MS-DOS for $40. Kildall eventually developed DR-DOS, but that didn't last all that long and Digital Research eventually failed.

Who knows what our computers would look like now if DR-DOS had been the OS of choice for IBM PC's. By the sounds of things, as much as we all like to bash Microsoft, Kildal simply didn't have the vision that Gates had.

There has been a history of accusations that QDOS, thus MS-DOS had copied CP/M but I found this guy who says he has ripped apart both products and can't find any common code other than a couple of unrelated variables. http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/did-bill-gates-steal-the-heart-of-dos

....

As for an operating system (OS) for an IBM computer, since Microsoft had never written an operating system before, Gates had suggested that IBM investigate an OS called CP/M (Control Program for Microcomputers), written by Gary Kildall of Digital Research. Kindall had his Ph.D. in computers and had written the most successful operating system of the time, selling over 600,000 copies of CP/M, his operating system set the standard at that time.

The Secret Birth of MS-DOS

IBM tried to contact Gary Kildall for a meeting, executives met with Mrs Kildall who refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement. IBM soon returned to Bill Gates and gave Microsoft the contract to write a new operating system, one that would eventually wipe Gary Kildall's CP/M out of common use.

The "Microsoft Disk Operating System" or MS-DOS was based on Microsoft's purchase of QDOS, the "Quick and Dirty Operating System" written by Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products, for their prototype Intel 8086 based computer.

However, ironically QDOS was based (or copied from as some historians feel) on Gary Kildall's CP/M. Tim Paterson had bought a CP/M manual and used it as the basis to write his operating system in six weeks. QDOS was different enough from CP/M to be considered legally a different product. IBM had deep enough pockets in any case to probably have won an infringement case, if they had needed to protect their product. Microsoft bought the rights to QDOS for $50,000, keeping the IBM & Microsoft deal a secret from Tim Paterson and his company, Seattle Computer Products.

[chockalicious]

I don't think most people begrudge anyone the right to join or aspire to become poart of the 1%.

What rankles people is the power, wealth and access that the 1% enjoy and how it can be mostly used so that it only exclusively benefits the same 1%.

I think what people are questioning is if it is really the best for society to have so much wealth concentrated in so few hands.

[boestar]

My point is that the common thread is, above all else Money. Sure you have to have smarts but it's all about the money.

[inchman]

Some people... as a matter of fact many VERY rich people started with little more than gumption.

Warren Buffet:

Even as a child, Buffett displayed an interest in making and saving money. He went door to door selling chewing gum, Coca-Cola, or weekly magazines. For a while, he worked in his grandfather's grocery store. While still in high school he was successful in making money by delivering newspapers, selling golfballs and stamps, and detailing cars, among other means. Filing his first income tax return in 1944, Buffett took a $35 deduction for the use of his bicycle and watch on his paper route.^[18] In 1945, in his sophomore year of high school, Buffett and a friend spent $25 to purchase a used pinball machine, which they placed in the local barber shop. Within months, they owned several machines in different barber shops.

Yeah... his father was a politico and stock broker, but it would appear that Buffet would have ended up in almost the same place as long as he was able to attend school. He didn't go anywhere fancy.

And yes, in his case and in the case of Gates, having the money concentrated does do some greater good. If their billions was spread among the masses, most of it would be spent on beer, cigarettes and guns. They have both pledged to give away 99% of their wealth by the time they die.

[boestar]

Some people... as a matter of fact many VERY rich people started with little more than gumption.

Warren Buffet:

Even as a child, Buffett displayed an interest in making and saving money. He went door to door selling chewing gum, Coca-Cola, or weekly magazines. For a while, he worked in his grandfather's grocery store. While still in high school he was successful in making money by delivering newspapers, selling golfballs and stamps, and detailing cars, among other means. Filing his first income tax return in 1944, Buffett took a $35 deduction for the use of his bicycle and watch on his paper route.^[18] In 1945, in his sophomore year of high school, Buffett and a friend spent $25 to purchase a used pinball machine, which they placed in the local barber shop. Within months, they owned several machines in different barber shops.

Yeah... his father was a politico and stock broker, but it would appear that Buffet would have ended up in almost the same place as long as he was able to attend school. He didn't go anywhere fancy.

And yes, in his case and in the case of Gates, having the money concentrated does do some greater good. If their billions was spread among the masses, most of it would be spent on beer, cigarettes and guns. They have both pledged to give away 99% of their wealth by the time they die.

INVESTMENT of $25 in order to make more.

[conehead]

INVESTMENT of $25 in order to make more.

$12.50, he had a partner. But he earned that start-up capital through hard work.

Edit; I just calculated that the $25 in 1945 had the same purchasing power as $321 in 2012... It would not be too difficult for a teenager today today to save up $321 from his part-time job...if he worked hard.

[Mitch Cronin]

I'd be guessing you couldn't buy a working, used pinball machine for $321 these days. ...so there's a hole in that "purchasing power" calculation.

[Edit] Crikey! I might just be wrong about that: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Gottlieb-Pinball-Pool-Pinball-Machine-/171180801942?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27db2bbf96

...though that one's for "local pick-up" in Long Beach CA. (and has 12 hours left)..... other's seem to go for not less than $1000?

[boestar]

Rich:

There is a Kids haircutting place in Milton that had X-Box, PS3 etc. for kids to use WHILE IN THE CHAIR as well as waiting.

Again the point is that in every case an initial investment is need from the individual. Sure that investment may have come from hard work, Borrowing, Stealing, Whatever but any initial startup requires some form of capital to get moving. Hard work alone will not make you rich. People work hard their whole lives and break even. HArd work is most definately part of the equation but there are thousands of people who have worked hard and have developed a great (Product, Idea, etc.) and cannot get it off the ground without MONEY. Investment capitalists are there for that one reason. to supply the money in return for some of the profit from the hard work of others. Money is always the bottom line.

[DEFCON]

Most people may be jealous to a degree, but they don't really resent another man for being a hard-working success story. We resent the leach, whether he's a bottom dwelling expectation driven user, or a top dwelling, born into wealth, expectation driven slurp.

[Mizar]

Most people may be jealous to a degree, but they don't really resent another man for being a hard-working success story. We resent the leach, whether he's a bottom dwelling expectation driven user, or a top dwelling, born into wealth, expectation driven slurp.

Considering that many airline pilots like yourself are in the upper percentage of income in Canada, and the likelihood that you will pass on your accumulated wealth to your children, I suppose that relative to a large percentage of society, your kids are leaches and slurps.

[DEFCON]

Yes Mizar, I guess they would be to some degree. My comments were actually directed more at the family that harbours multiple generations of do-nothings that possess little more than attitude and are demonstrably incapable of producing much of anything. Their very existence is almost entirely dependant on their remaining firmly attached to and suckling at the teat of some long past benefactor. The 'extended' families of America's past industrial elite come to mind.

[Mizar]

My comments were actually directed more at the family that harbours multiple generations of do-nothings that possess little more than attitude and are demonstrably incapable of producing much of anything. Their very existence is almost entirely dependant on their remaining firmly attached to and suckling at the teat of some long past benefactor. The 'extended' families of America's past industrial elite come to mind.

Quite possible. But I am not aware of any specific examples. Out of curiosity, can you provide some for particular individuals that made you come to this conclusion and where you got the information from.

[chockalicious]

I think if I am reading Defcon correctly he is speaking of those "trust fund baby" types.

There are those (some, certainly not all) who are quick to give a pull yourself up by the bootstrap conversation yet all of their wealth comes from inheireted money.

I don't think most people resent wealth, it is the attitude from those who did nothing to earn that weath that can be grating.

ETA: http://www.parishilton.com/

[conehead]

:Grin-Nod:

(hamster gets nothing).

Hamster's going to dispute the Will.

[boestar]

Look at 80% of big lottery winners who declare bankruptcy within 10 years. It does take brains to manage money. Those who manage it well will be able to pass it on to their kids. I do not begrudge anyone of this. I do hate the lazy, rich , rub it in your face types who did nothing to earn it though.

[Mizar]

ETA: http://www.parishilton.com/

I thought Paris Hilton's name might come up. She seems like a fairly shallow in many ways, immature kind of person. But in the end, she has done a lot of work(including an infamous video I might add) to create her image and bring in a lot of money. You may not like her behaviour but the bottom line is that she has likely done a lot of work for making reality shows(however much many may dislike the theme), made music(however much you may not like her music) and started lines of fashion. This takes work and has brought in a lot of money for her(although I think it got her cutoff from some inheritance).

Anyways, this whole thread started with someone suggesting that laws be broken to redistribute wealth. Now we have further down in the thread someone named. Does anyone think that we should start civil disobedience in an effort to get at Paris's inheritance or should perhaps the ballot box be used to re-elect more democrats in order to pass further increases on taxes that Obama has called for. If that is what people want.

[boestar]

how about we have a choice for an elected government that is fiscally responsible and has the ability to drive a proper tax reform policy that would see equal taxation across all classes at a flat rate. That would be a good start. Then may the corporations could stop paying their top executives totally outrageous salaries and bonuses that could be better served going back into the company or passed on the employees that keep the company going.

[boestar]

unfortunately we, as Canadians, are inundated with information from the USA and that is what the general populace bases many of their assumptions on. Since "We really aren't that different" . I think to some degree we are all guilty of this.

[chockalicious]

Not that I really want to debate the merits of Paris Hilton but regardless of what or where she is now, her wealth and family name was what gave her entrance in to the celebrity world. Had her name been Paris Smith she would have been just another exhibitionist trying to carve out a Hollywood career.

[Mizar]

Not that I really want to debate the merits of Paris Hilton but regardless of what or where she is now, her wealth and family name was what gave her entrance in to the celebrity world. Had her name been Paris Smith she would have been just another exhibitionist trying to carve out a Hollywood career.

Trying to concentrate on Canadian things after the above posts...

Similar with a lot of people, like Justin Trudeau. Probably would still be a camp councillor/dance instructor or whatever it was that he used to do.

[DEFCON]

Mizar

Although doing little to answer your question, here's a Wiki link to some interesting information regarding American wealth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealthiest_Americans_(1957)

Even though I haven't answered your challenge, I think you might agree, it's not much of a stretch to presume; inherited wealth, as opposed to that which is earned, has and continues to support the lifestyles of many of old money's extended family members. In my experience it's often those that come up short on personal accomplishment and who's only claim to financial well-being is directly linked to the success of a distant ancestor that grates on the sensibilities of the minions. This charmed individual is only a winner because of a birthright that has entitled him to a smooth life sail while 'farting in silk' and receiving ego-strokes from the lackeys that surround him. He's also the guy that draws the attention of all within range to his presence and perceived sense of self importance. It's the wealthy status of these 'undeserving' people, I think, that the common-folk come to resent, as opposed to envy.

I read that Henry Ford Sr. took steps to protect his family fortune when the President of the day announced his intention to tax away the lion's share of huge inheritances. By extension, relieving the family of most of its fortune, the new tax would in time have made it necessary for the yet unborn to do that which was necessary to self-support instead of spending a lifetime coasting and looking down upon those born into less fortunate circumstances. In spite of my comments, I believe a man has a responsibility, or duty to provide for his immediate family and I could never support an inheritance tax that denies to the immediate family member the product of the decedents life effort.

Our so-called middleclass has all but evaporated now and society is beginning to push back against the top-ends gross accumulation of wealth. We should remember, it was the impoverished masses of old France, disenfranchised by a similar imbalance in the distribution of wealth, that employed the guillotine as a tool to restore a sense of economic opportunity & balance. It's unfortunate, but this approach to redistribution didn't work either because it promoted 'socialism', which too only produces a population of otherwise unproductive people that believe they have a Right to be provided for equally by virtue of the work of others.

[J.O.]

Someone still needs to explain to me how the pecking order became that an investor has a fundamental "right" to demand ever and ever higher returns in exchange for parking their money somewhere while the folks whose labour ultimately create the profits that pay those returns are facing:

• Never ending demands for wage and benefits concessions;
• Management that drives a wedge between employee groups;
• Management that throws employees under a bus whenever it's convenient (just ask Nigel Wright);
• Successive governments that support corporate greed, pass laws to make unions illegal, and tax individuals more and more while they hand out corporate welfare and tax breaks;
• Raising their kids into a society that demands more for less and sees more value in saving a buck than in supporting their fellow citizens with a decent living wage.

This to me is the ultimate definition of as system that is FUBAR.

[boestar]

Someone still needs to explain to me how the pecking order became that an investor has a fundamental "right" to demand ever and ever higher returns in exchange for parking their money somewhere while the folks whose labour ultimately create the profits that pay those returns are facing:

• Never ending demands for wage and benefits concessions;
• Management that drives a wedge between employee groups;
• Management that throws employees under a bus whenever it's convenient (just ask Nigel Wright);
• Successive governments that support corporate greed, pass laws to make unions illegal, and tax individuals more and more while they hand out corporate welfare and tax breaks;
• Raising their kids into a society that demands more for less and sees more value in saving a buck than in supporting their fellow citizens with a decent living wage.

This to me is the ultimate definition of as system that is FUBAR.

The Conspiracy Theory is that the upper echelon (the 1%ers) are systematically taking control of all the wealth wherever possible because ultimately Wealth is power. Look at the recent independent currency Bitcoin. Its value rose over 600% in a very short period. It is not controlled by any government. This makes the powers that be very nervous. Currently one Bitcois is worth almost $600 US. It is a digital currency but can be exchanged for real cash. A Revolution is coming.

[DEFCON]

The banks, supported by their good friends in government, purposely drove the expectations of the obviously short-sighted public union masses up, way up and to levels way beyond reasonable. Collectively, the banksters & friends used the public unions to advance their own agenda and when for example, the CAW finally and publically lost its mind and sought contractual improvements that included goodies such as health care for pets, it made it easy for the schemers to move on the unions legislatively and with other introduced interferences they deemed necessary to the restoration of a 'proper and reasonable' balance of power. The unions were quite effectively suckered in by those that employed weakness, greed and ego as their tools, which lead the union executives to drink the government provided Kool-Aid and ultimately resulted in the introduction of severe restrictions to future union expectations and more importantly, the base powers they once enjoyed. Oh-well, for his part, at least, Ken Lewenza (sp?) was rewarded when he received a piece of government provided tin that says he's a special Canadian.