# Clearly the 1% is evil...



## Pigzfly (Dec 2, 2010)

Fun infographic:

http://www.geekologie.com/2012/01/bill-gates-is-better-than-batman-the-inf.php


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

The ad doesn't even mention how many are employed by those mentioned.

Funny how perspective can be lost.

Technically on a global platform, every American is the global 1%.

And yet, it isn't enough.


----------



## somecanuck (Dec 23, 2011)

The topic's subject is nonsense anyway, even though it's surely in jest. Giving away oodles of money doesn't mean one is forgiven or edified for past sins.


----------



## Pigzfly (Dec 2, 2010)

Yes, it's all in jest.
I'm not saying rich people aren't evil, but I am saying rich does not equal evil... which seems to be a common perspective.


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

Sorry but why is the article 'in jest'?

The definition I found for 'in jest' is: _for mere sport or diversion; not in truth and reality; not in earnest_ 

I believe that the items and actions stated are 'in truth and reality' and were posted 'in earnest'. Perhaps the poster did it for a diversion but it seems it was done with respect. 

Sure giving away half your money when you have 50 billion may not be as gutsy as giving away half when you have 500k but don't you think we should give credit where credit is due. Maybe just a little.


----------



## Pigzfly (Dec 2, 2010)

Yes - it was posted in earnest, but as a diversion.

somecanuck seems to want to delineate between morality and charity.


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

Thanks for post. I forwarded it to my kids. My 16 year-old daughter noted that Batman is a fictional character so Bill Gates wins. Very practical approach.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

uptoolate said:


> Thanks for post. I forwarded it to my kids. My 16 year-old daughter noted that Batman is a fictional character so Bill Gates wins. Very practical approach.


..... But Bill Gates doesn't have a wicked utility belt.... Batman wins hands down.


----------



## Pigzfly (Dec 2, 2010)

Also, my money is on Batman having more gadgets than Gates.


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

Oh sure he's got the Batcave too and is always way better looking than Bill and while Melinda is ok, Batgirl and Catwoman are smokin' hot!


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

A big bank CEO that I know was once asked a question about his 8 figure compensation. He responded "don't judge me on how much I earn as this is determined by the market, judge me on how I spend it as this is determined by me." I happen to know that this CEO gives most of his money away, mostly anonymously. Conspicuous consumption seems a bigger sin than conspicuous earning IMHO.


----------



## somecanuck (Dec 23, 2011)

Pigzfly said:


> Yes - it was posted in earnest, but as a diversion.
> 
> somecanuck seems to want to delineate between morality and charity.


The article refers to him as an action hero. That's much more a discussion of morality than charity. Bill Gates has done great things for charity, but he had to do morally reprehensible things in the past to get where he is. I'm not saying I wouldn't do the same (in fact I'd be willing to do far worse), but it's not exactly hero material.

Either way, it's linkbait to post with that kind of title. It's like CNN or Fox reporting "news" with their own bias, as compared to the BBC being a bit more distanced.


----------



## james1989 (Sep 29, 2011)

I would question the actual value of his philanthropy. 

I hate when people say " you/we need to _give back_ to the community". As if operating a successful business or working successfully doesn't contribute to the well being and advancement of society. The very phrase implies that making money is "_taking_" and that therefore one needs to "give back". It comes from a socialist mentality that there is a limited pie and all transactions are zero-sum. This is so obviously false it's silly. People need to read the phrase "_making_ money" more literally. Working creates wealth. 

How much value has Microsoft created for humanity? How much has Microsoft increased the the well being of human beings around the globe? Would his 50 billion have been better spent in business? 

Something to think about.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

james1989 said:


> I hate when people say " you/we need to _give back_ to the community". As if operating a successful business or working successfully doesn't contribute to the well being and advancement of society.


Right, but if Bill Gates had been born in Somalia and lived his life there, would he have been able to make Microsoft what it is today?

The "community," in the larger sense of the supporting social structure, the economy, etc. plays a huge role in determining personal financial success.


----------



## james1989 (Sep 29, 2011)

brad said:


> Right, but if Bill Gates had been born in Somalia and lived his life there, would he have been able to make Microsoft what it is today?
> 
> The "community," in the larger sense of the supporting social structure, the economy, etc. plays a huge role in determining personal financial success.


Obviously there is no doubt that his success was greatly determined by environmental factors. This doesn't change my point though that his success was a massive benefit to society, not a detriment.


----------



## james1989 (Sep 29, 2011)

One of the things I'm trying to get at is this - People tend to be very short sighted and have a hard time drawing cause and effect down a long chain of events. Looking directly philanthropic work it is easy to see the good being done - Somebody buys $ 1,000,000 worth of vaccines/food/clothing and sends it to Africa. What is more difficult to see is indirect effects of wealth creation on these same people. Ie - Better/cheaper computers/software in America leads to more/better research leads to more/better vaccines. This is just one simple example of many. 

I don't think it's an honorably thing for Buffet to say that he is going to give away all his wealth. Buffet has created an enormous amount of wealth through his incredible ability to allocate capital. This is beneficial to everyone. To give it away indiscriminately is to waste it. It would be better on the whole if it was placed in the hands of someone he thought would be able to invest it wisely. 

I often see philanthropy as " eating the seed corn " .


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Cal said:


> The ad doesn't even mention how many are employed by those mentioned.
> 
> Funny how perspective can be lost.
> 
> ...


Not quite. There are about 300 million Americans and 7 billion people on Earth, so they make up 4.3% of the Earth's population--and there are plenty of rich people outside America.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

james1989 said:


> I would question the actual value of his philanthropy.
> 
> I hate when people say " you/we need to _give back_ to the community". As if operating a successful business or working successfully doesn't contribute to the well being and advancement of society. The very phrase implies that making money is "_taking_" and that therefore one needs to "give back". It comes from a socialist mentality that there is a limited pie and all transactions are zero-sum. This is so obviously false it's silly. People need to read the phrase "_making_ money" more literally. Working creates wealth.
> 
> ...


What else should Bill do with his money? His choices are:

-try to spend it on consumption. I don't think he could if he tried--maybe if he heated his houses with $100 bills.
-give it to his kids. I'm sure they'll do fine on their own with a few million apiece.
-use it to make the world a better place.

It's not hard see why he chose that last one.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

somecanuck said:


> The article refers to him as an action hero. That's much more a discussion of morality than charity. Bill Gates has done great things for charity, but he had to do morally reprehensible things in the past to get where he is.


What did he do that was morally reprehensible? I've never heard him portrayed in anything but a good light.


----------



## Pigzfly (Dec 2, 2010)

james1989 said:


> To give it away indiscriminately is to waste it.


I don't believe this to be the case.
One small example:
Investing in scientific research which requires funding because it doesn't have a marketable end product (yet, or maybe never).


----------



## somecanuck (Dec 23, 2011)

Dmoney said:


> What did he do that was morally reprehensible? I've never heard him portrayed in anything but a good light.


Anti-competitive business stuff early in Microsoft's career. Stealing, manipulating, and bullying to get their way to the top. They've held it ever since.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

somecanuck said:


> Anti-competitive business stuff early in Microsoft's career. Stealing, manipulating, and bullying to get their way to the top. They've held it ever since.


I wouldn't consider most anti-competitive behaviour to be in any way morally reprehensible, short of threatening/murdering the potential competition.

The stealing I'd consider reprehensible... what did he steal? And to what degree is it proven or alleged? I know in the tech space there's talk of stealing ideas, but not sure if it can be proven in many cases.

Manipulating and bullying in the business sense? Again I'd lean towards that being fine morally. I just don't see a business undercutting the competition as a moral shortcoming, I see it as "business".


----------



## somecanuck (Dec 23, 2011)

The information is out there that describes it all if you care to look for it, but I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

Looking it up seems to give way to mostly a bunch of internet rants about Apple vs. Microsoft etc.


----------



## somecanuck (Dec 23, 2011)

Dmoney said:


> Looking it up seems to give way to mostly a bunch of internet rants about Apple vs. Microsoft etc.


Hah yeah I'm afraid it's one of those things full of fan boys on either side. I'm more of a pragmatist myself, use what works, although I'll admit I pump Apple to friends jokingly because I own stock, and I do not use any Apple products myself.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Dmoney said:


> Manipulating and bullying in the business sense? Again I'd lean towards that being fine morally. I just don't see a business undercutting the competition as a moral shortcoming, I see it as "business".


In the beginning, he represented that he had an OS for the PC. Then when IBM came calling back, he hastily bought it and represented it as his own. And when IBM licensed it, he reserved the right to license it to others, thereby enabling the PC OEM business (albeit exploiting IBM's inability to properly contract). Then he had IBM invest huge amounts for MS to develop OS2 while developing Windows at the same time. Then he had Apple fund the cost of developing the MS Office suite for their OS while retaining the right to also issue it for MS Windows. One can argue that he never created value but just leveraged the vulnerabilities of his business "partners".

The list goes on and on. It is not illegal. But it is certainly immoral. Of course, we have seen much worse with Enron and Goldman Sachs so somehow Gates looks angelic by comparison!


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

Unless I'm mistaken, if he 'bought' it then it was his 'own'. But I get what you mean. Sounds like many people are upset that he was an astute businessman who took advantage of opportunities. Oh no! Since when is that immoral? I mean he didn't grow up in the Soviet Union. Sure I'm pissed that he killed a few of my favourite programmes but did he really or did they just fail or chose not to compete. Perspective is everything! And now he decides to give back in a productive way - even more to be envied.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

kcowan said:


> *In the beginning, he represented that he had an OS for the PC.* Then when IBM came calling back, he hastily bought it and represented it as his own. And when IBM licensed it, he reserved the right to license it to others, thereby enabling the PC OEM business (albeit exploiting IBM's inability to properly contract). Then he had IBM invest huge amounts for MS to develop OS2 while developing Windows at the same time. Then he had Apple fund the cost of developing the MS Office suite for their OS while retaining the right to also issue it for MS Windows. One can argue that he never created value but just leveraged the vulnerabilities of his business "partners".
> 
> The list goes on and on. It is not illegal. But it is certainly immoral. Of course, we have seen much worse with Enron and Goldman Sachs so somehow Gates looks angelic by comparison!



I mostly see a shrewd businessman in most of this. If he bought it, can he not do what he wants with it? Maybe some shifty/shady dealings, but I don't know how immoral it was. I guess if I knew the full story I might see it differently, but I'd hate for it to be considered immoral to leverage others the way it seems he has.

It just seems like he was the one to benefit the most in all of his transactions. Though if we look at Apple now, you can't really say he's holding them back. And IBM also remains extremely successful.

I'm sure if you look at most billionaires, you'll find a ton of things that aren't exactly saintly actions. But then again, if you were to look closely enough at anyone, you'd likely find the same.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The first OS I remember using was the Tandy Desktop, which was in products produced and sold at Radio Shack.

The early version of Microsoft Windows looked very similar, but with cosmetic changes to icons etc, but the "menu" for files, address book, calendar, spreadsheet, etc were all pretty much the same.

In those days to run the spreadsheets, we had to physically imput the mathematic equations for each line.........sum equals and all that.

I remember the days with some regret...............

While I was playing games and fooling around with simple lists and spreadsheets, a few others were quietly registering domain names.

Today.........they are in the 1%, and I am in the 99%.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

I don't think the 1 percent is evil.Couple things you do notice(been mentioned)they are under an extreme microscope.It's funny how as a society most people are conditioned to think of the 1% as evil and cuniving(think of every cartoon and early msg that is sent)ebbinezer scroge,monty burns,every disney movie in production always without fail has a villian/evil character that is rich.

I'm of the opinion bill gates maybe is up there with gandi...look @ his foundation,look @ how many people he is helping,if you listen to bill gates speak it's clear he is far from evil,i think the rich get misunderstood because most of them were so driven with a desire and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with $.Look @ steve jobs,if you ever read his bio you would come to the conclusion he is not evil.I've read alot of bio's on successful people and you have to follow there life to really see who they were and how they were shaped and of the bio's i've read none were ''evil" osama bin ladden that's evil,charles manson that's evil.Most of the 1% created vaule to the world.....It's a bad stereotype that society has got to lose,i would think the 1% polar opposite of the elite are more evil.-


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

Don't forget that as far as the 1% goes Gates is certainly not representative. He is more like the .0000000001% (don't argue with the number of zero's). I suspect that the top 1% of earners in Canada would include some pretty upper middle class looking people. Maybe even some people on this forum? Also, I suspect many (most?) on this forum would aspire to belonging to "the 1%" at some point? Gates and his ilk are a red herring to the wider discussion of wealth in our society.


----------



## cannadian (Dec 30, 2011)

Square Root said:


> Don't forget that as far as the 1% goes Gates is certainly not representative. He is more like the .0000000001% (don't argue with the number of zero's). I suspect that the top 1% of earners in Canada would include some pretty upper middle class looking people. Maybe even some people on this forum? Also, I suspect many (most?) on this forum would aspire to belonging to "the 1%" at some point? Gates and his ilk are a red herring to the wider discussion of wealth in our society.


Agreed. Many people don't even know how much the "1%" actually earns.

In Canada, the top 5% of single income earners is around $75k to $90k (I believe the 1% is around 200k). Sure, that's "well-off" - but are these really the super evil elite rich that Occupy tries to make them out to be? Are these the people buying out politicians, political campaigns, and pulling the strings behind our "democracy"? 

I don't think so. If you make $90k a year and live in Vancouver you're probably not even upper-middle class (lifestyle-wise)..


----------



## Ihatetaxes (May 5, 2010)

I'm in the 1% and the only ones who think I am evil are a couple of ex-employees who were terminated with much relish and delight.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Dmoney said:


> I mostly see a shrewd businessman in most of this. If he bought it, can he not do what he wants with it?


He had not bought it when he represented that he owned it to IBM. And he low-balled the guy he bought it from. I agree that many would think he was just a shrewd businessman. I am not one of them.

He also gave PC manufacturers the right to copy his OS and send in a check. But they had to pay for Windows even if they shipped Linux. It was a brilliant maketing strategy. Also anti-competitive.

And much more moral than what Enron and Goldman have done. But that does not make it right.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

kcowan said:


> He had not bought it when he represented that he owned it to IBM. And he low-balled the guy he bought it from. I agree that many would think he was just a shrewd businessman. I am not one of them.
> 
> He also gave PC manufacturers the right to copy his OS and send in a check. But they had to pay for Windows even if they shipped Linux. It was a brilliant maketing strategy. Also anti-competitive.
> 
> And much more moral than what Enron and Goldman have done. But that does not make it right.


Thanks kcowan, I hadn't really followed the rise of microsoft as I was very young at the time. Became aware of Bill Gates simply because he was the richest man in the world at the time and at a young kid, who wouldn't want to be the richest man in the world? I had heard some of the anti-competitive claims, but not the misrepresentation and outright theft until more recently.

Agreed, he could have done much worse, and many have (enron etc.).

Back on topic, the 1% isn't evil, and neither is the 0.000001%. There are evil people among the 1%, the 0.0000001% and the 99%. Lumping them all together is naive.


----------



## Mall Guy (Sep 14, 2011)

cannadian said:


> Agreed. Many people don't even know how much the "1%" actually earns.
> 
> In Canada, the top 5% of single income earners is around $75k to $90k (I believe the 1% is around 200k). Sure, that's "well-off" - but are these really the super evil elite rich that Occupy tries to make them out to be? Are these the people buying out politicians, political campaigns, and pulling the strings behind our "democracy"?
> 
> I don't think so. If you make $90k a year and live in Vancouver you're probably not even upper-middle class (lifestyle-wise)..


I believe (2007) you hit the top 10% at around $85,000, and the top 1% at around $170,000 and a minimum income of $620,000 to gets you into the top .01%. I have also found that the numbers bounce around, depending on who wrote the study. . . either way, I feel I might be dragging down my 1% friends . . .


http://ywcacanada.ca/data/research_docs/00000192.pdf


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The rich aren't evil.

They are just like everyone else and don't want to give any more money to the government than they have to.

The difference is the government provides the rich with endless ways to avoid paying taxes, while the average guy has a limited number of options.

The sheer size of Mitt Romney's tax filing pretty well sums it up.

Never mind GE's 52,000 page tax filing?

Mine was about 5 pages long.....................


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

You must be missing some deductions! Spend $20 on tax software and run some scenarios!


----------

