patrick.net

Stop being so narrowminded and try applying my quote below to the millions of discoveries over the centuries. See what you can come up with.

Heraclitusstudent says

SoftShell says

The implementation of a discovery may demand more intelligence than the actual discovery itself.

Which "implementation", Larry didn't do either.

'pity for him'.

whatever, it worked.

Heraclitusstudent says

SoftShell says

And why do you think he kept coming back....because he recognized the bigass cash cow...

Either that or he was crying like a little boy and they had pity of him.

SoftShell says

Stop being so narrow minded and try applying my quote below to the millions of discoveries over the centuries. See what you can come up with.

Very few rich people.

Peter P says

It is not about money. It is about getting what you want.

Hey you're the one who writes threads bashing the poor and glorifying the rich.

You know society is becoming tilted too far to the margins when hard work starts to be attacked as not deserving of respect or even a living.

Heraclitusstudent says

Thanks for showing you have no value whatsoever but pure greed.

Greed is just the fear of missing out. However, the desire to dominate is innate to every living thing in the universe.

thunderlips11 says

You know society is becoming tilted too far to the margins when hard work starts to be attacked as not deserving of respect or even a living.

Why is hard work per se a good thing? Everything is contextual. Doing "hard work" that is not valued by the market within your personal definitions is unwise.

Examples:
A hedge fund manager profitably arbitrages the market.
An artist doing what she likes regardless of pay.

Counter-example:
An inventor moaning about his "brilliant" work being "stolen" by "evil" corporations.

Alibaba (BABA)

Peaked at near $100 on IPO day and is now trading 14% below that.

https://www.google.com/finance?cid=23536317556137

How does he explain his "failure" and the theft of money from people who bought at $100?

John Bailo says

An inventor moaning about his "brilliant" work being "stolen" by "evil" corporations.

It will be a wild ride. Trade at your own risk.

NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE

Peter P says

It will

So basically...we should ignore Peter P.

Peter P says

Why is hard work per se a good thing? Everything is contextual. Doing "hard work" that is not valued by the market within your personal definitions is unwise.

Examples:

A hedge fund manager profitably arbitrages the market.

An artist doing what she likes regardless of pay.

Ah, so you changed your mind, no it's just "the market", it's "the market within your personal definitions".

The inescapable fact remains that deserving people get only personal satisfaction and therefore capitalism is not the meritocracy you say it is.

Heraclitusstudent says

The inescapable fact remains that deserving people get only personal satisfaction and therefore capitalism is not the meritocracy you say it is.

Hey, they chose their occupations. Everybody is happy. Only the "progressives" are upset just because.

Peter P says

Heraclitusstudent says

The inescapable fact remains that deserving people get only personal satisfaction and therefore capitalism is not the meritocracy you say it is.

Hey, they chose their occupations. Everybody is happy. Only the "progressives" are upset just because.

So you agree it's not a meritocracy?

Heraclitusstudent says

So you agree it's not a meritocracy?

It is a meritocracy within the personal context of the participants.

NOTHING is a meritocracy if Paul gets to judge if Mary is treating Peter fairly.

Peter P says

Tech money in SF and hedge fund money in London obviously improved the food scene.

If that were true then food would still be crappy anyplace that isn't swimming in finance, yet the best eating is found at street stalls and "holes in the wall" restaurants..

...Unless you believe paying $500/plate is the definition of an improved food scene, in that case you are correct.

Peter P says

It is a meritocracy within the personal context of the participants.

In other words, you think the work of Euclid or Tim Berner-Lee or Tim Paterson were only valuable as far as their personal satisfaction was concerned.

Nice logic.

Peter P says

valued by the market

Is that all? We should be governed by an impersonal force, the sum of needs and wants, regardless of context? No thanks. I'm don't worship man-made gods.

"Oh market god, how I have displeased you, that you lower my wages and hurt me so. Forgive me, this sinner who is but a lump of dust in your almighty presence. Ohhh-weee-ohhhh, Om Mana Market Hum, in the Name of the Market, Amen."

Peter P says

New Renter says

If that were true then food would still be crappy anyplace that isn't swimming in finance, yet the best eating is found at street stalls and "holes in the wall" restaurants..

Such restaurants still need to survive in that environment because they share similar customers.

Some of the more expensive sushi restaurants in the Bay Area are hole-in-the-wall types in strip malls.

thunderlips11 says

Is that all? We should be governed by an impersonal force, the sum of needs and wants, regardless of context? No thanks. I'm don't worship man-made gods.

Both what the market values and what you value.

Peter P says

thunderlips11 says

Is that all? We should be governed by an impersonal force, the sum of needs and wants, regardless of context? No thanks. I'm don't worship man-made gods.

Both what the market values and what you value.

What if you have no market power, like a Filipino trashpicker, who was born on the heap of trash to trash pickers?

thunderlips11 says

What if you have no market power, like a Filipino trashpicker, who was born on the heap of trash to trash pickers?

What about a recycling business? Or, if the laws allow, a dumpster-diving business?

Peter P says

Empirically? It goes back to my argument that intelligence was invented by self-proclaimed "intelligent" people to make themselves feel better.

Yes and what's the one about truth ? All that matters is what is true for you ? You have no interest in actual truth ?

A "conservative" if there ever was one

Another "conservative" dimwit (and also proud racist). Who's rarely met a right wing lie he didn't like, and who has the same magical powers Peter has that allow him to not comprehend many obvious truths he is confronted with, even if they are presented to him in an extremely clear way that any self respecting 8 year old would comprehend. He has the awesome power to not even comprehend that which he wishes to not comprehend.

I'll bet you love all Peter's talk about not getting bogged down in absolute truths and making your own truth based on how it feels.

John Bailo says

How does he explain his "failure" and the theft of money from people who bought at $100?

"Bulls make money, bears make money, the pigs get slaughtered"

Strategist says

"Bulls make money, bears make money, the pigs get slaughtered"

A mantra to live by.

Alas, those bought at $100 might have a longer time horizon. No one knows what is going to happen next.

Peter P says

Strategist says

"Bulls make money, bears make money, the pigs get slaughtered"

A mantra to live by.

Alas, those bought at $100 might have a longer time horizon. No one knows what is going to happen next.

It was a highly publicized tech IPO. Can't get more risky. In the short run it's a pure gamble.

And yet you continue to define capitalism in the narrowest view possible.
capitalism is comprised of three major components:
1- Innovation: Capitalism provides the environment for people to innovate by providing capital and legal structure to trustworthy individuals.
2- Protect: Capitalism offers the 'patent' and 'copyright' methods to ensure that the data generated in the 'innovation' process is secured and protected from infringement.
3- implementation and expansion: go figure it out, i'm tired of legitimate posting and am going back to experiencing the joy of trolling.

Heraclitusstudent says

The inescapable fact remains that deserving people get only personal satisfaction and therefore capitalism is not the meritocracy you say it is.

SoftShell says

And yet you continue to define capitalism in the narrowest view possible.

capitalism is comprised of three major components:

1- Innovation: Capitalism provides the environment for people to innovate by providing capital and legal structure to trustworthy individuals.

2- Protect: Capitalism offers the 'patent' and 'copyright' methods to ensure that the data generated in the 'innovation' process is secured and protected from infringement.

3- implementation and expansion: go figure it out, i'm tired of legitimate posting and am going back to experiencing the joy of trolling.

Oh I don't doubt capitalism provides some incentive for innovation. As long as someone profits, motivation will be there. This is well understood.

Yet you are missing the overwhelming facts that most rewards go to people who do no innovation or implementation at all. Most of the money go to con artists who shuffle papers and produce nothing: finance, lawyers, CEOs. Unless you call finding new ways to fleece the sheeple "innovation".

In a society like the US, a "real estate investor" (read "speculator") can make a lot more money than an engineer. For doing what? Exploiting the artificial cycle of booms and busts and arranging to dump the busts on other people. During the same time Phds doing research in some advanced fields earn almost nothing and will see very little of the profits resulting from their innovations.

The overwhelming fact is this has become a society of speculators, where actual productive work in general and innovation in particular is seen as undesirable and poorly paid.

And don't tell us about patents. Write a patent and try to enforce it against a Google, then tell us about it. Large companies write these laws for them not for you.

Your entire point about implementation is just as irrelevant. The facts remain: some people do critical work and the profits go to someone else. That they do not take the time to do the packaging and marketing is irrelevant. Not everyone is a ace of marketing or management. And these things are not innovation. The fact that an engineer doesn't do that, doesn't justify the lower reward for their innovation.

You guys have failed to prove in anyway that the wealth is distributed according to merit.
It is not.

Heraclitusstudent says

Yet you are missing the overwhelming facts that most rewards go to people who do no innovation or implementation at all. Most of the money go to con artists who shuffle papers and produce nothing: finance, lawyers, CEOs. Unless you call finding new ways to fleece the sheeple "innovation".

http://www.voicesofliberty.com/article/quantitative-proof-the-fed-is-destroying-the-middle-class-2/

If TLDR skip to the bottom and read the bold text

Peter P says

Dan8267 says

A foolish remark in an age based on technology.

History has proved that intelligence does not matter in technology. It is about people trying hard enough in a environment that cherishes ownership and windfall profits.

The emergence of technology is driven by risk-takers chasing the fat-tail.

Bullshit. Larry Ellison could have been given a billion years and he would have never been able to write a relational database management system. Hell, even after RDMS have been around for four decades and Ellison has siphoned a fortune off of them, he still couldn't actually implement one given a billion years.

If Larry Ellison never existed our world would be no different. In contrast, if Edgar Codd had not invented relational databases, our world would not be anything like how it is. The entire Internet would have been impossible. The great advancement of technology would not have progressed nearly as quickly in any field. Edgar Codd had more effect on your life than your mother and your lover combined. Ellison hasn't made a damn bit of difference.

Dan8267 says

If Larry Ellison never existed our world would be no different. In contrast, if Edgar Codd had not invented relational databases, our world would not be anything like how it is.

I doubt that. If Edgar Codd never existed someone else would invent something similar. Larry Ellison would still able to bring that to the market.

Kings in history were not inventors. They were conquerors. Life is the will-to-power. Everything else is just a decoration.

The entrepreneur is the unsung or sung hero, but take them out of the picture and we talk about the wheel and fire.

Dan8267 says

Ellison hasn't made a damn bit of difference.

But he's an ORACLE man!

“It’s not sufficient I succeed. Everyone else must fail.”

"Maybe I’m an idiot, but I have no idea what anyone is talking about."

"Who am I winning for? Am I winning for Oracle shareholders or is it simply a matter of personal vanity? I'll admit to it. Mea culpa. An awful lot of it is personal vanity."

Peter P says

Kings in history were not inventors. They were conquerors. Life is the
will-to-power. Everything else is just a decoration.

This sounds like what muslims expansionists believe....

Peter P says

If Edgar Codd never existed someone else would invent something similar. Larry Ellison would still able to bring that to the market.

It's easy to disprove such a nonsensical principle. Take a cure for cancer. Bob, the guy who cured cancer in the 1990s, never existed. According to your theory, Joe should have cured cancer a few years after Bob would have cured it. After all, the hard part isn't inventing a cure for cancer, but marketing it to the world.

Sometimes capitalists perform inhuman displays of stupidity. Your theory is one of these.

Second example. According to conservatives, Mozart was an idiot whereas Mozart's patrons were the greatest musicians in history.

I built that really means my slaves built that therefore I own it and deserve sole credit for it.

dublin hillz says

Peter P says

Kings in history were not inventors. They were conquerors. Life is the

will-to-power. Everything else is just a decoration.

This sounds like what muslims expansionists believe....

The greatest conqueror in history was Genghis Khan. He INVENTED religious freedom.

Dan8267 says

It's easy to disprove such a nonsensical principle.

You can't ever prove or disprove what could have been and what might have been. :-)

As a Republican voter, here's my perspective:

BOTH parties don't have much respect for a working schlub like me. The Republican elites view me as a cog in the machine to be replaced with a low wage H1B at the nearest opportunity. On the left, I'm despised as a European American male who doesn't have the connections to get a government job. Nonetheless, both sets of elites love guys like me when it comes to choosing their neighbors. I'd say there's a lot of cool aid drinking on both sides.

PolishKnight says

BOTH parties don't have much respect for a working schlub like me. The Republican elites view me as a cog in the machine to be replaced with a low wage H1B at the nearest opportunity. On the left, I'm despised as a European American male who doesn't have the connections to get a government job. Nonetheless, both sets of elites love guys like me when it comes to choosing their neighbors. I'd say there's a lot of cool aid drinking on both sides.

You got that right, elites don't care much about anyone here. The only thing they care are about their wallets.

What's odd is that the left elite somehow got their voters convinced that they do care about them. At least on the right such silly notion doesn't exist.