Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Science says: Rich people are better at being assholes then you

Feb 29, 2012#1

@Li3n

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120227/study-says-rich-more-likely-to-lie-120227/

A new study says rich people are more likely to engage in unethical behaviour than their poorer counterparts -- like cutting off motorists, lying in a negotiation and cheating to win a prize.

That's the finding from researchers at the University of California and the University of Toronto, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

In two tests, researchers found that upper-class drivers were more likely to cut off other cars and pedestrians at crosswalks. The researchers used age, vehicle make and appearance to assess drivers' social class.

In another series of tests involving undergraduate students and adults, researchers found that those who considered themselves "upper class" were more likely to take valued items from others -- including candy, even after they were told that whatever was left over would be given to children.

Others exhibited a greater willingness to lie during negotiations and cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize.

The authors of the study said the differences in ethical behavior can be explained, at least in part, by the upper-class participants' more favourable attitude toward greed.

"This doesn't mean that every rich person will behave less ethically than any less-rich person... But we found a tendency. So if you look across people in a variety of settings, the higher-class people tend to engage in more unethical behaviour."

The authors also pointed out that unethical behavior is not absent from lower-class individuals, as has been demonstrated by numerous studies on the relationship between the concentration of poverty and violent crime.

The findings in the tests conducted on undergraduates and adults were consistent across age, gender, ethnicity, religion and political orientation of the participants.

If you weren't so lazy you too could be more of an asshole... just try harder poor people...

Feb 29, 2012#2

bhamv3

I am unsurprised. "Screwing the other guy" has been mankind's preferred way to get ahead since Cain and Abel.

Feb 29, 2012#3

Silver Jelly

I'm rich*, but not particularly unethical. Of course, I've had friends tell me "you are the only rich person that I know who isn't an asshole", so I may be an exception?

*my family is rich, I'm rich by extension even if I don't own a lot of money.

Feb 29, 2012#4

Mathias

people who follow all the rules to a tee are called chumps.

Feb 29, 2012#5

strawman

Wait, I didn't realize you were rich...

:awesome:

Feb 29, 2012#6

Krisken

Mathias said:
people who follow all the rules to a tee are called chumps.

Porter?

Feb 29, 2012#7

sixpackshaker

It is like the news story from a while back about the millionaire that found a wallet in a bar, returned the wallet but took the $200 cash from it... All the poor people on the internet freaked out. "Why would someone with that type of money steal?" Because they can.

Feb 29, 2012#8

Eriol

So, poverty causes crime, but so do rich people? Only the middle class are ethical? Or what?

Feb 29, 2012#9

GasBandit

Well of course rich people are better at being assholes. They're better at everything. That's why they're rich.

Feb 29, 2012#10

Mathias

stienman said:
Wait, I didn't realize you were rich...

I'm upper-middle class, but my education and job require a pompous attitude at all times.

Mar 1, 2012#11

@Li3n

Eriol said:
Only the middle class are ethical?

Yup, just look at how poor people steal even stuff that's free: http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/818811/"stealing"_free_education_homeless_mother_gets_jail_time_for_sending_her_son_to_a_better_school_district/
Added at: 12:36

Mathias said:
I'm upper-middle class, but my education and job require a pompous attitude at all times.

So posting on the forum gets you a bonus each paycheck?

Mar 1, 2012#12

fade

Silver Jelly said:
I'm rich*, but not particularly unethical. Of course, I've had friends tell me "you are the only rich person that I know who isn't an asshole", so I may be an exception?

*my family is rich, I'm rich by extension even if I don't own a lot of money.

Can I borrow 5 bucks?

Mar 1, 2012#13

Silver Jelly

Mar 1, 2012#14

David

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Millionaire-Dentist-Busted-in-Pizza-Fraud-117518168.html

Mar 1, 2012#15

Necronic

Mathias said:
I'm upper-middle class, but my education and job require a pompous attitude at all times.

Yeah but it also requires an insane amount of integrity. Certain types of "bending the rules" would loose you your job/career/legacy.

Also, on the note of integrity:

That's the finding from researchers at the University of California and the University of Toronto

Yeah like I'm going to trust a bunch of commie potheads to tell me stuff about the rich. NICE TRY COMRADE.

Mar 1, 2012#16

Covar

...

That explains Politicians. :rimshot:

Mar 1, 2012#17

Bowielee

Now that I'm focusing on psychology, I've read enough studies and the articles that come from them to take all this with a grain of salt.

A link to the publishing journal would be a step in the right direction.

Mar 1, 2012#18

Necronic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procee...y_of_Sciences_of_the_United_States_of_America

It's actually a pretty reputable journal.

Mar 1, 2012#19

Bowielee

Yes, but that doesn't get to the article itself. The thing about experimental data is that it can be interpreted in multiple ways.

I don't have the article handy, but there was a study done about men and women and what they seek in sexual partners. The results published were that men sought physically attractive women, but women chose financially stable men.

That's the sound bite that made it to the press, however the most significant finding is that overall, men and women largely look for the same dimensions for the most part.

So, as I said, Grain of Salt.

I do like that they add the caveats towards the end of the article about philanthropy, though.

Mar 1, 2012#20

Necronic

Ah, yeah true enough I agree wholeheartedly with that.

Mar 1, 2012#21

ElJuski

ugh, Gas, I can't believe no one called you out on this. No, they're not better all around because they're rich. They're better at making money, and whatever the hell it is that it takes. It's a shame that most jobs that actually require humans helping out other humans don't get paid as much as some cold-blooded capitalist business man.

Mar 1, 2012#22

GasBandit

ElJuski said:
ugh, Gas, I can't believe no one called you out on this.

It's because everybody else in the entire world realized I was being funny.

You're a very sad person, and it makes me sad that you are alive.

Mar 1, 2012#23

ElJuski

GasBandit said:
It's because everybody else in the entire world realized I was being funny.

.

Hard to tell sometimes, Gas. Hard to tell sometimes

Mar 1, 2012#24

Mathias

Necronic said:
Yeah but it also requires an insane amount of integrity. Certain types of "bending the rules" would loose you your job/career/legacy.

Also, on the note of integrity:

Yeah like I'm going to trust a bunch of commie potheads to tell me stuff about the rich. NICE TRY COMRADE.

I was helping my cousin's teenage kid out with a science project once. He ending up falsifying his findings. Let's just say I was more than a little disappointed.

Mar 1, 2012#25

Hailey Knight

~~Rich people are better at being assholes~~ Assholes are better at getting rich

Mar 2, 2012#26

@Li3n

Bowielee said:
I don't have the article handy, but there was a study done about men and women and what they seek in sexual partners. The results published were that men sought physically attractive women, but women chose financially stable men.

That's the sound bite that made it to the press, however the most significant finding is that overall, men and women largely look for the same dimensions for the most part.

You do realise that the last part in no way invalidates the first one, right...

The problem is that people don't seem to understand statistics very well...

Bowielee said:
I do like that they add the caveats towards the end of the article about philanthropy, though.

I preferred the caveats about it only being a trend and not meaning any rich person is worse then a non-rich one...

Quotemander Prime said:
~~Rich people are better at being assholes~~ Assholes are better at getting rich

Seeing how they mentioned also using college students i doubt all of the rich people made themselves rich as opposed to being born into it...
Added at: 06:35

Mathias said:
I was helping my cousin's teenage kid out with a science project once. He ending up falsifying his findings. Let's just say I was more than a little disappointed.

Jealous of his impending get-richness much?

Mar 2, 2012#27

David

@Li3n said:
Seeing how they mentioned also using college students i doubt all of the rich people made themselves rich as opposed to being born into it...

Kids of assholes tend to also be assholes.

Mar 2, 2012#28

Espy

Alright, alright. I volunteer to find out if I become a bigger asshole if I get rich. Everyone send me their money and we will find out. This is for science.

Mar 2, 2012#29

Soliloquy

Espy said:
Alright, alright. I volunteer to find out if I become a bigger asshole if I get rich. Everyone send me their money and we will find out. This is for science.

A blatant money-grabbing scam by Espy?

It's working already! :aaah:

Mar 2, 2012#30

GasBandit

ElJuski said:
Hard to tell sometimes, Gas. Hard to tell sometimes

Everybody else.

Mar 2, 2012#31

Necronic

Going back to the point of this article it actually bothers the hell out of me if it's true. I've always been in the "Greed is good" camp, with the incredibly important (and often overlooked) caveat that people MUST be honest. If you have a system where people are truly honest and fair in their dealings then greed will reward the best work from the best people. But if you have cheating the game changes entirely, and the wrong people start getting rewarded.

Also I think it should be a felony to cut ahead of people in traffic.

Mar 2, 2012#32

drawn_inward

Here's the pdf of the PNAS article for those who are interested. PNAS is a reputable journal, its impact factor has dropped a bunch the last couple of years, but that doesn't mean the science isn't good.

Mar 2, 2012#33

Necronic

pff impact factor. Nerd.

Mar 2, 2012#34

drawn_inward

Necronic said:
pff impact factor. Nerd.

Mar 2, 2012#35

Espy

I'm still waiting for that money guys. Come on. I got work to do here and I need a few million to do it.

Mar 2, 2012#36

MindDetective

Espy, I was on may way to send you my entire fortune but I got distracted kicking puppies.

Mar 2, 2012#37

Espy

Well that sounds legit.

Mar 2, 2012#38

North_Ranger

GasBandit said:
Everybody else.

To be honest, Gas, it is sometimes hard to tell when you're being facetious and when you're not. Based on what I've read of your posts, you have sometimes come across as a libertarian survivalist and a conspiracy theorists who spends his New Year's Eves and elections hidden inside his bunker with a shitload of guns and baked beans to last you for thirty years, all while aiming at the door to make sure none of them Spanish-speakers get inside.

In that light, it is not that far-fetched to suppose that you'd think the rich are better people because they're rich

Mar 2, 2012#39

GasBandit

North_Ranger said:
To be honest, Gas, it is sometimes hard to tell when you're being facetious and when you're not. Based on what I've read of your posts, you have sometimes come across as a libertarian survivalist and a conspiracy theorists who spends his New Year's Eves and elections hidden inside his bunker with a shitload of guns and baked beans to last you for thirty years, all while aiming at the door to make sure none of them Spanish-speakers get inside.

In that light, it is not that far-fetched to suppose that you'd think the rich are better people because they're rich

Ok, ElJuski , everybody else who isn't a refrigerated sauna goblin that I haven't spent the last 4 years plus or so intentionally antagonizing.

Besides, both you guys flipped cause and effect. I didn't say they were better by virtue of being rich, I said that being rich was a result of being better.

AND NOW I'VE HAD TO OVEREXPLAIN THE JOKE. YOU GUYS SUCK

Mar 2, 2012#40

North_Ranger

Refrigerated sauna WHAT?!

Mar 2, 2012#41

ElJuski

I mean, to be quite honest, the joke is what sucked in the first place

Mar 2, 2012#42

GasBandit

North_Ranger said:
Refrigerated sauna WHAT?!

CURSE AT ME IN BORKISH, you know you want to!

ElJuski said:
I mean, to be quite honest, the joke is what sucked in the first place

Apparently at least 4 people thought it was funny enough to go on record.

Mar 2, 2012#43

Necronic

wtf is a sauna goblin?

Mar 2, 2012#44

GasBandit

Necronic said:
wtf is a sauna goblin?

A goblin... that frequents saunas. This is not rocket surgery.

Mar 2, 2012#45

Krisken

GasBandit said:
Apparently at least 4 people thought it was funny enough to go on record.

Oooh, 4! Who knew you were the next Shecky Green?

Mar 2, 2012#46

North_Ranger

GasBandit said:
CURSE AT ME IN BORKISH, you know you want to!

Did you... did you just compare my language to what that Muppet speaks? A parody of SWEDISH?!

Mar 2, 2012#47

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Oooh, 4! Who knew you were the next Shecky Green?

I never said it was funny enough to kill at 50 yards, it just didn't suck.
Added at: 15:22

North_Ranger said:
Did you... did you just compare my language to what that Muppet speaks? A parody of SWEDISH?!

You're my favorite bork bork, Ranger. Your button is BIG and RED and has pleasant tactile feedback when pressed.

Mar 2, 2012#48

Necronic

North_Ranger said:
Did you... did you just compare my language to what that Muppet speaks? A parody of SWEDISH?!

To be fair scandanavia is all pretty much interchangeable.

COME AT ME BRO.

Mar 2, 2012#49

Krisken

GasBandit said:
I never said it was funny enough to kill at 50 yards, it just didn't suck.

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that.

Mar 2, 2012#50

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that.

Ok, I see, well, let me just (shuffles papers) let me just ask you a quick question here...

Just how much time each week would you say you've been spending unable to process humor?

Mar 2, 2012#51

Krisken

That's the thing, Gas

It just wasn't there. I don't know, maybe if it was more clever I would have been more into it. I gotta go, but it was a real pleasure talking with ya.

Mar 2, 2012#52

GasBandit

Krisken said:
That's the thing, Gas

It just wasn't there. I don't know, maybe if it was more clever I would have been more into it. I gotta go, but it was a real pleasure talking with ya.

Yeeaaah, ok, but I'm gonna need you to come in on saturday. And sunday. To play catch-up.

Mar 2, 2012#53

Krisken

GasBandit said:
Yeeaaah, ok, but I'm gonna need you to come in on saturday. And sunday. To play catch-up.

I thuppothe I could light the place on fire.

Mar 2, 2012#54

GasBandit

Krisken said:
I thuppothe I could light the place on fire.

Mark my words, there will be BIG GRAINS OF SALT on the margarita.

Mar 2, 2012#55

Krisken

GasBandit said:
Mark my words, there will be BIG GRAINS OF SALT on the margarita.

I could have this place condemned.

Put strict-nine in the guacamole.

Mar 2, 2012#56

Necronic

wtf just happened here.

Mar 2, 2012#57

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Put strict-nine in the guacamole.

OH COME ON! You were googling around for pictures already and you couldn't take 3 extra seconds to google up the correct spelling of strychnine?

Necronic said:
wtf just happened here.

When you roll on halforums, you gotta be ready to throw down with a high stakes match of movie-quote-with-pictures tennis ANYTIME, dawg.

Mar 2, 2012#58

Krisken

GasBandit said:
OH COME ON! You were googling around for pictures already and you couldn't take 3 extra seconds to google up the correct spelling of strychnine?

Too busy watching the squirrels outside the window. They are married.

Mar 2, 2012#59

ElJuski

for the record, people on Halforums saying something is funny and something actually having comedic merit are two different things.

Mar 2, 2012#60

Krisken

ElJuski said:
for the record, people on Halforums saying something is funny and something actually having comedic merit are two different things.

Tell me about it, dude.

Mar 2, 2012#61

Espy

I'm pretty sure this thread just got funny. At least I was amused.

Mar 2, 2012#62

Mathias

Espy said:
I'm pretty sure this thread just got funny. At least I was amused.

Mar 3, 2012#63

ElJuski

my last response was re: to the first thing, and not the funny insanity that ensued. That other stuff was funny.

Mar 3, 2012#64

Krisken

ElJuski said:
my last response was re: to the first thing, and not the funny insanity that ensued. That other stuff was funny.

You're damn right it was!

Mar 3, 2012#65

Mathias

ElJuski said:
my last response was re: to the first thing, and not the funny insanity that ensued. That other stuff was funny.

Mar 3, 2012#66

@Li3n

Necronic said:
I've always been in the "Greed is good" camp, with the incredibly important (and often overlooked) caveat that people MUST be honest.

That's not how greed works...if you're not taking more then what you deserve it's not greed in the first place.

Mar 3, 2012#67

Krisken

@Li3n said:
That's not how greed works...if you're not taking more then what you deserve it's not greed in the first place.

Huh? Who determines what is more than what you deserve?

Mar 4, 2012#68

@Li3n

Krisken said:
Huh? Who determines what is more than what you deserve?

Why obviously the flying spaghetti monster, bless his noodly appendages...

But it doesn't really matter, because arguing it's not more then you deserve is arguing it's not greed, not that greed is good...

Mar 4, 2012#69

Bowielee

Alien's right on the money on that one. Greed by literal definition is (via Merriam-Webster) "selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed". So those arguing that greed are good are saying that taking more than you think that you deserve is a good thing. They're also acknowledging that it is both selvish and excessive.

Mar 4, 2012#70

Krisken

No. NO. You guys are mucking up that definition by substituting 'need' with 'deserve'. Those are two very different things.

Mar 4, 2012#71

Hailey Knight

I feel the need to watch Office Space today.

Mar 4, 2012#72

@Li3n

Krisken said:
No. NO. You guys are mucking up that definition by substituting 'need' with 'deserve'. Those are two very different things.

Also, they're both words that show up in the definition, so you're saying we're seeing it as "more then you deserve or deserve"...

Plus, i'm pretty sure no one thinks of greed as taking more then your minimal needs, which is why excessive also comes up in the definition...

The word you're looking for is self-interest btw... greed, by definition is bad... which is why Catherine Zeta Jones husband goes to jail at the end of the film...

Mar 4, 2012#73

ElJuski

SPOILERS gosh

Mar 4, 2012#74

@Li3n

ElJuski said:
SPOILERS gosh

IT WAS HIS SLED...

Also, Kong gets killed by planes...

Mar 4, 2012#75

ElJuski

aw man

Mar 4, 2012#76

Charlie Don't Surf

to bring it back on topic:

Man is the true monster.

Mar 4, 2012#77

Espy

Charlie Don't Surf said:
to bring it back on topic:

Man is the true monster.

And the only true challenge to a real hunter.

Mar 4, 2012#78

@Li3n

Espy said:
And the only true challenge to a real hunter.

You'd think that...

Oh well, guess it's back to mutated turtles...

Mar 4, 2012#79

SpecialKO

@Li3n said:
Oh well, guess it's back to mutated turtles...

Nah, doesn't work with the example. The Turtles are clearly much better off than the CHUDs, but the CHUDs are obviously way bigger assholes.

Mar 4, 2012#80

Frankie Williamson

Hey guys, Daffy Duck said it best.

Mar 6, 2012#81

Necronic

@Li3n said:
That's not how greed works...if you're not taking more then what you deserve it's not greed in the first place.

You misunderstand. "Deserve" is an irrelevant word in either honesty or greed, beyond saying that you deserve what you earn. As long as you earn relative to the wealth that you actaully create greed is a good thing and motivates people to create more wealth, which is good for society.

The problem is that some people have figured out ways to bypass the creation of wealth, and earn without creating anything, or earn by stealing it from someone else (they are effectively the same.)

Mar 6, 2012#82

@Li3n

Necronic said:
You misunderstand. "Deserve" is an irrelevant word in either honesty or greed, beyond saying that you deserve what you earn. As long as you earn relative to the wealth that you actually create greed is a good thing and motivates people to create more wealth, which is good for society.

The problem is that some people have figured out ways to bypass the creation of wealth, and earn without creating anything, or earn by stealing it from someone else (they are effectively the same.)

Yeah, again, that's a redefining of the word greed...

See, the problem you're talking about there is what the word greed was created for in the first place...

And let's not even get started on how creating more wealth doesn't do anything if in the end only a certain group of people benefit from it (remember why people got rid of aristocracy?).

Necronic said:
beyond saying that you deserve what you earn.

Yeah, beyond saying that you deserve what you deserve...

I mean it's like saying rape is good as long as both parties agree to it... by definition that's no longer rape, just rough sex... (and no, i'm not saying greed = rape, so stfu if you're thinking that).

I mean capitalism actually requires both sides to meet in the middle and both be satisfied with the end result, and being satisfied with a limited amount = not greed.

SpecialKO said:
Nah, doesn't work with the example. The Turtles are clearly much better off than the CHUDs, but the CHUDs are obviously way bigger assholes.

Weirdly, being a bigger asshole doesn't make you harder to hunt...

Mar 6, 2012#83

Necronic

@Li3n said:
Yeah, again, that's a redefining of the word greed...

See, the problem you're talking about there is what the word greed was created for in the first place...

And let's not even get started on how creating more wealth doesn't do anything if in the end only a certain group of people benefit from it (remember why people got rid of aristocracy?).

People got rid of the aristocracy because it was a kleptocracy. Aristocrats did not create wealth, they only stole it. Which is EXACTLY what I said was problematic.

I don't understand how you fail to see the difference between a lord's purse and Bill Gate's wealth.

Mar 6, 2012#84

@Li3n

Necronic said:
People got rid of the aristocracy because it was a kleptocracy. Aristocrats did not create wealth, they only stole it. Which is EXACTLY what I said was problematic.

I don't understand how you fail to see the difference between a lord's purse and Bill Gate's wealth.

You're right, peasants are very different from Xerox...

Necronic said:
Aristocrats did not create wealth, they only stole it.

Yup, they only stole stuff the illiterate, unwashed masses made...

See, it's not that simple, and the fact that you feel the need to oversimplify it like that is why you go with "greed is good"... it's much simpler then "self-interest isn't bad"...

Mar 6, 2012#85

SpecialKO

With @li3n here. Didn't we have this discussion already a few threads ago?

That there was a Department of Justice to force Microsoft to cease certain business practices doesn't make Bill Gates not greedy in the classical sense. In fact, I think the whole idea of antitrust legislation is to establish the point where a company's practice of self-interest crosses the line into "greed" and requires direct intervention into otherwise legal actions.

Mar 6, 2012#86

Krisken

On Bill Gates being "greedy"

As of 2007, Bill and Melinda Gates were the second-most generous philanthropists in America, having given over $28 billion to charity. They plan to eventually give 95% of their wealth to charity.

Mar 6, 2012#87

SpecialKO

Krisken said:
On Bill Gates being "greedy"

Hey, it's fantastic that he turned over a new leaf after the settlement deal with the US government went down. Kudos to him. Still doesn't make his pre-1998 business practices to price out smaller software competitors via direct relationships to OEM PC manufacturers any less a case for greed.

Mar 6, 2012#88

Krisken

SpecialKO said:
Hey, it's fantastic that he turned over a new leaf after the settlement deal with the US government went down. Kudos to him. Still doesn't make his pre-1998 business practices to price out smaller software competitors via direct relationships to OEM PC manufacturers any less a case for greed.

Oh, absolutely. Put me down for "agree" on that.

Mar 6, 2012#89

Soliloquy

That greedy jerk, hoarding all the philanthropy for himself and not leaving any for the rest of us.

Mar 6, 2012#90

SpecialKO

Soliloquy said:
That greedy jerk, hoarding all the philanthropy for himself and not leaving any for the rest of us.

Like I said, it's fantastic that he blew out his foundation to the tune of billions after the antitrust suit. No matter what else, he deserves every applause, accolade, and praise for that.

It just doesn't have any reflection on his business practices from before that. None whatsoever. A man can be perfectly greedy for one thing while being generous with something else.

Just because Cookie Monster gives lots of hugs doesn't mean he's not grabbing all the chocolate chip.

Mar 6, 2012#91

Necronic

@Li3n said:
You're right, peasants are very different from Xerox...

I have no idea what this means.

1/3

Yup, they only stole stuff the illiterate, unwashed masses made...

Yes, they did. I don't understand your point.

2/3

See, it's not that simple, and the fact that you feel the need to oversimplify it like that is why you go with "greed is good"... it's much simpler then "self-interest isn't bad"...

You're right that the second statement is more pallatable than the first, but I've always hated the implication that a desire to make money is unethical or wrong. If someone invents some incredible device for the sole purpose of making money, we are all enriched by the device he made and should be glad that wealth provided a motivation to do so.

2/3, your last point stands.

Also, on the Bill Gates thing: I'm not saying I don't think that there are serious problems with anti-trust systems and the like, and that business regulations need a LOT of work to clearly identify the grey areas that businesses like to play in and make them black/white. But it would also be ridiculous to say that we as a society did not profit alongside Bill Gates (or Stephen Wolfram or Steve Jobs for that matter) based on the value their inventions brought to our society.

Mar 6, 2012#92

SpecialKO

Necronic said:
But it would also be ridiculous to say that we as a society did not profit alongside Bill Gates (or Stephen Wolfram or Steve Jobs for that matter) based on the value their inventions brought to our society.

I would hope no one would claim that.

*looks around*

Mar 7, 2012#93

Eriol

Necronic said:
But it would also be ridiculous to say that we as a society did not profit alongside Bill Gates (or Stephen Wolfram or Steve Jobs for that matter) based on the value their inventions brought to our society.

I'm a tech guy (Computer Engineer) with a good view of computer HISTORY too, and so I'd say this: society benefited most by both Gates' and Jobs' (why do both of their names end in "s" making the possessive punctuation weird?) early inventions when they were not (or not very) wealthy. After the "revolutions" they kicked off, they mostly became the force for status quo, and stifled others' innovation.

For Gates IMO, this would have been the very first version of Microsoft C. Not because of any particularly innovative feature, but because of its pricing. Before Microsoft C, compilers cost literally thousands or tens of thousands of dollars PER SEAT. Borland and Intel ran the show more or less. Microsoft C priced it so that even hobbyists could enter extremely easily. Sure there was BASIC and other "cheap" languages, but for serious programs, it was C or nothing. I've actually seen it written that the cheapness of MS C allowed the GNU people to actually seriously start developing THEIR compiler (GCC), which is still the heart of virtually all open source software in existence. I won't deny the other things that Gates has influenced (BASIC itself is notable too, along with a number of others), but he and his company weren't the innovators in most cases. But bringing a quality C compiler to the masses kicked off so much else, and it was done in the most disruptive way, and thus I credit that.

For Jobs, it's more obvious: the Apple. Stop. It was something that was usable (for the time), affordable, and "just worked" (once they came out with non-put-it-together-yourself versions at least). It kicked off the whole IDEA of a "personal computer" years ahead of the IBM PC. Has Apple had innovations since? Absolutely. But their best always came in the "we never would have thought of that" realm such as the iPod (not first, but first undeniably "good" mp3 player). Once becoming dominant, they seem to have become about keeping the other players down.

IMO the whole purpose of anti-trust is to restore the prime virtue of capitalism: competition. There's literally no good things that Capitalism does over other economic systems unless there's competition. Fierce competition is what causes all the other good things, and suppresses the bad. Once you have a Monopoly, or a Duopoly, or anything where there aren't players continually entering and leaving, and thus disrupting the field through competition, you get everything bad about the system coming to the fore. The best statement to come out of the last few years IMO is "if it's too big to fail, it's too big to exist." If anything, companies shouldn't last decades. Governments should be more aggressive about breaking things up, ensuring a competitive market for the consumer. Because with extremely few exceptions, when the consumer wins, business will find a way to make money. But the reverse is not true.

Mar 7, 2012#94

Necronic

Let's drop Gates because you guys make good points about his influence going both ways (disruptive and then restrictive) and instead focus on Steve Jobs/Apple, and two of the more recent innovations to have come out of apple: iTunes and the iPhone.

Both of these are disruptive and revolutionary products that have completely changed the marketplace and the minimum expectation of the consumer. iTunes, for instance, has made music accessible without leaving your house, which is a huge value add that has effectively killed off the brick and mortar stores. The iPhone revolutionized the smartphone market, bringing a minimum expectation in stability, touchscreen interfaces, accelerometers, and a healthy third party support system (the most important to the customer.)

Both of these have brough significant value adds to the consumer at zero cost. However, they have also made Apple OBSCENE amounts of money through music sales and app sales. That is what I call a win-win. That's capitalism.

Edit: However, when a part of those earnings come about through abuse of workers and dishonest practices of 3rd party outsourcing, it puts a dark cloud over it. Hence the requirements of honesty. But it doesn't really change the innovation side of it.

Mar 7, 2012#95

SpecialKO

Necronic said:
Both of these have brough significant value adds to the consumer at zero cost. However, they have also made Apple OBSCENE amounts of money through music sales and app sales. That is what I call a win-win. That's capitalism.

Exactly. "Capitalism is good" is a much more accurate statement than "greed is good" since the concept of capitalism in deliberately separate from the abuses it potentially enables ("greed" being one of them).

Mar 7, 2012#96

Necronic

The problem is that there just isn't another word that means "a desire to accumulate wealth". Greed is the closest, but it is problematic because it implies dishonesty and and excess, but there just isn't another word.

Forums

Export thread

Science says: Rich people are better at being assholes then you

Attachments