[p2p-research] A slashdot post on Bill Gates that struck a nerve

Tue Jul 28 09:12:26 CEST 2009

Hi Paul,

the issue of aspirational identity trumping more objective 'identity
factors' is a perennial issue ..

but pointing out the true nature of any so-called 'objective' identity
doesn't work ...

so you have to find a way to have the aspirational identities on your side
... which only works when the main system no longer delivers ...

in the meantime, work with those who already see through it ahead of the
others,

Michel

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Paul D. Fernhout <
pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:

> My post in a story related to Bill Gates:
>  http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1316287&cid=28837221
> (It has been modded both up to the maximum and down a little again.)
>
> The part that probably annoyed some people the most:
>
> =========
>
> Bill Gates [born with a multi-million dollar trust fund] could have spent
> his lifetime writing free software. That being born a multi-millionaire was
> not enough for him is a sign of an illness that causes "financial obesity",
> not something to be emulated. But, in the end, it is not Bill Gates who has
> destroyed our society as much as all the people who want to be the next
> Bill
> Gates and support regressive social policies they hope to benefit from
> someday.
>
> From:
>    "The Wrath of the Millionaire Wannabe's"
>    http://conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/47/ [conceptualguerilla.com]
> """
> Of course eventually, these guy realize that not only are they not
> millionaires, they're not making much progress toward that noble goal.
> That's when they get ugly. You see, they see themselves as capable,
> intelligent, hard working people - and they are for the most part - who
> "have what it takes" to "make it". They believe that the difference between
> those who "make it" and those who don't is being "capable, intelligent and
> hardworking". Things like "having rich parents", "getting just plain lucky"
> or "being a crook" don't factor into the equation anywhere. No, American
> society is a natural hierarchy where the most capable are "rich beyond
> their
> wildest dreams", and the non-rich are chumps that just don't measure up.
> ...
> But here's something I'll bet the dittoheads haven't thought of. Maybe
> they're the chumps. Maybe they've been sold a bogus "American dream" that
> never existed. Maybe "the rules" they play by were written by the people
> who
> have "made it" - not by the people who haven't. And maybe - just maybe -
> the
> people who have "made it" wrote those rules to keep the wannabes chasing a
> dream that's a mirage. Maybe Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Samuel
> Adams didn't fight to make the world safe for John D. Rockefeller - or Don
> LaPre, either. Maybe the Rolls Royce complete with bimbo was left out of
> our
> inalienable rights for a reason. Maybe the "pursuit of happiness" Thomas
> Jefferson wrote about was something a bit more profound than the empty joy
> of owning things you don't need so you can look down of down on the lesser
> mortals who lack your "ability". Maybe Thomas Jefferson intended the
> "pursuit of happiness" to be something attainable not just for anybody -
> but
> for everybody.
> """
>
> =========
>
> I'd suggest the intent of the original US founders (ignoring discrimination
> against women, slaves, natives, the poor, etc.) was much closer to a peer
> economy than the big companies dominating the global landscape now, even as
> many people *think* they are supporting peer production of some sort (small
> businesses) when they support the US status quo. In practice, our economy
> has many interwoven strong financial hierarchies (even Microsoft is an
> example of that, a company with global monopoly powers making deals with
> other big companies and the government). There are a lot of small
> businesses
> too, but it is a rough life as one.
>
> It is a sign of how much economic uncertainty there is these days that many
> people want to become millionaires just to *survive* economic uncertainty,
> not to have luxury in abundance.
>
> I feel that way myself sometimes, even as I try to fight it. :-)  Not that
> I'm very religious, but I remember this verse:
>  http://bible.cc/luke/12-24.htm
> "Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or
> barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds!"
> Though in some ways, this adage keeps me more in check: :-)
>  http://bible.cc/matthew/6-19.htm (on to 21)
> "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust
> destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves
> treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves
> do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart
> will
> be also."
> Although I'd replace the notion of "heaven" with some notion of a global
> peer network and gift economy. :-) So, if you want your writings or
> software
> to have a chance at lasting forever, give them to the net. :-) Also, from
> something in Readers Digest long ago, there was a story of a very wealthy
> couple who gave their house and garden to a college with the provision they
> could live in it for their lifetime, and then 1929 came and they lost
> everything except the right to live in that house and grow food in that
> garden. So, sometimes all you have left is what you give away. :-)
> Still, it is not money itself (which is a tool) as much as the love of
> money
> that is supposedly the root of all sorts of evil.
>  http://bible.cc/1_timothy/6-10.htm
> "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager
> for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many
> griefs."
>
> I also saw James and Janet Baker (students of my college advisor, and
> colleagues of people I knew in the IBM speech group) build up a billion
> dollar company around proprietary software and lose it all in one stock
> deal
> (presumably along with the right to continue working on the software):
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_NaturallySpeaking
> "Lernout & Hauspie bought Dragon Systems in June of 2000 for stock then
> valued at about $600 million. The dictation system bubble burst in 2001,
> and
> Lernout & Hauspie went bankrupt."
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lernout_%26_Hauspie
> "For some time Lernout & Hauspie was dogged by rumours of financial
> impropriety, and in early 1999 the Wall Street Journal, ran allegations in
> its Heard on the Street column, by Goldman Sachs analyst Robert Smithson,
> that earnings had been overstated. Further investigation by Wall Street
> Journal staffer Jesse Eisinger led to the revelation on 8 August 2000 of a
> major financial scandal involving fictitious transactions in Korea and
> improper accounting methodologies elsewhere. In April 2001 founders Jo
> Lernout and Pol Hauspie, as well as former CEO Gaston Bastiaens, were
> arrested in what is considered one of the largest corporate scandals in
> history prior to Enron. Lernout & Hauspie finally went bankrupt on 25
> October 2001 after having struggled for a year."
>
> Do you think the kind of couple who spend their time developing the best
> speech recognition software in the world are going to also be the most
> financially savvy people in the world? What a loss.
>
> But this is a core tension to resistance to peer production ideas -- if you
> have the desire to be a millionaire through the global marketplace, even
> against all odds, then you will tend to support a system that promises the
> chance of that, even if the chance is one in a million (and even if the
> odds
> of keeping the wealth are even lower). It's the same reason poor people
> play
> the lottery with the money that otherwise they might use to improve their
> lives (perhaps pooled as microcredit or to do some social project). So,
> instead of voting for taxes on the wealthy to support better social
> services
> or a basic income, they vote to lower taxes for what they want to be.
> Rather
> than vote for shorter copyright, the vote for longer copyright. Rather than
> vote for local libraries or workshops, they vote against them and buy from
> Amazon.
>  "21,000 Flexible Public Fabrication Facilities across the USA"
>  http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/8412-4049
> And so on.
>
> There are other reasons people vote how they do (including misleading
> economists) but I think that issue of being a millionaire wannabee is a
> stronger one than is obvious at first.
>
> This is one book that helped me see beyond that mirage:
>  "The Seven Laws of Money"
>  http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Money-Shambhala-Pocket-Classics/dp/1570622779
> When I was a teenager, I went to the library and collected books on how to
> be a millionaire. All the rest told me how to do it (start a small
> business,
> work hard, and get lucky),
>
> http://www.smartmoney.com/spending/rip-offs/10-things-millionaires-wont-tell-you-23697/?page=all
> but one of the books, by Michael Phillips, who helped create MasterCard,
> was
> the only one that asked me, "Why do you want to be a millionaire?"
>
> And that is a very good question to think about.
>
> A short list of the laws, though there is so much more to the book:
>  http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Commerce/RATNA/june2.html
>
> The same guy also has a book with more practical advice on running a small
> business:
>  "Honest Business" by Michael Phillips
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Honest-Business-Shambhala-Pocket-Editions/dp/1570621799
>
> Still, I won't say all the critical comments in that thread are unfair.
> There are things markets can do well under some circumstances. Many people
> enjoy running small honest businesses (when they are reasonably profitable
> or they don't need money from them). We have a lot more stuff in the USA
> than we ever did. It is fair to ask for some sort of proof that
> alternatives
> will be better than what we have now before making major changes. It is
> fair
> to point out that many people are motivated to do disagreeable tasks (or
> find innovative solutions) by long term self-interest or wanting to support
> their family. It is fair to see Bill Gates as a very smart and hard working
> person with some aspirations to make great products (even as he is a
> monopolist and so a supporter of regressive social policies), in the same
> way it is fair to say Christopher Columbus was a brave and talented and
> persuasive guy (even if he essentially started a genocidal process is the
> Americas for interwoven commercial and religious reasons).
>
> It's a complex set of issues to argue in the USA, both accepting markets
> have some value and showing their limits (externalities, inequities,
> systemic risks, etc.). And of course, overall there is a trend towards
> exponentially increasing automation and better design breaking the link
> between direct human labor and total industrial productivity, which reduces
> the need for human labor even if demand rises, which in turn drives down
> wages and working conditions, in a vicious negative spiral we are seeing
> the
> beginning of now. Agriculture went from most of the workforce to 2% in the
> USA in two hundred years. Manufacturing went from 30% of the workforce to
> 12% in fifty years and is still falling. Services are likely next, in part
> from James and Janet Baker's excellent speech recognition work (although
> also from work by people at IBM and elsewhere) as well as robotics work
> done
> at lots of places (including Willow Garage).
> "Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man" (Guess women are safe? :-)
>
> http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/07/26/1140254/Scientists-Worry-Machines-May-Outsmart-Man?from=rss
>
> One thing to consider is that "past performance does not guarantee future
> gains" as far as human happiness from a free market. Especially, one like
> that of the USA, where from about 1950 to 1970 the USA was the only major
> economy on the planet not destroyed by WWII and so had a big advantage.
> Since the 1970s, real wages for most people in the USA have been stagnant
> (although quality of some products have gone up, while others have gone
> down). Other countries have done better since, but the riots in Greece
> mainly over jobs for people in their 20s seem to me like the beginnings of
> things to come (even given Europe has had higher unemployment in the past).
>
> So, I find myself talking about how there is a structural failure in the
> current system as quantitative changes become qualitative changes.
>
> Still, that ignores the issue of whom the market has harmed. For example,
> Brink Lindsey of the Cato Institute in his book "The Age of Abundance"
> talks
> about how US Americans must be better off due to the free market because
> poor people have dishwashers and TVs now. But that ignores how maybe a lot
> of Africans or Middle Easterners may feel worse off being in nations that
> transformed from autonomous countries to US supply regions. But the process
> is so complex that it is hard to make simple conclusions (for example,
> populations went up in some places in Africa, and some people are much
> better off, even as others may be worse off in some ways but might not have
> been born, etc.).
>
> Anyway, I just wanted to share this notion that Millionaire Wannabees are
> one reason there is substantial resistance to alternative economic ideas.
> I'm not sure how best to address that issue. Maybe more alternative
> examples  defining success differently than being a billionaire in a world
> with lots of poverty?
>
> --Paul Fernhout
> http://www.pdfernhout.net/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>

-- 
Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com

Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens;
http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens

Connect through http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090728/b3019caa/attachment-0001.html>