Their success is on the backs of people who do the real work. They are also on the backs of the American people who contribute significant amount of money through government sponsorship. The tech we use today is based on government investment that the private industry coudn't stomach.
So no, I do not celebrate their success and I will judge them sharply for profiting so handsomely from public investment.
And don't give me crap about how we benefit too. If our economy was working as a free market that the same billionaires feel it should, they coudn't be billionaires.
What kind of drivel is that? If you create a product/service which nobody else can duplicate and the demand for it is there, you are going to make a profit. That's exactly how a "real" free market functions.
why wouldn't someone be able to duplicate? You keep things secret? Government protects you via patents and copyright? I mean econ 101 is that markets bring profits towards zero. A perfect market with perfect information means zero profit. Any market that tends towards "perfection" would therefore be anathema to any capitalist.
In other words, fuck man, capitalists hate markets. They would prefer that you don't have a choice but to buy from them.
Keeping secrets is only one option. Another is the cost to duplicate. Your myopic understanding of manufacturing processes likely cannot be alleviated in the comments section here, but just consider that the cost to build certain chip fab plants is up in the billions and takes years to build. Once the first entity builds that, it is guaranteed a profit for at least the number of years it takes to build a duplicate manufacturing process. This is true under any definition of a real free market, making your assertion false.
>In other words, fuck man, capitalists hate markets.
Nope, you mean incumbents hate markets. I think you need to revisit the definition of a capitalist. A real capitalist dreams of when they can come in with a better price/service/product and unseat the incumbents.
Profits would only go to zero if everybody was equally talented, equally educated, equally industrious, and equally lucky. Reality, of course, is quite different.
> The tech we use today is based on government investment that the private industry coudn't stomach.
Wasn't that, in at least part, the reason why government felt the investment was worth making? To fund (expensive) basic research that can then be taken to drive and create enterprise?
Notice we are talking about the government as some "other" instead of what it should be, made of you and me. Lets rephrase what you said with that in mind.
"Wasn't that, in at least part, the reason why WE felt the investment was worth making? To fund (expensive) basic research that can then be taken to drive and create enterprise?"
and let me finish it off for you.
"that can then be taken to drive and create enterprise so that we can pay out the ass for everything we buy so that a couple of snakes can have billions."
The reality is the government made that decision behind our backs. Nobody asked you and me. They made that decision to pad the pockets of their friends. They are just administrators after all.
How much of the funding of Intel/Amd/ARM, who probably built the cpu you're using to access this side, came from the government? How much of the funding of this site itself, and of other sites you may use on a daily basis such as Google and Facebook, came from the government? How much of the funding for the GPU that's rendering this site came from the government? How are you not benefiting from all these things?
Long term profit has no space in models of a _perfectly competitive_ market, a theoretical concept used in the exploration of various economic ideas. The "free"ness of a market doesn't necessarily imply anything about the potential for profit within that market.
I mean, are you familiar with the history of google and facebook? Pagerank was paid for by a government grant. Why aren't the profits of google being distributed into our pockets? Facebook had early investment from CIA connected sources. SpaceX is almost all funded by NASA.
I mean look at the technologies they built. Largest people tracker (Google) and largest communication graph (Facebook). Look at the current web technologies and the massive centralization of technology.
Let the government turn off the money spigot, and silicon valley will be bankrupt in a week.
No, I'm not familiar with the history of Google and Facebook, hence why I was asking for data regarding what proportion of their business was funded by government money. As in, a percentage.
>Their success is on the backs of people who do the real work.
Oh really? And when was the last time you attempted to do what these people do? Easy to judge sitting from an armchair, isn't it?
While you're at it, why don't you stop using any of the products that these people create? And stop using any of the products created by people using their products? Why don't you stop patronising for instance any business that uses Microsoft or Oracle software? Let's see how much choice that leaves you.
>They are also on the backs of the American people who contribute significant amount of money through government sponsorship.
The American government decided to use public resources to fund research without attempting to monopolise the application of results. If you don't like the fact that people have created successful businesses and products with this, you should blame the government, not the people who took risks and brought the applications to market. You don't get to hold out your hand and ask for something back when you gave it away for free in the first place.
>I will judge them sharply for profiting so handsomely from public investment.
Perhaps you should be judged too. After all, aren't you this very moment enjoying the internet? Isn't your enjoyment of it, its enrichment of your life (even potentially your dependence on it for your economic niche) a profit of your own? And how much have you decided to donate to the government as compensation for this profit from your use of the fruits of public research funding?
>Profit has no space in "real" free markets.
I suggest you educate yourself in basic economics before making such stupid claims.
I am too nice to do what those people do. I am too nice to fire anyone, to stab my partner in the back. To steal millions from my employees. To lie to investors.
I am just too honest damned. and just too damn nice to attempt to do what these people do.
Remember the Simpsons episode with Bill Gates where he says "I didn't get rich by writing checks!"
And why the hell are you defending those people? Do you wish to be one of those one day? What is in it for you to spend time with a dope like me sniffing their shit?
So no, I do not celebrate their success and I will judge them sharply for profiting so handsomely from public investment.
And don't give me crap about how we benefit too. If our economy was working as a free market that the same billionaires feel it should, they coudn't be billionaires.
Profit has no space in "real" free markets.