[Head banger] Friday, December 26, 2008 9:55:55 PM
sure, but without gates, where are they? without any of the workers, he hires a different worker.
its not all about him, but he is a large chunk of it. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 26, 2008 4:38:40 PM)
_strat_ wrote:
I would imagine that he employed them as he went along. The fact here is that Microsoft (the name is allegedly inspired from Bill Gatess genitals) is an international corporation, that has its subsidiaries in practicly every country in the world, and does more than just develop new crap, but sells it, promotes it, provides service for it... ect. Even though Gates may have had the idea and did work in his field, there is still much more to Microsoft than just what he does or did.
Head banger wrote:
but he didnt have legions of workers. and if it sucks, he must be briliant to convince everyone to buy it.
_strat_ wrote:
Yeah right. The guy makes a new system that is exactly like the old one, except it crashes more often, and thats why he should get billions. And of course, he has legions of employees all over the world that do his bidding for him.
He is a hypocrate, thats what he is.
Head banger wrote:
bill gates, and he gave it all away!
_strat_ wrote:
True, but wealth that is created by whom?
Head banger wrote:
no. for the poor to have more doesnt nessesarily reduce what the rich have.
and for the rich to have less, wont give the poor less. you see the pool of money which we draw from is not a set number. it varies with the wealth that is created
_strat_ wrote:
Both. One goes with the other, doesnt it?
Head banger wrote:
strat, do you want the poor to have more or the rich to have less?
