I don't know what "I said now" means.  

the fact you think dropping out of college and starting a kick-up in a garage wasn't risky... lol.  I got nothing for you man.  I really don't.  

If we cannot align that Bill took all the risk with starting MS, there is no need for additional debate, because that is just nonsense garbage.  

Sorry I didn't actually say "now'. My first post was specifically said that middle income businesses are risky, but past that they're not. 

What exactly does risk mean to you? If someone is risking their life or property, that is risky. Being a coal miner is risky. Becoming an electrician is risky.  

Taking a break from college to try out a business venture while living at your upper income parent's house is not risky.  

Big business don't start big, so their creation was risky because they were small business at one point.  Nvidia didn't open up worth a trillion dollars.  

I think dropping out of college and putting one's own money on the table via a start-up absolutely is risky as ****.  I wouldn't do it, just like most others.  Bill took a gamble, it paid off.  Good for him.  I don't see the point in being jealous because he has stones I do not.  I tip my hat to him.  

Which I didn't say that they did. 

I wouldn't treat Microsoft in 1975, the same way I do in 2025. They have much more power and influence, and they have much less risk today. I think they should pay be willing to pay back what society has supported them to have. Particularly so other people can make similar "risks".  

It's only a risk, if there's something to lose. What do you think he would have lost if it didn't work out? And why do you think that?

I think when someone places a big bet that pays off, good for them.

I'm not a gates historian so no idea.  I know what I would lose and it is a shit ton of money and time that would hinder future wealth.

Why do you feel entitled to a payout when someone gambles their money and you don't have a chip on the table?

1. That actually makes a lot of sense, since that time period people have become much more individualistic which could explain the mindset of “does this benefit me?” rather than “does this benefit society?”

2. I can’t speak for the “left” as a whole but my view on taxes is basically that the Bush & Trump cuts were a mistake and the Clinton era rates found a healthy balance that allowed us to have a budget surplus while also being able to increase spending on infrastructure, education, healthcare and create the Child Tax Credit.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tax-cuts-are-primarily-responsible-for-the-increasing-debt-ratio/

With the exception of one time spending bills to combat the Great Recession & COVID-19, these tax cuts are responsible for 90% of the increase to the debt ratio. We had found the sweet spot of taxes rates that allowed for a balanced budget, the economy to thrive and continue to invest in things that help the working class……we threw that all away so rich people could get richer.

Always considered myself as a centrist, definitely centre right for economics and probably centre left in gay rights and stuff. The older I got I realised although my ideas kept the same, the line has switched to the left, a lot. So nowadays I am basically a fascist according to the internet. Some might even say a Nazi. Yet I see myself closer to being a libertarian. Dominic Frisby books had a great influence on me in the last 8 years.

Agreed.  Clinton had a great balance and was fair.  Taxes were fine.  I'm happy to take on more taxes, when someone (like you did) provides what "tax the rich means."  Going back to the Clinton days is fair.  

Thanks for providing metrics not silly cartoons.  

I don't know where you got this information from. It certainly is not historically complete. The National Socialist Party is a renaming of the German Workers party in 1920. The word Nationalist was at the time not the same how we interpreted it today. Germany as a unified country was still young (1871) and there was a political battle how much power central government should have compared to the individual states. Not dissimilar to today's discussions about the legislative power between the EU (Brussels) and the individual countries, or in the US between federal government and the states. The National Socialist Party sought to centralize power with the promise to solve the economic problems of the time at national level. Hence the moniker Nationalist at the time.

When they did actually won the election with that promise, they absolutely used the power of government as a socialist state. Nationalizing private property; banks, lands and wealth. 

The Nazi's were elected in 1933 against a 24% unemployment rate. Germany was shattered. This halved after the Nazi's where elected. Why? Government programs, that is why! Autobahns and military spending doing the heavy lifting. This economic success also explains why the German people fully supported the Nazi party going forward even into craziness that eventually would lead to the horrors of war.

Nationalization =/= socialism.

The question of federalism is also orthogonal to the socialist question. 

Many historical socialists promoted federalism (i.e Proudhon literally wrote a book extoling it.)  

What makes somebody socialist in the late 19th century onward is whether or not they supported the eventual abolition of the worker-owner relation of production and the class distinction that came with it.

Some socialists (marxist-leninists) promoted democratic centralism, which entailed nationalization of large parts of the political-economy. Although even they left room for cooperativism for certain segments of the economy. 

Other socialists believe(d) in alternative forms of socialization, everything from industrial-agricultural federations of workers (i.e Revolutionary Catalonia, Rojava, Proudhon) to cooperativism (policy of most DemSocs) to guilds (see: G.D.H Cole and Guild socialism.)

The thing that tied them altogether is that they eventually aimed to abolish the primary social class distinction in the capitalist system (workers vs. owners.) 

Nazis weren't socialists because they were class-collaborationists. They believed that social classes were natural (and often tied to one's sub-race makeup) and the various classes should cooperate in their rightful place in society. This is characteristically against everything socialists and the left-wing are for. The left aims to abolish hierarchies, not crystalize them. 

There was a Strasserite-wing, that didn't believe social class should exist within the general German (or greater "Aryan") race, but Chris Hu is correct in that they were purged early on in the Nazi regime.