Yabby, you have vacillated, prevaricated and obfuscated, but you have yet to tell us which year Apple achieved anything like the 90% market share that Microsoft has enjoyed for many years.
Bill Gates, Monopoly buster. Good one, Yabby.
Col Stern, love your quote:
Just like one famous politician said "The larger the slice taken by government, the smaller the cake available for everyone."
Which famous politician, Col Stern? It looks more like you're misquoting me:
“in a finite world, with finite resources, the larger the slice one person (eg Gates) takes, the less there is for everyone else”.
Surely it shouldn't take much more intellect than an average ten year old has to see that Stern's quote doesn't make sense. Governments take a 'slice' in taxes to put back into the community; the size of the cake is unaffected. In fact, it could be argued that when governments put money into infrastructure or immigration, the result is an increase in the size of the cake. As usual, Col Stern is only looking at his slice of the cake.
About the only way to decrease the total size of the cake is to take money out; the Marcos regime fairly leaps to mind here. By taking billions out of the Philippines and placing it into Swiss and American banks, the Philipino 'cake' was made considerably smaller.
But this wasn't 'government'; this was a corrupt individual. Clearly, even being part of government isn't essential; to decrease the size of a nation's cake, you only have to be rich, and have overseas accounts.
And as for 'strawman' arguments, it would be hard to imagine a better example. I point out that there is a slight disparity in wealth between the richest and poorest, where it would take -literally- fifty four million, seven hundred and ninety four thousand, five hundred and twenty one years for the average or median human to make as much as the the richest human, the best you can come back with is “well, you can sell your computer”.
Yeah, that'll fix it.

“TBC, what cannot be denied, is that Australian workers own 1.3
trillion$ worth of assets, or basically Australia's means of
production.”
Yes it can. Aussie workers don't 'own' (have total control over) those assets until they reach retirement age. With governments all round the world going broke, and super funds being the largest cash pool, how long before they put one and one together?

From the recent drooling sprays by those of the left side of this debate I still have a couple of questions

Show me where my statement

Collectivism, by any name has only ever produced at best a waste and at worse, mass murder

Is wrong

Show me where capitalism has produced worse outcomes than collectivism

Grim - “in a finite world, with finite resources, the larger the slice one person (eg Gates) takes, the less there is for everyone else”.

Not really because

People freely purchased Microsoft products, they were not forced to and Microsoft does not exist as an absolute monopoly, supplying an essential.

What Bill Gates has is the residue of the value which he delivered to other people and which they freely bought

The same cannot be said for government taxation

In terms of national economies, even what Warren Buffet and Bill Gates own combined, is still a crumb of the total cake, whereas

In the 10 years of Blair/Brown socialism in UK the government take increased from 37% to 53% of GDP and is seen as part of the UK problem– basically all incentive to take risks and innovate have been taxed out of existence hence stagnation.

Australia was about 31.6% and reducing under liberals but about to increase through the fiddling by the insidious socialist.

Bill Gates is a self made man
Warren Buffet is a self made man,

they did not inherit their wealth

Of the millionaires in Australia 1/3 are first generation immigrants, coming here and building their wealth from nothing

Gates and Buffet and others offer a beacon of example for new generations to aspire to.

Taxing them out of existence leaves just nothing, except darkness

But that is all you ever get with collectivist policies

The darkness and misery of gulags, ignorance and poverty.

Squeers says he will defend “Marx's philosophy.”

But no one can separate the philosophy from the facts,

I gave him a list of the results of “Marxist Philosophy”... millions of dead bodies and misery... and he avoids challenging me on it

What more needs to be said?

Yabby... super is not on the horizon for most workers, it is simply stolen from their wages, without their consent, and goes, in a hit and miss manner, into a superfund that they have absolutely no control over.

If it's an industry fund it does marginally better than a private enterprise one, due to lower fees and wages for the bludgers that run them all.

Of course, far too many times we find that employers are not paying the super contributions when they should be, or at all in some cases...another 'theft' perpetrated on the owners of that money.

The system is poorly desigend, to rip workers off and benefit the managers and governments.

How many hundreds of millions sit unclaimed?

And how much of this stash goes into productive work?

Not much. Buying shares in existing companies produces nothing at all, unless you buy cheap-sell dear, which is merely gambling, with all attendant risks associated with the roulette wheel or one-armed bandit.

And anyway, what are the nett returns of this vast lump of monies?

Less than the current mortgage costs of most people, on average.

How does that work?

With all those 'clever people' investing for all they are worth they still cannot get a real return, on average, on the money for someone who has a mortgage as well as super, why so?

Grim...sadly, I really don't think Australian workers will ever put one-and-one together, with super or anything else for that matter.

I wonder how much 'education' Belly and ilk give his members on super?

It is a 'secret' business, an arcane mystery, a priestly activity, and as with all priestly activities, it carries a 'do not disturb' notice across it, and workers are happy not to look, ask, question ever, about anything.

Stern,

You said - "I gave him a list of the results of "Marxist" philosophy...millions of dead bodies and misery..."

Quote - Stern (on the future delights of post-capitalism):
"And of course, supply and demand, will declare that if world population continues to grow, regardless of what collectivists predict, eventually a lot of people will not be able to earn enough to feed themselves, and they will die off."

On the one hand (in the blue corner) you tell us that it is not the capitalist philosophy that is the problem, it's the way that humans implement it, (being the greedy, esteem seeking souls that they are). And on the other hand you won't give the same treatment to Marxist philosophy by separating it from past practice

Col Stern

>> Collectivism, by any name has only ever produced at best a waste and at worse, mass murder <<

As far as I know my local organic food collective have not murdered anyone except for the occasional aphid.

For the last effing time we are not promoting last century soviet gulag style communism. You are very slow on the uptake. Perhaps a reread of Grim's, TBC's previous posts is on order.

No one has stated that competition is bad - we have argued the reverse that true competition is being strangled out of existence by global corporates.

As Grim said so succinctly:

>>> What is the difference between the dreaded world government, and the world corporation?
For several decades, it hasn't been governments (at least, not directly) that have continually forced small farmers off the land; it has been 'free market pressure'. Just follow the trend. Within 50 to 100 years at the current rate, all farm land in Australia will be owned not by the government, but by at most 2 corporations. The concept of the family farm, of handing on to your children land in a better state than when you found it, will be history. <<<

We don't have true capitalism any more - if we ever really did.

Cont'd