Col Stern.
Now we come to the heart of the matter.
“Bill Gates is a self made man”
“Warren Buffet is a self made man,”
So are we to understand it is your contention that Gates and Buffet somehow organised -before they were born- NOT to be afflicted with Down's syndrome, or similar genetic fault? Or do you contend they still would have been as successful even if they had had that affliction?
The ancient Kings of England, right up to Charles 1 (who really lost his head over the idea... Sorry, I have never been able to resist that sad joke) strongly believed in their 'Divine Right' to rule. Since their God was clearly in full control of 'Births, Deaths and Marriages', God obviously wanted them to be Kings, so anything they did must be alright with God.
Of course, that same God also had control over the births of rapists, murderers, revolutionaries, and Oliver Cromwell (who really brought the matter to a head -sorry).
This concept of 'Divine Right' has largely fallen into disfavour with everyone -except RW libertarians, of course, who still believe in the Divine Right of Moguls.
I have to admit, Buffet is an interesting and remarkably unaffected man. He has freely admitted 'his is a peculiar talent'; one which he was fortunate not only to be born with, but born in exactly the right country, in exactly the right circumstances and right time to have done him the most good.
These so called 'God given' abilities have given the Moguls the 'liberty' to allocate funds in a manner which affects the lives (and deaths) of literally billions of people; without even a hint of Democracy.
The typical apology RW libertarians use to defend this 'Divine Right of Moguls' involves classic Orwellian 'doublethink'. Even as they applaud themselves for their ingenuity and superiority, the America Declaration of Independence clearly states “that all men are created equal”, therefore anyone who isn't just as successful as Gates or Buffet clearly just hasn't applied themselves, and therefore has no one to blame but themselves.

Peter Hume, you have written reams on this post concerning Mises' theory of Economic Calculation.
Sadly, it was largely irrelevant.
The problem with slavishly adhering to the mechanics or theories of people in the past, is that they lived in the past. Their knowledge was inevitably incomplete. Isaac Newton was both a victim and happy witness to this phenomenon.
Mises and his disciple Hayek demonstrated that without some medium of exchange any economic calculation (to find the 'true' price of a commodity) would simply be too difficult.
No doubt Hayek even pulled out his slide rule to prove it.
We can only wonder what Mises would think of algorithmic trading, where a computer sets thousands of prices and makes thousands of trades an hour, without any human intervention. Also 'high volume' trading, such as barrels of oil being traded 47 times in one day, with each consecutive trade inflating the price.
Both Marx and Mises were intelligent men, and very much men of their times, as inevitably are we all. To suggest if they lived today they would still have identical views is to do them discredit.
The reason, however, that Mises' Economic Calculation is irrelevant to the discussion is that it wasn't so much a repudiation of socialism, as a repudiation of central pricing, which most certainly is not an essential part of modern socialism or communism (which realistically, like anarchism can only work in small communities, not nation states).
There is of course, an even greater problem with economic calculation theory.
Have you ever noticed that RW libertarians are almost invariably AGW denialists?
How can a marketplace, in the absence of Law, accurately price something like atmospheric pollution, which affects everyone, even those (billions) who had no participation in the market? More especially, how can any market mechanism cope with or accurately price the future consequences of atmospheric pollution? It could conceivably come under the heading of insurance, but not without the dreaded 'R' word, regulation, and not without total international consensus; world government.
Much easier to simply deny there is a problem.

Grim - before they were born- NOT to be afflicted with Down's syndrome, or similar genetic fault? Or do you contend they still would have been as successful even if they had had that affliction?

No

but lets consider, Australian statistics reflect less than 4 % of the population suffer from any genetic disease and downs syndrome in Australia is 0.125% the population.

So the probability of being born with any genetic disability runs as at 30:1 outsider and with downs Syndrome, 800:1 .

But what on earth has that got to do with the topic of debate Grim?

Making asinine references like that just shows how bereft of debating skills and how desperately you will sink to try and make a fraudulent point of arguement

However, such puerile emotionalistic drivel makes me wonder

should “Collectivism” qualify as a genetic disorder?

Well lets consider it?

Clearly from observing the debating representations offered on this thread, cognitive incompetence would explain the lack of reasoning skills, debating prowess and comprehension demonstrated by the leftwing.

So maybe the collectivists would qualify for a disability pension….

I can see how you would like that idea, a government handout to compensate you for your disability

Of course, being cognitively challenged, you should not be allowed to vote ….. I can see how me and other real people I would appreciate that

So there, we have a Win-Win!

Collectivists get recognized as cognitively incompetent and receive a government handout because they cannot support them selves let alone “compete" on level terms with real people who are not afflicted with “collectivist-syndrome”

And acknowledging the profound intellectual impairment which accompanies that condition, they should banned from participating in public elections or be given access to sharp knives.

Perfect solution

Now run away and play with your crayons

*Basically, your statement was false.
“The one company who held the monopoly on a great operating system was Apple,
already in 1984.”*

Grim, indeed history proves me correct. Throughout the 80s, Apple
was a far larger company then Microsoft. In 1979 Apple were toying
with developing a business computer, when they went to visit the
Xerox research labs. They saw their first Graphical User Interface
with a mouse and were blown away, they could see the potential.

The Apple Mac, released in 1984, was far ahead of all the other
toy computers on the market, like your Commodores etc. Playstations
etc sell well, that does not mean that they would make a good
business computer.

Gates saw that potential and in 1985 started with Windows 1, but it
took him another 6 years to get it somehow right, with Windows 3.
But that was not the end of the story. Its dawns on some only
slowly, that what business wants is not a product, but a solution,
a package which works, that does what they want it to do.

His release of Office 94 provided the rest of the package. Windows
3 was little but a copy of the Apple Mac at much lower cost,
Office 94 gave business the basic software at an affordable price,
to make the whole thing useable.

Both Windows and Office became the standard for this very reason.
At that time the video VHS/Beta wars were fresh in peoples minds
and the value of being the standard was appreciated by smart
business people such as Gates.

Apple could have achieved all this in 1984, if they chose to. They
chose not to and it took Gates 10 years to catch up. But once
he became the standard, because he took notice of consumer needs,
the rest is history.

*These so called 'God given' abilities have given the Moguls the 'liberty' to allocate funds in a manner which affects the lives (and deaths) of literally billions of people; without even a hint of Democracy.*

There is indeed a huge amount of democracy involved Grim. For
of course hundreds of millions of people have voted with their
wallets every day, to buy these peoples products and services,
so they are clearly not dills.

Now both Gates and Buffet have decided to give the overwhelming
portion of their wealth to charitable causes, but they fully
realise how much money is wasted by the charity industry.

So their challenge is to see that this wealth is spent wisely and
effectively and not just peed up against walls, as Govt money
commonly is.

http://www.news.com.au/national/foreign-aid-ripped-off/story-e6frfkvr-1225891413139

Personally I have a lot more confidence in smart fellows like Gates
and Buffet getting it right, then any Govt committee.

Yabby, all the history of this thread has proven, is that you are incapable of admitting when you are wrong.
On several occasions you referred to Apple as having a monopoly.
Wrong. In terms of sales, they never achieved more than a distant third.
You say at one time they were a larger company.
So what?
What mystifies me is that while you are criticising Apple for having a quite fictitious monopoly, you continue to support Gates for having a real one. As you yourself point out, his OS has become the 'standard', and his company is the only one allowed to produce it.
It appears your inability to resile from an untenable argument has led you to argue yourself around in a circle.
Are you a Capitalist, or not?
Do you believe in competition, or not?
Or, are you in favour of monopolies?
Col Stern, I can only suggest you go back and read my post more slowly; although I suspect, even if you read it a dozen times, you still wouldn't understand.