Ok, its true pirating its wrong and such. but think about the ppl who cannot afford a pc. ppl likke i was once who had to have a pirated OS, an pirated software in order to get something out of a crappy pc i found on the trash? Could i afford a brand new pc those days? no i couldn't. Could i afford an os those days? no and it woulndt install on the machine. What could i do?! Install Linux? tried, didnt worked, and specs where too low. What did i did on neccesity, not cuz i was evil adn trying to make microsoft poorer. If so and microsoft "care about people", why they dont officially make their out dated OS (Win95, Win98,WinME) open source, or freeware. Same to office. But noooooooo, they want to make you buy the latest and expesive new OS and office suite. PPl pirate because they see they cant afford. i'm legit but i understand those who pirated software cuz i been there and done that.

o71g

Quote:

---

it can not be compared to stealing a car or shop lifting. Can you imagine calling the police because someone cloned your car and drove off with it.

---

True enough, but lets pretend they didnt clone your car and they simply stole it. You pay for the car, the other gets a free car. Its worse than pirating, obviously, because the original owner paid for a product that got stolen from him. But isnt it the same for the car manufacturers? (in comparison to pirating) People are getting their cars without paying for them. If they stop this then maeby their sales would go up. Theirs no maeby in Ms's sales going up if they stop piracy.

7Phoenix, So you found a computer, all hardware included and without an OS, in the trash can a while back, and installed a pirated copy of an OS. Not likely, bot not impossible. Unless your life depended on it or you where sitting their shivering in the street, hungry and lonely, i dont think you "had to have" a pirated os. And i also doubt that "people pirate because they cant afford". See my other posts.

Hmm. I think I've seen this before.

movie prices up > movie pirating up
music prices already too high > music pirating up
software prices up > software pirating up

if we can take this as a valid example, then isn't it obvious that
software prices down = software pirating down?

And it's not like it costs them triple digit figures to MAKE one copy of MSO. A disk costs what, %0.05? And any other costs to make it, like electricity or repair of equipment, also become negligible. So, they're selling a product with a potential cost of about $5 for something around $200. How does that 40x profit margin look to you? Can you honestly say it looks fair? Even if you figure in the cost of developing it (remember that it was about 80% rehash--only 20% were new features that had to be coded) the profit margin is, for lack of a better word, ridiculous. What does that amount to? Blue-chip greed, the plague on most big companies in the world. They can't be happy with the 16 BILLION that they already have, no, thats not nearly enough!

And what about the big legal uproar about the first validation service? You would think that that would keep M$ from trying it again. But, what are a few court costs when you make a 40x profit margin on every product? Microsoft has become, by twisting the rights of our free-market economy, more powerful that our judicial system. They can AFFORD to go to court millions of times and pay million of fines for their unconstitutional activities, and they don't even flinch.

I really wouldn't mind them having so much money if they used it to further the business rather than using it to make more money. If they spend the (relatively miniscule) amount to fix the thousands of bugs in their software, add features that should have been added years ago, or lower the prices on older items, then I would say that they have a right to their money because it's coming back to us. But right now, it's all staying in the corporate executives' pockets. "Why should I waste money on fixing bugs when I can use it to buy my sixth mansion?" "I think another private jet is more important than adding features." etc. etc.

When it comes down to it, there are two answers: alternative software, and illegitimate copies. I will sing praises for OO from dawn till dusk, but it still can't compare with the original on the public market. Who could compete with a company that uses $100s to wipe their @$$es? I will always support open source, but one person, or even a hundred people, won't make much of a difference. It's the big businesses that license M$'s software that keep the market share securely in their hands. And they will continue to, because these other big companies are the same way--they have money to burn.

So, here are your alternatives--inferior software or illegal software. 9/10 would choose illegal software. If M$ gets their way, there won't even be any alternative software LEFT. So it looks more and more like there's only one answer.

Side-note
If you don't want to be a pirate but still want cheap/free Windows software, consider several special programs that they offer:

Home use/upgrade program-
MSO for around $8, WXP for $30. Most businesses offer this, ask your IT guy.

OEM software-
always cheaper, especially when it comes to WXP. This is the way to go, hands-down, if you want legit WXP.

Upgrading-
Find/buy/copy an old version of MSO, and buy the "upgrade version" of a new one; you'll pay less, guaranteed.

P.S.S.
Have any of you READ the leaked source code of WINXP? Once you see how it's written, the "monkeys" theory won't seem so far-fetched.

@ CiDaemon

Quote:

---

Microsoft has become, by twisting the rights of our free-market economy, more powerful that our judicial system.

---

First of all, lets take a peek at our free-market economy: CAPITALISM.

Capitalism is an economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. (investopedia.com)

1. Free-enterprise - people have the right to choose the way they make a living, work or own a business. I understand, however, that if you think Ms is run by monkeys then this does not apply to them.

2. Open competition - the struggle between competing companies to sell their products results in lower prices and better products. So instead of whyning like babies why dont all you people fight back? ( Im NOT referring to PIRACY, honestly....) Its not Microsoft's fault that its most worthy competitor is (sadly) Apple, owning 2.3% of OS' in the market...

3. Profit motive - people are free to enjoy the goods of their labor. Desire for more profit encourages quality and service. Do i even need to explain this? Microsoft has been so succesfull they can now (quote) wipe their @$$e$ with $100's.

4. Private ownership - individual people own the means of production, people can own homes, businesses, farms, etc... Soooo, Microsoft can't determine their own prices? High as they may be you guys are being inequitable not too say that its completely their right to do this.

So it comes down to illegal software does it? I mean if Microsoft increases their prices they are giving us customers no choice arent they? I mean, if we wanted to make a decent living we should cheat our way through High School right? And then cheat our way through medical school because we have no choice, right? After all, cheating is the same as pirating: one person earned his answers and another leeches it all off him and gets what he hasnt earned for a price he didn't pay and covers it all up with pathetic excuses.

So, CiDaemon, you might be intrested in another economic system to make up for all this unfairness, its called Communism.

COMMUNISM - an ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production.
- This would answer all the things you're complaining about.
-----------

Quote:

---

So, here are your alternatives--inferior software or illegal software. 9/10 would choose illegal software.

---

If you're going to make up statistics you might as well make them reasonable....
-----------
Also, the > symbol means "is greator than". I think you are trying to say that movie prices up is equal to in ratio of movie pirating going up. In that case you would use the "=" sign.

ZIppyDSM

(I actually should have been using OOo instead of OO)

I feel there is a pretty decent spell check feature in OOo that is very similar to MSO. It does show any words in question with a red underline, but it does take a little teaching for it to learn the special words and names that are specific to you, but that can be said for MSO, and for me, that was a minor issue.

There is a Thesaurus, but I haven’t used it yet.

There doesn’t appear to be a grammar check feature at this moment. At least, I couldn’t locate it where I would expect a grammar check feature to be, and there hasn’t been any indication in my documents of where improper grammar has been used.

I did change the default way that it saved documents to the MSO version, since I do have MSO at my work place,

Another great thing about OOo is there is a portable version out there that can be easily installed onto a thumb drive. It’s great if you are exposed to any computers that do not have a word processor (spreadsheet program, database program, and so on) installed.

Years ago, I (and many of my friends) actually started getting applications the pirated way. It was a great way to try out or use their products. Over time, I (and they) became legit with many of those software purchases, and I strongly feel many software applications owe their current existence today to the early years of piracy.

In my view, if many of the software applications had not been pirated, many people may not have had exposure to certain titles that were not at all shareware. There was no way to try them out to see if it was something they wanted, needed, or liked. Once these titles became more mainstream to the public, they wanted to really crack down on the dark alley tactics that helped them survived in the first place, plus they are also taking the prices to outrageous levels that are now making me seek other avenues to accomplish the same task.

This is another reason I’m migrating to OOo.

Also,

MS has already admitted that MSO is their cash cow software. It seems that when they see their current version of MSO sales slowing down, they slap on a fresh coat of paint and include a few extra features in their software and call it their next great version, and you will be forced to purchase the newer version at some point because, they will no longer support the current version that you are using sometime in the near future.

Office packs are minor commodities today. Who use more than 10% of such capabilities ? The point is the format to exchange "Office" data. Microsoft may created one of the industry "open" standards formats (*.doc and *.xls). So any Office pack reading and writing such format are OK.
So, OpenOffice or anything else is just OK. Why so much waste around this ? (10 years ago, it could be understandable, but today ...) Gone.

Quote:

---

I strongly feel many software applications owe their current existence today to the early years of piracy.

---

Finally somebody is making a good point. I also agree with this, to a certain extent. However, nobody here, and nobody i ever met has ever pirated software to help 'further' the existence of some software application (whatever it may be), and this should defenitely not be used to say (and im sure it will be) pirating is good for software businesses. Also i think pirating led less people than you seem to think to "exposure to certain titles that were not all shareware"

MarcioAB, Maybe each person uses only 10% of all commodities, but maybe between the millions of people that use them all the capabilities come in handy, depending on the user.

/bow

Quote:

---

1. Free-enterprise - people have the right to choose the way they make a living, work or own a business.

---

Yes, people have the right to do whatever they please economically. This right means nothing, however, to the people who don't have the ability. I would just love to start my own brain surgery business, but there's no chance that I would ever get it off the ground-I couldn't pay for the training, equipment, etc. So, the ability of doing "whatever the hell you want" in business is restricted to those who can afford to. Guess who can afford to?

Quote:

---

2. Open competition - the struggle between competing companies to sell their products results in lower prices and better products. So instead of whyning like babies why dont all you people fight back?

---

Oh, what a grand idea! I think I'll just write my own office suite that is capable of competing with a multi-billion dollar giant ;). My point is, there are a very select few who can even participate in this "competition", and barely any who stand a chance. Most of these are already working for M$, and the remaining few are trying their best...and have my full support. But, considering that M$ has virutally no competition in the field, they have a monopoly- no prices to compete with means they don't have any reason to lower theirs. Unless, of course, they did it because they genuinely thought it was too expensive...but has M$ ever done anything out of the kindness of their hearts? I whole-heartedly support alternative software, but that's about the most that I can do to help. We really are only spectators, so is it really so strange that all we can do is comment on it?

Quote:

---

3. Profit motive - people are free to enjoy the goods of their labor.

---

Hard to argue with that. Consider, however, a comparison between M$ employees and farmers (hypothetically). The farmer, who works 11+ hours a day doing hard labor,recieves very little fruit for his labor. The average M$ executive, however, works for mabye 8 hours a day, and most days dosen't even do any work. The rare occation on which an exec must work usually lasts the duration of a meeting or presentation. Yet, the exec recieves many times the good for his labor as the farmer. Could anyone really say that the hugely disproportionate work/gain ratio of a M$ exec is fair? Unfortunately, however, there is little we can do about this as well--the exec knows that he can do whatever he wants with his money, and feels no qualms about spending it all on himself.

Quote:

---

4. Private ownership - individual people own the means of production, people can own homes, businesses, farms, etc... Soooo, Microsoft can't determine their own prices? High as they may be you guys are being inequitable not too say that its completely their right to do this.

---

Of course they ahve the right--they [ci]cling to it. But that dosen't mean they have to. They choose to set their prices extrodinarily high, so the effects of that choice (a.k.a. priacy of their software) are, literally, their fault. So, they develop auditing software, make it mandatory, and use it so that they can maintain their high pricing.

I never said there was only one choice (piracy). There's always another choice- buy the software that's worth 1/10 what you paid for it. That choice is up to you. But, honestly, which is the logical way to go? Some might say it is better to buy the software. Certainly, it has its advantages. If you can get it for $8, like I did, then it's worth it to buy a legit copy (most would say). If, however, you can either pay full price or pay zero... again, up to you.

The taboo on the word "communism" really gives it a bad connotation, and most people don't understand it. This is logical, considering all of the failed attempts at communism in the past. Ideal communism would be desirable for most people (except the extremely rich), but ideal communism is very difficult to achieve because of indivdual greed. In theory, it's the "fairest" of any economic system (socialism would probably be more accurate, but they're related closely enough to substitute). But, due to the risks of attempting to establish an equal state system, this is nigh impossible. People just have a natural instinct to hoard, to make as much as they can and keep it for themselves. Capitalism allows for this unsanctioned hoarding, and hence the hoarders take advantage of it.

----
Pardon the use of an ambiguous symbol (hard to avoid it). I assumed that one could tell that my statements were NOT mathematical expressions, and therefore the "Greater than" definition would not apply. The statements are more closely realted to algorithms than equalities, which you mistook them for. They were not meant to be interpreted as "A IS B" or "A is proportional to B", but rather as casual statements; "A results in B", "A causes B", or "B because A". Visually, this relationship is shown with an arrow, and due to the lack of an arrow on my keyboard I used the closest thing...">"

----
I very much enjoy discussing this topic, please do not hesitate to reply and continue our debate, though please refrain from oblique personal insults or chiding adjectives from now on.

Quote:

---

MarcioAB, Maybe each person uses only 10% of all commodities, but maybe between the millions of people that use them all the capabilities come in handy, depending on the user.

---

Magova, maybe the good 80/20 rule still works here. Then, 80% of all people use only 20% of all capacity. (I just reduced the rule to 90/10).
So, let those 20% or 10% people that need it, to use MS Office and the rest can use OpenOffice or anything else.

Quote:

---

Yes, people have the right to do whatever they please economically. This right means nothing, however, to the people who don't have the ability. I would just love to start my own brain surgery business, but there's no chance that I would ever get it off the ground-I couldn't pay for the training, equipment, etc. So, the ability of doing "whatever the hell you want" in business is restricted to those who can afford to. Guess who can afford to?

---

I agree with everything that you said here, and I understand Ms controls the market. The purpose of my four points was to prove that what you were saying, "microsoft has become, by twisting the rights of our free-market economy...." , is incorrect, because they completely and legitimitaly followed all rights in our Capitalistic society. You pounced on every single one of my points though... xd.

Quote:

---

My point is, there are a very select few who can even participate in this "competition", and barely any who stand a chance.

---

So very few can even try to compete with Microsoft, very true. Again, you can't blame this on them, or say that they're twisting our economy. They built up their own succes and now they can reap it from the rest of us because were all too late in creating a worthy multi-billion dollar competitor.

As for the monopoly, well check out Europe's monopoly laws. They dont even allow Ms to give away free WindowsMediaPlayer because it ruins other small businesses trying to sell Mediaplayers. So if your going to complain about the monopoly, then blame it on the American Government monopoly laws. Microsoft is not breaking any of them.

Quote:

---

but has M$ ever done anything out of the kindness of their hearts?

---

- word of advice: dont rely on the "kindness of their hearts" of any business, organization, corporation, company, or any human being.

Quote:

---

Consider, however, a comparison between M$ employees and farmers (hypothetically). The farmer, who works 11+ hours a day doing hard labor,recieves very little fruit for his labor. The average M$ executive, however, works for mabye 8 hours a day, and most days dosen't even do any work. The rare occation on which an exec must work usually lasts the duration of a meeting or presentation. Yet, the exec recieves many times the good for his labor as the farmer. Could anyone really say that the hugely disproportionate work/gain ratio of a M$ exec is fair? Unfortunately, however, there is little we can do about this as well--the exec knows that he can do whatever he wants with his money, and feels no qualms about spending it all on himself.

---

Very bad analogy here. Of course Ms will get more money, of course its unfair. Have you ever heard the joke "What do congressman say to each other every Wednesday? Have a good weekend." The average salary of a congressman $165,000 and they get an automatic 2% raise every year. (YES, this is our GOVERNMENT, belive it or not) I mean look at what the Supreme court justices just did, increase salary from $155,000 to $171,000: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06258/722069-85.stm This isn't fair compared to the immigrants picking peaches 12 hours a day for minimum wage too feed their families back in Mexico, is it? This subject goes beyond Ms or our government. Life is not fair, life has never been fair, and life will never be fair.

Quote:

---

.... But, honestly, which is the logical way to go?

---

As ive said before i do not think price is an excuse for piracy. I dont believe people pirate because its expensive i think they do it because its free and so on and so on.... see my other posts.

Quote:

---

If, however, you can either pay full price or pay zero... again, up to you.

---

Its up to you to pay full price or zero, very true. But its not just the price you should look at. Check out the program we were talking about way back then at the beggining of the thread, you will have problems, whether or not OGA's and WGA's keep getting hacked. And you will have legal issues, i can just imagine someone being falsely accused (or not falsely...) of stealing $1 billion from JoeSmo's software business, and they find pirated Os', and offices, and software and illegal-whatnot on your computer and you get maximum bail for it. A thing that kinda bugs me is when people with pirated software whyne like crazy when someone somewhere tries to end all piracy. There are risks and results to piracy, its not just another option on the bulletin board. (you already know my opinion on this, it shouldnt be an option at all)

About communism, we already know the story: The people like the idea, give the governemnt too much power, the gov goes corrupt, we all cant do a thing about it because the gov is in power. It was just an analogy. Things like Microsoft result from our own economic system, which is obviously not perfect. I don't quite understand why you said "Capitalism allows for this unsanctioned hoarding, and hence the hoarders take advantage of it." the way you said it. Their is really no option left other than capitalism, it sounds like your putting Communism in good light when you compare it to Capitalism. I would have said its just impossible. Anyway.... people have a natural instinct to hoard, no matter what economic system. This is true.

Quote:

---

please refrain from oblique personal insults or chiding adjectives from now on.

---

Ill try, im acutally quite sorry i brought the topic up in the first place, and i apologise, but im still going to stubbornly hold my point, because i still think im right:
The letter 'e' means the letter 'e', and nothing else. You are not going to put the letter 'e' where a letter 'a' belongs, right? Not even if the letter 'e' is the closest resemblance to the letter 'a' you can find. The simbol '>' will always mean 'greator than' . And if you were looking for an arrow, well rather than looking for the symbol that looks the closest like an arrow, maeby you should look for a symbol that means the closest, in which case the '=' sign should be used.
An arrow, by the way, is '-->'.

MarcioAB, Im not quite sure you understood what i was trying to say. Not that 80% of all people use only 20% of all capacity. I was trying to say that the many different capabilities may all come in handy if every person uses different ones, depending on what they are trying to do. Sort of like giving you many different ringtones on a cellphone, everybody might only use 10% of the ringtones but each person picks the ones that they want to use. Of course i completely agree that if your only going to use a few features of Msoffice then why pay the full price for it, get a free office.

Magova, I see your point. Examples are good. Beyond MS Office another example of the 80/20 rule could be a DVD player. My points are:

1. The famous 80/20 rule exist and is going well (capitalism quickly forget that).
2. MS Office (like many other things) follows the 80/20 rule.

Just to check, the 80/20 rule says 80% of users are 100% attended with just 20% of the existing capabilities of something.
The other 20% users are kind of power users, shooting to every direction. The vendors start including those requests (the 80% part) into the basic product (the 20% part) and we all finally finished with a product that follow the 80/20 rule.

In your ringtones example, consider the normal pleasure distribution also start to follow the 80/20 rule (or 20% of the downloaded tones are made by 80% of the "normal" people and just 20% "funny guys" are downloading the other 80% tones. Those 20% tones could be offered free by any OpenSource Tone ONG and let those 20% "funny guys" pay for the 80% portion. Well, of course I'm not considering capitalism in the equation, but OpenSource is not (or minimally) considering it in his equation.

So, if MS Office follows the 80/20 rule and there is OpenOffice out there (that is also moving toward 80/20 ... take care OpenOffice), why so many people (much more those 20% "funny guys") are using MS Office ?

Because FEAR. Because the answer for the question bellow is YES. The question is:
If I use this "OpenOffice", is there, by any chance, a possibility that to receive someday a file (*.doc or *.xls or *.ppt) that I can note fully read/write in this "OpenOffice" ?

So, why to bother now with this OpenOffice ? Because you really must consider very seriously that MS Office is not free anymore.

I include myself one that 80% group. So, OpenOffice is 100% OK for me.

MarcioAB, You make a very good point. I had to read your post several times before making any sense of it lol.

You say that 4 out of every 5 people (edit: 80%) dont use MsOffice to its full extent, they just use 20% of MsOffice's capabilities. This may or may not be true, I personally think that that comes down to alot of people (80% of all users of MsOffice is alot of people), and not all would be satisfied with OpenOffice.

Something to think about, however, is that the 20% of the capabilities that 80% of users use in MsOffice might not be (and, i think, probably is not) the exact same 20% offered to you in OpenOffice.

Sometimes software from such a well-known corporation like Microsoft is a more obvious choice for the general public than an open source software available online. Also, fewer people than you think know about OpenOffice. Microsoft is just more 'popular'.

However, i do agree with you. A supprisingly number of people would be satisfied using OpenOffice rather than MsOffice, I just dont think its 80% of all MsOffice users.

Yes, these things you point out must be confirmed (despite the 80/20 rule is very true in general).

If OpenOffice does not provide such 20% basic functionality it will not survive much. (I personally think it has, but that is something people need to check by themselves - it´s just 93MB download away).

You are also right when you say OpenOffice is not even close to the MS Office popularity, but if MS really be successful resolving piracy (a very difficult crusade and the theme of this AfterDawn press) and people have to pay US$ 500 by MS Office, they may reconsider and look again to OpenSource and maybe they find OpenOffice. If don´t ... well ... pay US$ 500 to MS.

everyone in this forum needs to go check out my post in the news forum about how microsoft is forcing anyone who watches launch.com, or pretty much any web based streaming video that uses windows media player to upgrade to media player 11 beta. dont upgrade the 11 beta, dont get to watch ANY windows media player usuing streaming contenet from the web. and all this is is a forced validity check cause when you dl the 11 beta the first thing it does is check your status. so lame.

i noticed it on launch and adult swim.com, but i suspect any website that uses windows media in thier aplets has been forced to do this.

it started about three days ago, at this very moment i can see the little kiddies all over the world with there bootlegged OS' screaming at thier comps cause they cant watch the latest cassie video.

all i have to say about this is four words.

open office dot org

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? M$ seem to be swapping it around!

---

Well, maybe is not the case of innocent x guilty. It's the case of constructing FENCES around properties (a very primary right of anyone).

Someone are just explaining why they are creating such fences, but honestly, no one need to explain why a fence is established. Maybe it's just the Media Industry requesting that. They are just constructing the fences, in silence. No problem ...

fences are built to be climbed and jumped over, at least I always thought so. Why else do they make the little foot holes for?

---

MarcioAB
I would say that the 80/20 rule is more applicable to the bigger a software is. Some simple GUI programs only exist to do a sertain process. But an OS can do alot of things, and many people might be satisfied with only 20% of it.

I don't know whether or not the 80/20 rule applies only for software, but it doesnt apply to all things. Take a book, for example. 80% of the people that purchase the book arent going to be 100% satisfied with only 20% of the book. Same goes with a house, or a car, or a mp3 player, or a bed, lots of things. If its only for software than it would make more sense. And as i said, the bigger the software the more the 80/20 rule applies (in my opinion).

Magova, you are right. I do not mean all things are following the 80/20 rule, but many things follow it. Take a car for example and let's apply the rule: 80% of all drivers are 100% satisfied with just the 20% basic sofistications of all possible sofistications and just 20% of the other drivers are demanding for all sort (80%) of possible sofistications. That is the 80/20 rule applied to cars. I'm not sure if it fits well. I'm not a car expert. But sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Look what interesting Microsoft said today:

Document format compatibility. Microsoft and Novell have been focusing on ways to improve interoperability between office productivity applications. The two companies will now work together on ways for OpenOffice and Microsoft® Office system users to best share documents and both will take steps to make translators available to improve interoperability between Open XML and OpenDocument Formats.

bingo ...

Ballpyhon, I know some fences over here where people don't climb or jump over. It just depend how far do you want go with your fences.

I agree with you. I don't think MS want to create impossible transpassing fences. Because their past loose fences was the reason of their success. Now (with Vista) came the time to deploy stronger fences. The success of Linux will be the measure of the new fences.

This is just another nail in Microsoft's impending coffin. Sickening just how much they are invading our privacy just to protect their bottom line. I'll be putting my time and cash to Linux from now on.

MS exemplifies the best and worst aspects of the IT/Consumerist paradigm(I did`nt say capitalist because if you know the real meaning and origins of capitalism,then todays system IS NOT it)cc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
If we applied the principles of 'piracy' to everything,and to everything as bluntly,we would have to move backwards until we basically returned to feudal times(the process of which created TRUE capitalism)as we have copied,stolen or kidnapped our way to this point in time of Western society-at this point in time,every MS prod. should cost $50 to the employed,free to the unemployed,$100 to business etc.
I could`nt get the ref. to Communism before,but the correlation would be apt in that Communist Governments make universal market decisions based on their concept of value (sound familiar?) and the reverse of supply and demand,need and availability (in theory).With China lookin set to join the trillionaire club,tho,I guess we'll all soon find out the Communist version of "Capitalism"