Can we Create an America that can Lead the World

[DuncanK]

That's just false Willem.

[Velociryx]

Happens all the time, Duncan. I know it does not fall in line with what you believe, but we see it every week. People coming in with an idea, trying to get a loan, they get rejected.

Next week, here they come again....same idea, more polish and detail.

They get rejected again.

Next week....here they come again, yet more polish and detail.

Persistence pays. I've seen a lot of startups go just exactly that way.

Sure, if you give up, you won't succeed, and why should you?

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Happens all the time, Duncan. I know it does not fall in line with what you believe, but we see it every week. People coming in with an idea, trying to get a loan, they get rejected.

Next week, here they come again....same idea, more polish and detail.

They get rejected again.

Next week....here they come again, yet more polish and detail.

Persistence pays. I've seen a lot of startups go just exactly that way.

Sure, if you give up, you won't succeed, and why should you?

-=Vel=-

It depends on all kinds of things. Willem was saying that it happens too everyone. That's just false.

[Velociryx]

Yes...but one thing it *doesn't* depend on is whether or not you're "poor." If you have a sound business plan, and are persistent, you can do it!

In fact, you can do it more easily if you ARE poor, because of all the government grant programs available. I don't qualify for any, cos I make too much money (or so they tell me), but if you have a good idea, and are in a lower paying job, you can get FREE money from the government (up to a quarter of a million bucks, actually!)

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Yes...but one thing it *doesn't* depend on is whether or not you're "poor." If you have a sound business plan, and are persistent, you can do it!

In fact, you can do it more easily if you ARE poor, because of all the government grant programs available. I don't qualify for any, cos I make too much money (or so they tell me), but if you have a good idea, and are in a lower paying job, you can get FREE money from the government (up to a quarter of a million bucks, actually!)

-=Vel=-

I've heard about those things. I'm not really interested in running a business. I'm sure a lot of people aren't. Some people wouldn't be much good at it. Does that mean they deserve less?

[Velociryx]

If you won't try for more, then you don't deserve more. That is the principle of capitalism, and it is, IMO, a right minded one.

Why reward people for not trying? And if you do, what sense would it make to try? If you will be rewarded regardless, why bother?

So you don't want to run your own business....okay, if you must make money some way or another, your choices are to work for yourself, or to work for someone else. Alternately, you could steal it, but that then, clearly marks you as a criminal.

So what's it gonna be....either work for you, or work for me, but if you wanna eat, you'll work someplace, yes? Your choice, and based on your decision, and the amount of work you are willing to do/the amount of risk you are willing to take, you will earn lesser or greater rewards.

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

Some people try and fail and not because they are inferior. It's just because of market conditions or their competition was more ruthless than they were.

Capitalism doesn't reward everyone for trying. Sometimes it punishes them. You do know that not everyone could be a business owner. Some people have to be the workers. Even if everyone did get a loan (and there isn't enough money or resources for that) it would still end with unequal outcome.

I'm just not willing to accept that because capitalist A defeats capitalist B that capitalist A should now be able to exploit capitalist B. One reason is that capitalist A is not neccessarily better that capitalist B. Maybe capitalist A had more resources, more connections, better information, or he was just more ruthless and exploitive with his employees.

[Mazarin]

in terms of capitalism having "more resources, more connections, better information" or being "more ruthless and exploitive with his employees" means being better

[DuncanK]

Good point Mazarin. I'm getting a bit tired, and I think Vel is getting the better of me because of it. Of course, its very late where he is too.l

[Velociryx]

Your logic is now working against your argument with the following phrase:

I've heard about those things. I'm not really interested in running a business. I'm sure a lot of people aren't. Some people wouldn't be much good at it. Does that mean they deserve less?

Are you not arguing your position from the vantage point that all workers should own what they produce? And if so, does that not, BY DEFINITION, make all workers business owners?

Your argument, is therefore, too full of holes to sustain itself. It is a sinking ship, my friend.

-=Vel=-

[Iron Chancellor]

I think this has already been said, but what the hell, it needs to be repeated:

Economics is not a zero-sum gain. My gettting richer does not necessarily make you poorer. If economics was zero-sum, the Industrial Revolution would never have been able to happen, or if it did, it would mean that the capitalists got insanely rich and the workers had to work naked and in caves, eventually starving to death. AND THAT, MY FRIEND, DID NOT HAPPEN!

You can create wealth, it's not impossible. It happens every day around you. There is no limit on the wealth capable of being created by those with determination and ingenuity.

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK


I'm just not willing to accept that because capitalist A defeats capitalist B that capitalist A should now be able to exploit capitalist B. One reason is that capitalist A is not neccessarily better that capitalist B. Maybe capitalist A had more resources, more connections, better information, or he was just more ruthless and exploitive with his employees.

The chances are that Capitalist B is not being exploited because he's off trying to get another idea of his off the ground. Entrepeneurs don't generally take defeat easily, if they fail they'll dust themselves off and try again, maybe with some other product. That's what made them entrepeneurs in the first place.

Now you've been talking alot about capitalism exploiting workers, but what about communism? If I work my butt off and yet I still get paid the same amount as the guy next to me that only does half what I do, is that not exploitation? What about the politburo driving around in a limousine and attending fancy state dinners? Why should my labour be applied to his luxurious lifestyle, while I'm stuck with just an average wage, with no hope of improving my situation?

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Good point Mazarin. I'm getting a bit tired, and I think Vel is getting the better of me because of it. Of course, its very late where he is too.l

He's getting the better of you because he has a better argument. It seems everytime we prove one of your ideas wrong, you switch the focus so you don't have to examine what we have to say.

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK


It depends on all kinds of things. Willem was saying that it happens too everyone. That's just false.

No, I distinctly said that the ones who keep trying are the ones who eventually get the loan. You have a bad habit of putting words in people's mouths and twisting them to suit your own view.

[Velociryx]

Thanks Willem!



-=Vel=-