Can a person at any income level start a Business or can only Rich/Wealthy people sta

[tradeunionsupporter]

Can a person at any income level start a Business or can only Rich/Wealthy people start a Business can Middle Class people start a Small Business with a Business Loan under Capitalism ?

[Skooma Addict]

Yes. It is however easier if you have money.

[The Gallant Gallstone]

I think the question you should be asking is, "Can a person at any income level start a viable business?"

I could start a rap label tomorrow; it doesn't mean anyone would buy my CDs or listen to my music.

Besides, why are you coming to RevLeft for business advice...?

[tradeunionsupporter]

The reason Im asking this question is because since anyone at any income level can start a Business and can get Business Loans means that Capitalism can be pro Working Class if you don't like your Job think your being cheated by a Boss than you can start your own Business Capitalism helps the Poor the Working Class the Middle Class Capitalism does not just only help the Rich/Wealthy Workers can start and own Businesses if they choose to.

[The Gallant Gallstone]

The reason Im asking this question is because since anyone at any income level can start a Business and can get Business Loans means that Capitalism can be pro Working Class if you don't like your Job think your being cheated by a Boss than you can start your own Business Capitalism helps the Poor the Working Class the Middle Class Capitalism does not just only help the Rich/Wealthy Workers can start and own Businesses if they choose to.

That's not necessarily true...

The terms of the loan can be so usurious as to render your attempt at business to be a failure. Offering someone a substantial chance of failure in exchange for a sizeable debt is not "pro Working Class" in the slightest.

[MMIKEYJ]

Yes anybody at any level can start a viable business. Money is not needed.

[RGacky3]

Well, if you start working really really early, save up over a long long period of time, work a lot, let your social life die out, not develop meaningful relationships, save up a lot of money and live very bare most of the time, miss out on probably most of your 20s and 30s, then maybe you might have a shot at starting some sort of company that may or may not make it depending on many factors most out of your control.

woohoo Capitalism.

The funny thing is, most libertarians would look at that as say "Yeah, thats a perfectly fair system".

[Bud Struggle]

Yea, it's done all of the time. I started a printing business with my brother for $10. Was able to sell that a couple of years later and buy my first two family house for $5,000 down (it was a while ago) and that started by real estate business and then when I had nothing to do a couple of years later (real estate ownership is not a work intensive business) I started a chemical company in my garage for around $300.

The trick is one needs to be a really good salesman and have an EXACT idea of the niche in the market that one wants to fill. One should be innovative and different than one's competitors--to a point. After that point one should slavishly copy the success of one's competitors.

Above all you should never fall in love with your business (this is the single greatest failing of most business owners.) You should always be willing to change it beyond recognition if that's what the market dictates.

[Havet]

Can a person at any income level start a Business or can only Rich/Wealthy people start a Business can Middle Class people start a Small Business with a Business Loan under Capitalism ?

Not any person of any income level.

There are regulations and restrictions which, although made to ensure better conditions, restrict competition and increase the barrier to entry in a given market.

There are monopoly/oligopoly positions enforced by the State (public-private partnerships) and monopoly/oligopoly positions sponsored by the State (in the form of subsidies, grants, tax breaks, intellectual property, etc). There are also some natural monopolies/oligopolies, but those are less frequent and less stable.

Since the banking business has grown out of proportions because of some of these measures, obtaining credit is not easy (especially now), therefore the lower class is even greatly forbidden from starting their own venture.

[LeftSideDown]

Not any person of any income level.

There are regulations and restrictions which, although made to ensure better conditions, restrict competition and increase the barrier to entry in a given market.

There are monopoly/oligopoly positions enforced by the State (public-private partnerships) and monopoly/oligopoly positions sponsored by the State (in the form of subsidies, grants, tax breaks, intellectual property, etc). There are also some natural monopolies/oligopolies, but those are less frequent and less stable.

Since the banking business has grown out of proportions because of some of these measures, obtaining credit is not easy (especially now), therefore the lower class is even greatly forbidden from starting their own venture.

I like the way this guy thinks. Heres the thing, a lot of the times people could start a business without a loan. A grandma could (conceivably) start a business selling quilts or something where all she needs to buy is the material. You could (if you are good with computers) open up a kind of repair shop. But because of all the things listed above both these ventures would be illegal.

[RGacky3]

A grandma could (conceivably) start a business selling quilts or something where all she needs to buy is the material. You could (if you are good with computers) open up a kind of repair shop. But because of all the things listed above both these ventures would be illegal.

I'd like to know how these things are illigal? What laws they violate?

[LeftSideDown]

I'd like to know how these things are illigal? What laws they violate?

You can't just start businesses. You have to get them registered for taxes, zoning, etc etc.

[RGacky3]

You can't just start businesses. You have to get them registered for taxes, zoning, etc etc.

That does'nt make them illigal you nitwit. Thats like saying its illigal to drive a care because you need a liscence.

[Havet]

That does'nt make them illigal you nitwit. Thats like saying its illigal to drive a care because you need a liscence.

It's illegal NOT to pay taxes

It's illegal to drive a care WITHOUT a license

Get it?

[RGacky3]

It's illegal NOT to pay taxes

It's illegal to drive a care WITHOUT a license

Get it?

Yeah, I get it, but that does'nt help at all LeftSideDowns argument.

[Dermezel]

Start a business doing what? Having a business means you are doing something- you can't just have "a business".

You have to be providing a unique service. You can't just start a "retail business" or "Hamburger business" for example because there is no way you will compete with Wal-Mart or McDonald's.

So before you start a business you have to be able to do something no corporation can, and then you need initial capital to start it. Even if you invent something- if you cannot mass produce it, how is anyone going to buy it?

Say you want to start a food business. You need a food selling license- that is about 10 grand. You need employees- more money. You need offices- housing. You need advertising. You need to be able to support yourself until the business turns a profit. And then you need to be able to produce what you are selling and get customers and contracts. And hope nobody screws you over or a bad accident does not happen or you have extra costs in legal fees and repair.

And good luck getting a loan from a bank. Banks do not just hand out large sums of money out to random people. You have to prove that their investment will be returned.

And even then, you have to hope some major corporation doesn't muscle you out. They can just make a product 99% like yours and sell it at half the price. And then let's hope they don't do a negative campaign marketing blitz. That is why most small businesses go belly-up in their first year, and so many people are left with unpaid loans taken from predatory banks making them basically indentured servants.

And you better prey no large company rips you off. Larger companies are notorious for making false promises to small ones. They will promise you that they want X amount of your product by Christmas, and come Christmas, well they only need half or a quarter as much. So you spent all this extra money and you have all this extra product lying around. Thing is- you took out a loan to get extra production, and now have to pay for storage.

Now you can take them to court- maybe, presuming you got anything on paper. But even then they have 10 well paid lawyers, and they will drag it out for years. Meanwhile you are in debt and have to support yourself. And since you are now suing a large company, you may as well kiss future contracts good bye. No other Big Business is gonna deal with you since you are clearly not a team player.

[Havet]

Yeah, I get it, but that does'nt help at all LeftSideDowns argument.

Well that depends. I thought his argument was just that without the "things listed above" (such as restrictions and regulations), then those ventures would cease to become illegal, which sounds just about right.

[Dermezel]

The simple answer is no. Even upper middle class people will have trouble securing enough capital to start a business, let alone make it profitable.

[Dermezel]

Well that depends. I thought his argument was just that without the "things listed above" (such as restrictions and regulations), then those ventures would cease to become illegal, which sounds just about right.

Yeah, but that can create more problems, like rampant fraud. Or people selling unsafe products.

Also the places where small businesses do best (countries like Japan and Italy) are countries where small businesses are protected by subsidies, and other protections by the government.

Also, keep in mind removing those regulations will now work both ways. The Monopolies and Oligopolies will now have more power to cheat you out, muscle you out, or undersell you, or simply copy your product.

Just imagine if they "de-regulated" the zoo. Is that really going to help small animals, or simply make it easier for predators?

[Havet]

Just imagine if they "de-regulated" the zoo. Is that really going to help small animals, or simply make it easier for predators?

Fine, what happens when predators run out of small animals? Think about it.

[Dermezel]

Fine, what happens when predators run out of small animals? Think about it.

Doesn't matter. They have to focus on short-term competition because any that think long-term will simply lose profits.

If Company A refuses to get more profit because they consider their long-term future, and so will not screw over small business, while Company B does not- and gets the profit and screws over small business anyways- Company A just loses. Period.

Classic Prisoner's Dilemma/Hobbesian Trap.

[Havet]

Doesn't matter. They have to focus on short-term competition because any that think long-term will simply lose profits.

If Company A refuses to get more profit because they consider their long-term future, and so will not screw over small business, while Company B does not- and gets the profit and screws over small business anyways- Company A just loses. Period.

Which is why companies never invest long-term, right? How do you explain condominium houses which take up to 10 years until they have been sold, with very expensive initial costs? How do you explain Research & Development sectors in industries such as the aeronautic industry (http://csis.org/files/publication/090520_diig_aerospace.pdf)??

[Dermezel]

Which is why companies never invest long-term, right? How do you explain condominium houses which take up to 10 years until they have been sold, with very expensive initial costs? How do you explain Research & Development sectors in industries such as the aeronautic industry (http://csis.org/files/publication/090520_diig_aerospace.pdf)??

Actually Research and Development has declined since the end of Pentagon Socialism:

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/07/7340.ars



Of pocket protectors and unlimited budgets

The Cold War, with its "Pentagon socialism", combined with large corporate monopolies that were expected to provide lifetime employment and pensions, made for something of a golden age for American technological innovation. This is the era that brought us the transistor and the predecessor to the Internet, an era where all the seeds of today's "information economy" were sown and carefully cultivated at great private and public expense.


The great labs of this era—Bell Labs, Xerox PARC, and IBM's labs—were places with massive budgets, where the world's top scientists were invited to pursue "blue sky" research into areas with no immediately apparent commercial applications. The facilities were state-of-the-art, and there was no pressure from management or shareholders to do anything but science for science's sake. To be able to fund such a lab was a mark of corporate prestige, and the labs themselves, along with their public counterparts like NASA, were major sources of national pride. For a company like Xerox or AT&T, what it meant to have a blue sky research lab was very much like what it means for a city to host a winning sports team; it was a source of pride and an anchor of collective identity. So much like the science that they produced, these labs were ends in themselves.


You might think of these private and public laboratories, with their hordes of young, energetic PhDs and blue-sky research programs, as producers of a kind of scientific capital. This painstakingly built fund of scientific capital that the postwar era left us was what the later generation of engineers—the fabled "two guys in a garage in Silicon Valley"—drew on to produce the information revolution that began to burgeon even as the Soviet menace was disintegrating.

Dropping out of school and spending the family fortune

It's no coincidence that many of those who went on to lead the information revolution were dropouts from either PhD programs or top-notch undergraduate programs. Even those who finished their doctoral work didn't end up doing open-ended research at the new companies they either founded or joined. The information economy demanded go-getters who would put their energy towards turning basic science into marketable products, and that economy rewarded those who opted out of more traditional research careers with a mix of world-altering power and cold, hard cash. Thus many of the truly ambitious adjusted their career aspirations away from the blue sky research labs where their parents might have dreamed of working and focused instead on the new brass ring: the profitable start-up. Start-ups aimed not at producing scientific capital but at turning it into technological wizardry, and from there into real money—or, rather, into stock value.


Now, I think it's important not to oversimplify things too much, or to caricature anyone. The more agile start-ups played an important structural role in making pure research careers less attractive. It's not that everyone was suddenly lured away from doing science by the promise of instant wealth. The competitive pressure that start-ups and new industries put on established businesses ultimately combined with trust-busting, structural changes in the economy, social shifts, and an array of other factors to turn expensive prestige items like research labs into unaffordable luxuries. Thus it stands that to one extent or another, all of the aforementioned labs have been downsized and/or transformed over the years into places where research programs must now yield commercial fruit.


In today's more agile economy, where workers hop from job to job and businesses spring up from nowhere to dominate an industry in the span of half a decade, there's no longer anything in the private sector like the enduring safety of the Ma Bell monopoly to lavishly support a blue sky research lab. The closest we have today is Google's "20 percent time," where engineers are encouraged to spend 20 percent of their time working on whatever research project strikes their fancy. But 20 percent isn't 100 percent.



With today's short-term corporate focus on maximizing shareholder value by inflating the stock price at all costs, the pressure to innovate comes from the boardroom and the marketing department. Hence all the men and women in R&D have to be able to make a case for the eventual marketability of what they're working on or risk being downsized. We've come a long way from men with pointy glasses and pocket protectors who spend decades just doing pure science on the corporate dime.


There's no doubt that the information economy continues to create a lot of wealth, but I think it's fair to ask if it's also creating enough science to replenish the stock of scientific capital that it's still burning through. I think it's clear that chaotic, market-driven change is a good way to bring ideas quickly and efficiently from concept to profitable product. However, such a rapid churning of the institutional and cultural landscape ultimately may not be conducive to the kind of steady, expensive, long-term investment in fundamental research that produces the really big ideas that somewhere, at some completely unforeseeable point in the future, change the world.
(And no, before you suggest it, the academy isn't all that insulated from rapidly changing market pressures anymore. Grant money is doled out to academics by private-sector corporations who are looking for a return on their investment. But this issue would take up a whole other article.)

[Havet]

Actually Research and Development has declined since the end of Pentagon Socialism:

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/07/7340.ars

The point is not whether there is a decline or not. The point is that businesses are not only "short-term" profit seekers. Either you agree with me and move on, or you provide evidence to claim otherwise.

[Dermezel]

The point is not whether there is a decline or not. The point is that businesses are not only "short-term" profit seekers. Either you agree with me and move on, or you provide evidence to claim otherwise.

Straw Man argument. First off, I never presented my claim as an absolute, it's a generalization based on the logic of their situation.

Second, there are regulations in effect that promote research and development.

[Havet]

Straw Man argument. First off, I never presented my claim as an absolute, it's a generalization based on the logic of their situation.

Yes you did:


Doesn't matter. They have to focus on short-term competition because any that think long-term will simply lose profits.

...


Second, there are regulations in effect that promote research and development.

And? I'm sorry if you are not aware of this, but you are going outside the point. I'm only concerned in discussing the claim that businesses only care about short-term profits, which I think I have refuted with the empirical evidence, but if you have more i'm all ears.

[Dermezel]

Yes you did:



...



And? I'm sorry if you are not aware of this, but you are going outside the point. I'm only concerned in discussing the claim that businesses only care about short-term profits, which I think I have refuted with the empirical evidence, but if you have more i'm all ears.

That's ridiculous. If I say you have to get medicine when you are sick, or chemo if you have cancer, that isn't absolute. Or if I say you have to pay your taxes.

You can choose to just get worse and die. You can choose to go to jail. A business can choose to risk or loose profit and eventually lose market share or go under.

But in practical, every day meaning it is so pointless and stupid to do any of the above that I wouldn't count on it.

[Havet]

That's ridiculous. If I say you have to get medicine when you are sick, or chemo if you have cancer, that isn't absolute. Or if I say you have to pay your taxes.

You can choose to just get worse and die. You can choose to go to jail. A business can choose to risk or loose profit and eventually lose market share or go under.

But in practical, every day meaning it is so pointless and stupid to do any of the above that I wouldn't count on it.

By that logic, then workers aren't being exploited, because they can choose to not work and die. That doesn't sound like good logic to me.

[Dermezel]

By that logic, then workers aren't being exploited, because they can choose to not work and die. That doesn't sound like good logic to me.

Uh yeah, I was criticizing that logic as absurd. You were the one promoting it. Typical capitalist tactic- revising history.

[Havet]

Uh yeah, I was criticizing that logic as absurd. You were the one promoting it. AD HOMINEM.

Fixed

I have to disagree - you are the one who just revised all of my fucking post

YOU SAID that the use of the word "has to" is not an absolute because someone "CAN" do something else, therefore he/she has a choice

I SAID that by that logic (the logic of using the fact that one can "choose to die" as a valid alternative) can equally be applied to workers in the situation of exploitation, therefore validating the capitalist's existence.

So, in essence, I just proved you support capitalists, and by extent, capitalism.

[LeftSideDown]

Yeah, I get it, but that does'nt help at all LeftSideDowns argument.

Yeah, its ILLEGAL to start a business WITHOUT going through all this regulatory bullshit that serves to insulate old interests.

[Dermezel]

Fixed

I have to disagree - you are the one who just revised all of my fucking post

YOU SAID that the use of the word "has to" is not an absolute because someone "CAN" do something else, therefore he/she has a choice

I SAID that by that logic (the logic of using the fact that one can "choose to die" as a valid alternative) can equally be applied to workers in the situation of exploitation, therefore validating the capitalist's existence.

So, in essence, I just proved you support capitalists, and by extent, capitalism.

Wow false accusation and misuse of the word ad hominem.

Didn't I start out with the phrase businesses *have* to think short-term?

Now let's consider the logic. That would mean, using the same sense of the term, workers' have to work for capitalists.

Again, you were the one who responded with "well businesses don't have to do X". Now try to keep up.

[Dermezel]

Yeah, its ILLEGAL to start a business WITHOUT going through all this regulatory bullshit that serves to insulate old interests.


As if they wouldn't exist in a more private system. Like Monopolies would decrease if we got rid of Anti-Trust: sure.

Again, all that would happen is like what would occur in a zoo if you opened the cages- big animals would eat small ones. Big Businesses would just muscle out any competition or potential competition.

[Havet]

Wow false accusation and misuse of the word ad hominem.

Not really. Calling me a capitalist has nothing to do with proving the validity of your statements.


Didn't I start out with the phrase businesses *have* to think short-term?

Yes, and I have shown how that is an innacurate statement


Now let's consider the logic. That would mean, using the same sense of the term, workers' have to work for capitalists.

Sorry, but disagree.

Actually, now that I think of it, I think the problem is just a semantic misunderstanding. Do you mind if I go back and re-study it all again?

How do you define "have to"? I think the problem is that I defined it as an absolute, whereas you didn't. You deliberately include the option "one can" to the word have, and therefore that's when the misunderstanding occur. So just so we can clear this once and for all: Do you still believe private businesses ONLY operate in terms of short-term profit?

[LeftSideDown]

As if they wouldn't exist in a more private system. Like Monopolies would decrease if we got rid of Anti-Trust: sure.

Again, all that would happen is like what would occur in a zoo if you opened the cages- big animals would eat small ones. Big Businesses would just muscle out any competition or potential competition.

Your analogy is not apt. The animals are big, but think of them as fat and slow an inefficient. The smaller rabbit can dodge and skirt and run much faster and then reproduce and grow.

[Havet]

As if they wouldn't exist in a more private system. Like Monopolies would decrease if we got rid of Anti-Trust: sure.

Again, all that would happen is like what would occur in a zoo if you opened the cages- big animals would eat small ones. Big Businesses would just muscle out any competition or potential competition.

By the way, this post of mine (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1560065&postcount=71) should be interesting on the subject.

I personally think that if we just got rid of the anti-trust, monopolies would still have a great (negative) effect. We need to understand HOW those monopolies were created in order to prevent them from emerging again.

[Dermezel]

Not really. Calling me a capitalist has nothing to do with proving the validity of your statements.



Yes, and I have shown how that is an innacurate statement



Sorry, but disagree.

100% begging the question.


How do you define "have to"? I think the problem is that I defined it as an absolute, whereas you didn't. You deliberately include the option "one can" to the word have, and therefore that's when the misunderstanding occur. So just so we can clear this once and for all: Do you still believe private businesses ONLY operate in terms of short-term profit?


I used the term in the same sense that a person "has to" pay taxes. Or a person "has to" work. That is an ordinary use of the term.

[Dermezel]

Your analogy is not apt. The animals are big, but think of them as fat and slow an inefficient. The smaller rabbit can dodge and skirt and run much faster and then reproduce and grow.

And then get caught by a Fox of Weasel. The fact is a Big Business can even use its capital to buy a small business, better technology, more advertisement, more skilled workers, etc. There is a reason why we had to make Anti-Trust laws.

[Havet]

I used the term in the same sense that a person "has to" pay taxes. Or a person "has to" work. That is an ordinary use of the term.

Then businesses don't "have to" operate only in short-term profits, because they have the choice to do otherwise, and because they do choose that alternative (my aeronautics example).

[Dermezel]

By the way, this post of mine (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1560065&postcount=71) should be interesting on the subject.

I personally think that if we just got rid of the anti-trust, monopolies would still have a great (negative) effect. We need to understand HOW those monopolies were created in order to prevent them from emerging again.

The reasons why were explained by Marx- because constant capital displaces variable capital.

That is machines replace human labor. If you start using machines in your factory that make your workers twice as efficient- you need half as many workers and therefore, you can either fire them or halve their wages. You can then use the profit to get better machines, and further reduce the value of wages, hence further increasing profit.

This causes capital to centralize as those who have the machines can now dominate over those who rely on labor. And you can even start muscling out smaller capitalists because the one with the most money can buy the best machines, the best workers, the most ad space, secure the most credit, etc. These are all huge competitive advantages. As time progresses, this causes the capital to further and further centralize and accumulate.

Hence any privatized, competitive system will generally tend towards monopolization.

[Dermezel]

Then businesses don't "have to" operate only in short-term profits, because they have the choice to do otherwise, and because they do choose that alternative (my aeronautics example).

Again, according to your argument people don't "have" to pay taxes. Also there are people who don't pay taxes i.e. big corporations/CEOs.

[Havet]

The reasons why were explained by Marx- because constant capital displaces variable capital.

That is machines replace human labor. If you start using machines in your factory that make your workers twice as efficient- you need half as many workers and therefore, you can either fire them or halve their wages. You can then use the profit to get better machines, and further reduce the value of wages, hence further increasing profit.

This causes capital to centralize as those who have the machines can now dominate over those who rely on labor. And you can even start muscling out smaller capitalists because the one with the most money can buy the best machines, the best workers, the most ad space, secure the most credit, etc. These are all huge competitive advantages. As time progresses, this causes the capital to further and further centralize and accumulate.

Hence any privatized, competitive system will generally tend towards monopolization.

This assumes that all the other businesses who rely heavily on labour rather than machines are prevented from acquiring better means. But if there is no intellectual property (thus no monopoly on patents, and basically competition for incrementations and falling prices) then I don't see how that could be the case.

Here's something from one of my older threads. I strongly reccomend you read it carefully, and let me know what you think after:

The removal of state-imposed impediments to economic activity – taxes, regulations, prohibitions, licenses, currency monopoly, patents, subsidies – would naturally result in the dramatic expansion of the quantity and variety of businesses, partnerships and entrepreneurial associations of virtually every kind. If mutual banks of the Proudhonian variety were allowed to issue private banknotes with the output of future production used as collateral, then the capacity for self-employment would be readily available for anyone with marketable skills. A dramatic increase in the number of businesses and employers would mean that workers would have a much larger number of potential employers to choose from in addition to greatly expanded opportunities for self-employment. This would in turn radically increase the bargaining power of workers in terms of their dealings with employers. The cost of wage labor would increase as the market for employees became drastically more competitive. Workers in large-scale industrial operations would have the option of demanding the right of self-management if they so desired and, given the expanded availability of credit and capital, workers would be able to buy out capitalists and essentially become their own employers. So the dominant forms of economic organization in an authentic free market would be worker-owned and operated industries, partnerships, cooperatives, a mass of small businesses, modestly sized private companies and self-employed persons. Industries that remained nominally owned by outside shareholders would largely function on a co-determined basis, that is, as partnerships between shareholders and labor with labor having the upper hand.

Source: Iron Fist by Kevin Carson

[Havet]

Again, according to your argument people don't "have" to pay taxes. Also there are people who don't pay taxes i.e. big corporations/CEOs.

No, it's according to YOUR argument. I hold an absolutist view of the word "have to".

[Dermezel]

This assumes that all the other businesses who rely heavily on labour rather than machines are prevented from acquiring better means. But if there is no intellectual property (thus no monopoly on patents, and basically competition for incrementations and falling prices) then I don't see how that could be the case.

Well how are they going to get it? If Company A is a giant monopoly and has billions of dollars to buy the best machines, how is company B going to be able to compete with this?

Say I work at Wal-Mart, and want to compete with General Electric. General Electric has a Nuclear Power Plant. How am I going to afford to buy a nuclear power plant?



[spoil]The removal of state-imposed impediments to economic activity – taxes, regulations, prohibitions, licenses, currency monopoly, patents, subsidies – would naturally result in the dramatic expansion of the quantity and variety of businesses, partnerships and entrepreneurial associations of virtually every kind. If mutual banks of the Proudhonian variety were allowed to issue private banknotes with the output of future production used as collateral, then the capacity for self-employment would be readily available for anyone with marketable skills. A dramatic increase in the number of businesses and employers would mean that workers would have a much larger number of potential employers to choose from in addition to greatly expanded opportunities for self-employment. This would in turn radically increase the bargaining power of workers in terms of their dealings with employers. The cost of wage labor would increase as the market for employees became drastically more competitive. Workers in large-scale industrial operations would have the option of demanding the right of self-management if they so desired and, given the expanded availability of credit and capital, workers would be able to buy out capitalists and essentially become their own employers. So the dominant forms of economic organization in an authentic free market would be worker-owned and operated industries, partnerships, cooperatives, a mass of small businesses, modestly sized private companies and self-employed persons. Industries that remained nominally owned by outside shareholders would largely function on a co-determined basis, that is, as partnerships between shareholders and labor with labor having the upper hand.

Even according to that reasoning Big Businesses could just buy out small businesses, or under sell. They would have more money to buy better machines, more workers, more advertisement.

And all is based on the presumption that labor has the upper hand. You seem to idealize labor as a magical force.

In reality, almost all modern day production is based on machinery. Imagine if we got rid of all our machinery, say tomorrow we were just all hit by a giant EMP.

The US would starve no matter how hard we worked. There would be chaos, and there would be no way we could ever produce nearly as much as we do now. Marx himself noted that England, at the time he wrote Capital would have to increase the size of the work force like 1000 or 10,000 fold to maintain the level of production it had with factory machinery.

Simply put you could not support 300 million people on an economy without vast machinery. Imagine if we got rid of construction vehicles like the Crane.

How many people would it take to lift giant, 2 ton metal bars into the air to build a sky scraper? Would it even be possible?

So who has the power, the guy who owns the bulldozers and cranes, or the guy who works on them? I imagine the guy who owns them can find new workers pretty easily. But the guy who drives them might have trouble building or buying his own bulldozer and crane.

[Bud Struggle]

Start a business doing what? Having a business means you are doing something- you can't just have "a business". OK, fine.


You have to be providing a unique service. You can't just start a "retail business" or "Hamburger business" for example because there is no way you will compete with Wal-Mart or McDonald's. Nonsense. There are hurdreds of thousands of different retailers and hamburg businesses that compete against Wal-Mart and McDonalds just fine.


So before you start a business you have to be able to do something no corporation can, and then you need initial capital to start it. Even if you invent something- if you cannot mass produce it, how is anyone going to buy it? Lots of companies dublicate products and services both on the large and small scale.


Say you want to start a food business. You need a food selling license- that is about 10 grand. You need employees- more money. You need offices- housing. You need advertising. If you start small and grow--all of this falls into place.


You need to be able to support yourself until the business turns a profit. And then you need to be able to produce what you are selling and get customers and contracts. And hope nobody screws you over or a bad accident does not happen or you have extra costs in legal fees and repair. Gloom and doomism here.


And good luck getting a loan from a bank. Banks do not just hand out large sums of money out to random people. You have to prove that their investment will be returned. Most businesses are self financed--they start out very small and grow to pay for their expansion. After that comes investment. People invest in start up companies all of the time. Bank loans come a distant third.


And even then, you have to hope some major corporation doesn't muscle you out. They can just make a product 99% like yours and sell it at half the price. And then let's hope they don't do a negative campaign marketing blitz. That is why most small businesses go belly-up in their first year, and so many people are left with unpaid loans taken from predatory banks making them basically indentured servants. Most businesses go belly up because most owners don't know how to manage money.


And you better prey no large company rips you off. Larger companies are notorious for making false promises to small ones. They will promise you that they want X amount of your product by Christmas, and come Christmas, well they only need half or a quarter as much. So you spent all this extra money and you have all this extra product lying around. Thing is- you took out a loan to get extra production, and now have to pay for storage.

Now you can take them to court- maybe, presuming you got anything on paper. But even then they have 10 well paid lawyers, and they will drag it out for years. Meanwhile you are in debt and have to support yourself. And since you are now suing a large company, you may as well kiss future contracts good bye. No other Big Business is gonna deal with you since you are clearly not a team player. DAMN! You make going into business into a horror show. Start drink heavy is the only solution. :D

[Dermezel]

Nonsense. There are hurdreds of thousands of different retailers and hamburg businesses that compete against Wal-Mart and McDonalds just fine.

Name them. The only ones I am aware of are either in Europe or Japan where the State protects smaller business with subsidies, progressive taxation, and protectionist barriers.

Name the ones in the US.


Lots of companies dublicate products and services both on the large and small scale.

If you start small and grow--all of this falls into place.

The thing is a large company can duplicate it cheaper, and so undersell the other side. And you can start small and grow if you have the resources. If one company has all the resources the others cannot grow.


Most businesses are self financed--they start out very small and grow to pay for their expansion. After that comes investment. People invest in start up companies all of the time. Bank loans come a distant third.

Well most businesses start out as non-existent, that's why. That has nothing to do with whether or not they will continue to dominate. Blockbuster started out small- and then put all local video stores under. Microsoft started out small and now has a veritable Monopoly.

The US started out small, that doesn't mean you can form a separate government and succede from the Union. That doesn't mean we didn't Annex smaller nations like Hawaii.

[Havet]

Well how are they going to get it? If Company A is a giant monopoly and has billions of dollars to buy the best machines, how is company B going to be able to compete with this?

If so, then it is indeed impossible. But I want to dig deeper. What are your specific reasons as to assume that giant monopolies will come out of nowhere? Before you reply, read all of my post, as I will make some arguments of my own that might answer some of yours.


Say I work at Wal-Mart, and want to compete with General Electric. General Electric has a Nuclear Power Plant. How am I going to afford to buy a nuclear power plant?

You can't. But it is unrealistic to assume the existence of monopolies in a free society with free trade and equality of opportunity. There are natural market forces which restrict the sizes of businesses. Normally these forces do not act because State force (payed by Corporations and other interest groups) overrides it.

For example, one of these forces is Diseconomies of scales, "the forces that cause larger firms to produce goods and services at increased per-unit costs."

However, a concept like economies (or diseconomies) of scale is ultimately a productivist concept. Modern capitalism has moved beyond the limits of industrial units (the unit that these forces act upon) and neat little materialist examples of inputs and outputs, to purely pecuniary business units such as multinational multi-industry conglomerates.



The second difficulty with the common rationale is that large-scale production is a sound business practice only if it serves to raise profits – yet contrary to popular conviction one does not necessarily imply the other. Since the 1890s, the modern corporation has outgrown its largest industrial unit, suggesting that economies of scale are no longer the paramount determinant of business size, if they ever were (Scherer 1975: 334–36; Edwards 1979: 217– 18). A typical modern firm now owns numerous, in some cases hundreds of industrial establishments, often in unrelated industries. And while the corporation continues to grow in size, its industrial units do not. [According to the Statistics of U.S. Business program (SUSB), the size of establishments (defined as production locations) does not differ much between super-large firms (with over 10,000 employees) and medium-sized ones (with 100–999 employees): in 2005, both groups had an average establishment size of 52 employees. The real difference was in the number of establishments: in that year, a typical large firm owned an average of 658 establishments, whereas its medium-sized counterpart had only 4.6 (U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census).] The fact that industrial size is not a necessity for business success has been demonstrated forcefully with the growing significance of outsourcing. Many of today’s corporate giants have successfully reinstated the putting out system of the industrial revolution, with the typical result being rising profit coupled with falling payroll. The rise of the corporation of course is related to the emergence of large-scale industry, but causality may well run opposite to what mainstream economics argues: the corporation emerged not to enable large-scale industry, but rather to prevent it from becoming ‘excessively’ productive.

This ability to grow beyond the forces of scale barriers at the level of industry is the natural result, it seems, of the ability to treat the firm as a property right that can be moved around in mergers and acquisitions, helped by problematic notions like the capitalization of "goodwill". Unfortunately for the story that it's all about the state privileges (and that certainly plays a role that has no excuse), it's unclear how much M&A would disappear simply by "pushing Rothbard's button." The belief in anarcho-libertarian circles that such things are allowed by principle is strong. Artificial scarcity is one (big and common) way to get differential power, but it's not the only way. I'd like to imagine that a free market in commercial law would reject these features, but I'm not sure I'd bet on it. That's not a call for conceding something back to the state regulators, but it's a warning against apathy.


Even according to that reasoning Big Businesses could just buy out small businesses, or under sell. They would have more money to buy better machines, more workers, more advertisement.

I have no reason to believe that big business could emerge in an environment with competition and equality of opportunity. Historical examples of the past can usually be linked to the use of State as an apparatus to grant privileged positions. I do not deny, however, that there are cases where big business and monopolies have naturally appeared. I only have evidence of them being rare occurences.


And all is based on the presumption that labor has the upper hand. You seem to idealize labor as a magical force.

In reality, almost all modern day production is based on machinery. Imagine if we got rid of all our machinery, say tomorrow we were just all hit by a giant EMP.

The US would starve no matter how hard we worked. There would be chaos, and there would be no way we could ever produce nearly as much as we do now. Marx himself noted that England, at the time he wrote Capital would have to increase the size of the work force like 1000 or 10,000 fold to maintain the level of production it had with factory machinery.

Simply put you could not support 300 million people on an economy without vast machinery. Imagine if we got rid of construction vehicles like the Crane.

How many people would it take to lift giant, 2 ton metal bars into the air to build a sky scraper? Would it even be possible?

So who has the power, the guy who owns the bulldozers and cranes, or the guy who works on them? I imagine the guy who owns them can find new workers pretty easily. But the guy who drives them might have trouble building or buying his own bulldozer and crane.

Exactly my point! Let me explain with an easier example:

Laborers are free to compete among themselves, and so are capitalists to a certain extent. But between laborers and capitalists there is no competition whatever, because through governmental privilege granted to capital, whence the volume of the currency and the rate of interest is regulated, the owners of it are enabled to keep the laborers dependent on them for employment, so making the condition of wage-subjection perpetual. So long as one man, or class of men, are able to prevent others from working for themselves because they cannot obtain the means of production or capitalize their own products, so long those others are not free to compete freely with those to whom privilege gives the means.

For instance, there is no competition between the farmer and his hired man. Obviously he would prefer to work for himself. Why does the farmer employ him? Is it not to make some profit from his labor? And does the hired man give him that profit out of pure good nature? Would he not rather have the full product of his labor at his own disposal?

Can't you see that since the hired man does not willingly resign a large share of his product to his employer (and it is out of human nature to say he does), there must be something which forces him to do it? Can't you see that the necessity of an employer is forced upon him by his lack of ability to command the means of production? He cannot employ himself, therefore he must sell his labor at a disadvantage to him who controls the land and capital. Hence he is not free to compete with his employer any more than a prisoner is free to compete with his jailer for fresh air.

[RGacky3]

Nonsense. There are hurdreds of thousands of different retailers and hamburg businesses that compete against Wal-Mart and McDonalds just fine.

Thats true, but as time goes on the trend is moving toward large corporations taking more and more of the market, the only thing generally that moves it the other way is government intervention.


If you start small and grow--all of this falls into place.

Maybe, you better have a backup plan.


Most businesses are self financed--they start out very small and grow to pay for their expansion. After that comes investment. People invest in start up companies all of the time. Bank loans come a distant third.


I don't know if thats true, do you have any evidence on that?

[Bud Struggle]

Name them. The only ones I am aware of are either in Europe or Japan where the State protects smaller business with subsidies, progressive taxation, and protectionist barriers.

Name the ones in the US. The last thing you need is the state getting involved in any way. Really! Just drive down any street in America and see all of the businesses. Go to any industrial park--I rent buldings to small businesses. There are tons of them starting up every day.


The thing is a large company can duplicate it cheaper, and so undersell the other side. And you can start small and grow if you have the resources. If one company has all the resources the others cannot grow. Production costs are sometimes higher in small companies, but overhead cost are sometimes much lower. So are disibution costs. In my business I constantly undersell the major brands.


Well most businesses start out as non-existent, that's why. That has nothing to do with whether or not they will continue to dominate. Blockbuster started out small- and then put all local video stores under. Microsoft started out small and now has a veritable Monopoly. The BEST way to start out a business is small it gives the owner a good grasp of what the costs and the problems of doing business really are. It's the guys with too much of other people's capital that usually end up going belly up.


The US started out small, that doesn't mean you can form a separate government and succede from the Union. That doesn't mean we didn't Annex smaller nations like Hawaii.There's nothing wrong with selling out for a tidy sum to the big guy. Lots of businessmen do just that over and over again and become quite rich.

Hey Comrade--I actually do this business stuff.



I don't know if thats true, do you have any evidence on that? No actual stats on it--but it seems to be he case for most of my fellow businessmen. I'd be suprised if I was wrong.

[Dermezel]

I have no reason to believe that big business could emerge in an environment with competition and equality of opportunity.


Well which premise do you disagree with?

1- Constant capital displaces variable capital

2- Such replacement equals more profit

3- More profit equals more access to constant capital, and even more profit

[Dermezel]

The last thing you need is the state getting involved in any way.

Oh so regulating the meat industry, or waste management, or say a nuclear plant. You don't think we should have the government involved in that?


Production costs are sometimes higher in small companies, but overhead cost are sometimes much lower. So are disibution costs. In my business I constantly undersell the major brands.

Sounds hokey. Why would distribution costs be smaller? I don't think UPS or FedEx charge you any less because your business is smaller. Likewise, I don't think a company sells you its products for cheaper because the business is smaller. And small business employees are paid more money on average. In fact I'm pretty sure you get discounts for shipping and buying in bulk.

Also what product do you make?

[Havet]

Well which premise do you disagree with?

1- Constant capital displaces variable capital

2- Such replacement equals more profit

3- More profit equals more access to constant capital, and even more profit

Explain to me, in your own words, what do you mean exactly by constant capital displacing variable capital, with real world examples so its easier to understand for me, so I can then think about if I agree or disagree with those premises. Thank you in advance for all the trouble.

[Dermezel]

Explain to me, in your own words, what do you mean exactly by constant capital displacing variable capital, with real world examples so its easier to understand for me, so I can then think about if I agree or disagree with those premises. Thank you in advance for all the trouble.

Bulldozers replacing large amounts of construction workers. The car replacing the horse. Computers/calculators replacing mathematicians.

If before I needed say 10,000 people to build a sky scraper, with machines like crane and bulldozer I can now do it with 100.

[Bud Struggle]

Oh so regulating the meat industry, or waste management, or say a nuclear plant. You don't think we should have the government involved in that? No. I was speaking to setting up regulation of compitition for large and small comanies--not on products and services. Some P+S need to be regulated.


Sounds hokey. Why would distribution costs be smaller? I don't think UPS or FedEx charge you any less because your business is smaller. No but you could customize your distribution network. You don't have excess employees and equipment. Small businesses could also change practices quicker to the the business climate changes. And lastly small business change quicker to meet customer demands. There are plusses and minuses to both small and large businesses.


Likewise, I don't think a company sells you its products for cheaper because the business is smaller. And small business employees are paid more money on average. In fact I'm pretty sure you get discounts for shipping and buying in bulk.
Maybe if you ship UPS or FedEx--but there are smaller companies that compete with them that can and do the same job even cheaper. Also if you distribute yourself the costs are substantially lower than the big companies.

But the point is--if you pick the right business you can compete and even become pretty large.

I own a property tust that rents commercial and industrial wearhouse space. I also do some manufacturing.

[RGacky3]

No but you could customize your distribution network. You don't have excess employees and equipment. Small businesses could also change practices quicker to the the business climate changes. And lastly small business change quicker to meet customer demands. There are plusses and minuses to both small and large businesses.

Not nessesarily, many times small buisiness don't have the resources to change quickly, whereas large buisinesses do. Overall the plusses of being large FARRR outweight the plusses of being small.

Which is why markets naturally tend to centralization of wealth.

[Havet]

Bulldozers replacing large amounts of construction workers. The car replacing the horse. Computers/calculators replacing mathematicians.

If before I needed say 10,000 people to build a sky scraper, with machines like crane and bulldozer I can now do it with 100.

So which one is the constant capital and which one is the variable capital, and how is one displacing the other?

If I understand you correctly, are you claiming that industrialization and technology inherently lead to centralization and monopolies?

[RGacky3]

So which one is the constant capital and which one is the variable capital, and how is one displacing the other?

If I understand you correctly, are you claiming that industrialization and technology inherently lead to centralization and monopolies?

I think he's claiming that only witin the context of a market, not inherently.

[Drace]

Can any serf become a noble?

[Bud Struggle]

Not nessesarily, many times small buisiness don't have the resources to change quickly, whereas large buisinesses do. Overall the plusses of being large FARRR outweight the plusses of being small.

Which is why markets naturally tend to centralization of wealth.

No question it's better to own Exxon than a 7/11. But the point is that you can make a pretty good income owing a 7/11--and that's really the point of being in business.

[Dimentio]

Can a person at any income level start a Business or can only Rich/Wealthy people start a Business can Middle Class people start a Small Business with a Business Loan under Capitalism ?

I think it depends on what country you are in. In my country, it is free to start a business and you could even receive monetary aid from the state in doing so (and the three first years are tax-free). But if you want the name of your business protected, you need to go to the patent authority and pay about 5000 SEK (650 $).

[Dermezel]

No. I was speaking to setting up regulation of compitition for large and small comanies--not on products and services. Some P+S need to be regulated.

Actually Japan did just that to great effect:



JAPAN'S HIGH-WIRE ACT



In the late 1990s, after a decade in the economic doldrums, Japan lagged well behind the United States in Internet access and broadband usage. But in mid-2000, Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori appointed the Information Technology Strategy Council, headed by Sony Chairman Nobuyuki Idei, which put together a bold plan to make Japan the "world's leading it [information technology] nation" by 2005. Just as President Bush was taking office, a new Japanese "it strategic headquarters," headed by the prime minister and including the entire cabinet, launched an "e-Japan strategy."
A central goal of that strategy was to bring better-than-basic broadband to 40 million of Japan's 46 million households within five years. The government hoped to make high-speed broadband available to 30 million households (through cable or digital subscriber lines [DSL], which use phone wires) and ultra-high-speed broadband connections to another 10 million (through fiber-optic cable). But even Japanese officials were skeptical about reaching such ambitious goals. And they understood that if they wanted even to come close, they would have to enlist the private sector and create the proper conditions.



The government quickly removed many regulatory obstacles. But because cable providers were mostly mom-and-pop operations in rural areas, officials realized that they would also have to create a highly competitive private-sector environment. So the telecommunications ministry came up with one of the most competitive regimes in the world: it compelled regional telephone companies to grant outside competitors access to all their residential telephone lines in exchange for a modest fee (about $2 per line a month). The antitrust authorities also ensured that these companies did not create obstacles for their competitors, helping provide a level playing field.
The results were extraordinary. Yahoo! bb, created by Masayoshi Son's venture-capital firm Softbank, and several other companies soon entered the DSL market. Yahoo! bb began offering high-speed service five times faster than current U.S. broadband for $22 a month. After aggressive marketing forced its competitors to meet Yahoo! bb's price, high-speed DSL subscriptions skyrocketed. By the end of 2002, such access was available to many more than the 30 million Japanese households the government had targeted. Within another five months, a greater percentage of homes in Japan than in the United States had access to broadband.



Thanks to the government's competitive framework, the speed of the DSL service offered also rose dramatically, from 8 megabits per second in 2001 to 12, 26, and 40 megabits today. (The typical U.S. broadband connection, whether DSL or cable, is still only 1.5 megabits per second or slower.) Meanwhile, the price of monthly subscriptions remained stable, even for 26-megabit access speeds, at about $22 per month -- by far the lowest price in the world. By September 2004, 15.3 million Japanese subscribed to high-speed broadband. Moreover, for an additional $5 per month, users of Yahoo! bb can also have Internet telephone service. One in every 25 telephone calls in Japan is now made over the Internet, and the number keeps growing.



Meeting the e-Japan strategy's second goal -- making ultra-high-speed access (up to 100 megabits per second) available to ten million Japanese households -- proved more difficult. Such connections permit real-time video telephoning and video conferencing, telecommuting, and rich multimedia options such as digital high-definition television, interactive games, and five-minute movie downloads (instead of the short, jerky video streaming that Americans are used to). But data cannot be transmitted at such speeds through existing phone lines, and new fiber-optic cable had to be laid throughout Japan. Having decided that those lines, too, should be open to competition, the Japanese authorities set out to devise significant incentives to persuade Japanese companies to invest in new ultra-high-speed cable, especially in rural areas.



The government used tax breaks, debt guaranties, and partial subsidies. It allowed companies willing to lay fiber to depreciate about one-third of the cost on first-year taxes, and it guaranteed their debt liabilities. These measures were sufficient to ensure that new fiber was laid in cities and large towns, but in rural areas, municipal subsidies were also needed. Towns and villages willing to set up their own ultra-high-speed fiber networks received a government subsidy covering approximately one-third of their costs, so long as those networks, too, were open to outside access.



These incentives created the right environment for the rapid deployment of fiber networks. Again, other companies decided to compete with regional telephone companies. The first, Usen, a nationwide distributor of background music with its own fiber network, was later joined by electric power companies. The resulting competition quickly drove the price of an ultrafast fiber connection down to $30 to $45 per month.



By the end of 2002, ultrafast fiber connections were available to more than ten million households in Tokyo and Osaka; a primary goal of the e-Japan strategy had been met. But the program -- and the government's tax incentives - had also called for fiber lines to run directly to homes and offices, and those connections proved economic only in densely populated cities. In less settled areas, the government agreed to provide tax incentives for fiber taken only as far as neighborhoods, leaving it to individual users to decide how to connect. Some have chosen -- and paid for -- a direct fiber connection; others have opted for a cheaper but slower wireless connection. By mid-2004, ultra-high-speed broadband was available to more than 80 percent of Japan's citizens. With more than two million subscribers, it can be said to have gone mainstream.



Fiber deployment is still moving quickly, and by the end of the year, ultra-high-speed access will be available to virtually all Japanese either directly or in their neighborhood. The program has been so successful that the Japanese government has already set its sights higher: in mid-2003, it decided to move beyond promoting access to ultra-high-speed broadband to encouraging its use.

tiny url (http://www.cfr.org/publication/8008/down_to_the_wire.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2F publication_list%3Ftype%3Dforeign_affairs%26page%3 D31)

While deregulation in the US removed competition, and placed tele-com lines in the hands of two separate de facto monopolies:



Without vision or leadership, U.S. broadband policy drifted during the Bush administration's first two years. The FCC tended to other matters. The Department of Commerce insisted that the market, not the government, should drive the rollout of broadband. Meanwhile, regional telephone companies relentlessly tried to reverse some of the promising measures that had been taken under President Clinton. Continuing efforts they had launched after the 1996 Telecommunications Act was passed, they lobbied legislators and sought court decisions to overturn regulations that had forced them to open their residential telephone lines to competitors.
Powell seemed not to mind this challenge; he preferred a somewhat different approach anyway. He backed promising new technologies and appeared less interested in the idea of promoting DSL competition for residential telephone lines, even though the strategy had quickly boosted access speeds and lowered prices in Japan and elsewhere. Instead, he favored pitting the cable television industry against the regional telephone industry.



Although in theory the strategy was viable -- telephone and cable lines run in front of more than 75 percent of U.S. homes, and with some technical upgrading, both can provide basic or high-speed broadband -- many opposed it. Among the critics of the multiplatform approach were Powell's predecessors at the FCC, who had done their utmost to open residential telephone lines; many economists, who were distrustful of duopoly competition; and consumer groups. Firms that were already competing or that wanted to compete with regional telephone companies in providing DSL service disagreed, too, as did those that coveted access to cable television lines. Some even claimed that this approach violated the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which, they argued, required the sharing of residential telephone wires.



Still, when the FCC got around to reviewing broadband policy in February 2003, it made convoluted decisions that left only the multiplatform approach. Firms that were competing with regional telephone companies to offer high-speed DSL service over telephone lines would have only three more years of access. More significant for the long run, the regional telephone companies would not have to share with outside competitors the ultra-high-speed fiber lines they laid. The following year, moreover, at the urging of regional telephone companies, a court reaffirmed an earlier ruling that these companies need not share their residential lines with DSL competitors. Although many expected an appeal, higher levels of the administration chose not to challenge the decision. Thus, broadband competition over residential telephone lines was effectively killed. A proven strategy had been lost.



Unfortunately, vigorous multiplatform competition is unlikely to emerge soon. True, there are signs of competition between the cable-modem broadband offered by cable television companies and the DSL service offered by telephone companies. Comcast plans to provide reliable Internet-based telephone service by doubling the speed of its broadband offerings from 1.5 megabits to 3 megabits per second over the next three years. Verizon and SBC Communications have dropped the cost of their broadband service to about $30 a month. And to compete directly with cable, some phone companies have begun to talk of developing their own Internet telephone service and providing higher broadband speeds to deliver video.



But these new services will probably appear only slowly, and competition between the telephone and cable companies will remain limited. The reasons are simple: cheap, high-speed broadband would lead to widespread use of Internet telephones and thus threaten the phone companies' lucrative voice-telephone business, and more inexpensive broadband would multiply outside video and movie offerings and endanger the cable companies' profitability. So, although both the telephone and cable companies could provide cheap, high-speed broadband if they chose to, they are not rushing to develop it.



The lack of strong incentives to encourage competition has, in other words, doomed broadband in the United States to remain much slower and more expensive than in Japan. Over the next five years, service is likely to get only marginally faster and cheaper. Meanwhile, at current transmission speeds, the next "killer" application -- Internet telephone service -- will remain shaky and unreliable.

[LeftSideDown]

Japan has also been in a "lost decade" for more than two decades now because of its use of Keynesian techniques of relieving/stopping recessions.

[AK]

Yes anybody at any level can start a viable business. Money is not needed.
I hope you were being sarcastic. I really do.


The simple answer is no. Even upper middle class people will have trouble securing enough capital to start a business, let alone make it profitable.
Oh yes... middle class :laugh:

[Dimentio]

Japan has also been in a "lost decade" for more than two decades now because of its use of Keynesian techniques of relieving/stopping recessions.

The main problem is that Japanese consumers aren't exactly working like American consumers. In USA and western Europe, consumers generally increase their consumption when receiving tax benefits for example. In Japan, there has been no noticeable sign of increased consumption, which actually is good from the point of view of the environment. I think Americans and western Europeans have a lot to learn from that kind of behaviour, not the other way around.

[Dermezel]

The main problem is that Japanese consumers aren't exactly working like American consumers. In USA and western Europe, consumers generally increase their consumption when receiving tax benefits for example. In Japan, there has been no noticeable sign of increased consumption, which actually is good from the point of view of the environment. I think Americans and western Europeans have a lot to learn from that kind of behaviour, not the other way around.

That is because the Shogunate early on imposed strict State controls on tree cutting:



The shogunate's policies underwent a major change around the time the spate of castle-town building came to an end. But the construction of castle towns was not the cause; rather, it was a shift in perception of the world situation and attendant changes in diplomacy and trade. Japan, hitherto a major producer of guns, banned their manufacture, prohibited overseas travel, forbade the entry of Portuguese ships, and restricted foreign trade to the port of Nagasaki. But at the same time, having mended relations with Korea, which Japan had invaded twice in the 1590s, the shogunate invited missions from Korea, received delegations from the Ryûkyû Kingdom (Okinawa), and required Dutch merchants to make periodic visits to Edo (present Tokyo), the seat of the shogunate. All this gave ordinary people increased opportunities to rub shoulders with foreigners. As a result, especially in Edo, medical science went beyond Chinese herbalism to develop independently, copperplate prints were made and a concept of something like photography was born, lenses were sold on the market, and natural-history illustrations were turned out in profusion. Imports of books increased, partly because of the creation of a school system for the sons of samurai and partly because of the need to obtain technical manuals. The shogunate was not hostile to foreign countries per se; what it disliked was Europe's relentless expansionism, which encroached on other countries in the guise of "goodwill," using Catholic missionaries as its vanguard.


In the second half of the seventeenth century the shogunate began vigorously issuing ordinances forbidding tree felling. The first such flood-control ordinance, in 1666, forbade the uprooting of trees in order to prevent soil erosion, decreed that saplings be planted on both sides of the upper reaches of rivers, and prohibited the establishment of new rice fields and the burning off of fields bordering rivers and in dry riverbeds. The previous year the Owari han (domain) in today's Aichi Prefecture had declared mountain forests along the Kiso River tomeyama--literally, "closed mountains"--and the Hirosaki han in what is now Aomori Prefecture had done the same. "Closed mountains" were designated forest areas where it was forbidden to tamper with standing trees in any way. There were also suyama, or "nesting mountains," forest areas closed off to protect hawks' nesting grounds. In addition, tree felling by individuals was restricted in common forests, and in some akeyama (open mountains), forests open to free access, it was forbidden to fell certain types of trees.


The shogunate followed the 1666 ordinance with decrees regarding closed mountains. In 1678, for example, stern notices were issued prohibiting not only the felling of standing trees but also the cutting or burning of branches and the stripping of bark in closed mountains in the Tôtômi and Suruga domains (both in today's Shizuoka Prefecture). And in 1684 it was forbidden to cut down trees, uproot grasses, burn fields, or build along riverbanks on both imperial and private property in the Kansai region around Kyoto and Osaka because of the danger of soil erosion. At the same time the planting of saplings, turf, bamboo, reeds, and grasses was promoted. These measures were instituted because surveys investigating why the Yodo River repeatedly overflowed its banks had revealed that lumbering at the upper reaches of the river was to blame. The seriousness with which the shogunate addressed flood control is indicated by the fact that decrees prohibiting tree felling continued to be issued thereafter, though at less frequent intervals.


What is interesting is that these orders were accompanied by bans on the development of new rice fields along riverbanks. New rice fields should have been to the shogunate's benefit, since they would generate increased land-tax revenue, but the authorities abandoned that kind of development as early as the latter half of the seventeenth century. Moreover, in the 1660s, when the first ordinance prohibiting tree felling was issued, annual land taxes dropped to about 30% of the harvest and never rose thereafter. In most cases, the initiative in setting the land tax lay with the village. More precisely, the tax was determined in negotiations between the village assembly and village elders (the headman and his two chief lieutenants) on the one hand and the local magistrate on the other. It was impossible to impose taxes arbitrarily. The village was a local government entity with a tradition stretching back to the medieval period and had a much stronger voice than we today imagine.http://www.lian.com/TANAKA/englishpapers/cyclical.htm





You point out, for example, how the Maya failed and the 17th-century Tokugawa Shoguns in Japan succeeded. Having overexploited their territory, the Maya collapsed because the ruling caste, which extracted wealth from the commoners, was insulated from the effects of deforestation and soil erosion and thus failed to act.



Conversely, the shoguns of 17th-century Tokugawa Japan recognized the danger of deforestation to the long-term peace and prosperity of their successors and imposed heavy regulations on farmers, managed the harvest of trees and pushed new, lighter and more efficient construction techniques. Today, even though Japan is the most densely populated country of the developed world, it remains 70 percent forested.http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2005_spring/02_diamond.html

Keep in mind many of the so-called Leftists on this forum, i.e. Khad's faction and the other Cliffites do not see the "Value" or "Importance" of a State run economy (i.e. I guess they are socialists who want privatization. )

Or as they put it "What's so great about State ownership?" :rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

Actually Japan did just that to great effect:

While deregulation in the US removed competition, and placed tele-com lines in the hands of two separate de facto monopolies:

Bottom line is that lots of people start businesses every day in the USA, but most people don't even try. The people that start businesses have lots of impedements and problems and a good number of those people over come those problems. A good number don't.

And the people that don't try--just don't try. There are lots of reasons they don't try: some personal some macro economic--but in the end they just don't. No big deal one way of another.

It's just how people are.

[Dimentio]

It is actually possible to have a business and do nothing.

1. Tell a small bank you are starting a business. Tell your municipality the same thing. Request loans.

2. Contact a farmer in the island of Sark. Make him co-owner of your company.

3. After you receive your money, declare bankcruptcy and divide the money with the Sarkian farmer.

4. $$$$$

:D

[Dermezel]

Bottom line is that lots of people start businesses every day in the USA, but most people don't even try.

Uh, give examples. What do you mean by "lots of people"?


The people that start businesses have lots of impedements and problems and a good number of those people over come those problems. A good number don't.

A "good number"-- well how scientific. Let's gamble our lives on that approximation.

Let's say someone built a plane and argued you should right in it because a "good number" of parts are in the right place.


And the people that don't try--just don't try. There are lots of reasons they don't try: some personal some macro economic--but in the end they just don't. No big deal one way of another.


How do you know they don't try? What if they try but making 8 bucks an hour isn't exactly an efficient way to save money for starting "a business" (whatever that means- remember "a business" has to actually be doing something. What new service or industry are you proposing they establish specifically? )

In any case you are ignoring the fact that Capital Centralizes over time. That is a rock-solid economic law that is proven by a mountain of statistics, the formation of monopolies and the rise of international corporations.

It's sort of like saying people don't try to fight Gravity, or animals don't try to fight Natural Selection. Simply put your argument is unscientific because it doesn't take into account Economic Laws.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Dermezel I disagree with you because I know many Lower and Upper Middle Class people who have started Small Businesses.

[Zanthorus]

Technically speaking it's entirely possible.

In practice it simply doesn't, in fact couldn't work. If everyone owned their own business then large-scale industry would be basically impossible and we would be back to pre-capitalist small-artisan style production. If we're talking about real world levels of feasibility then it is possible to start up your own business in industries with relatively low overhead and startup costs however these industries are typically unimportant to the overall industrial superstructure compared to industries with high startup costs and overhead like say car manafacturing or energy provision. Also even in industries which in theory have relatively small startup costs and overhead like say, shoe manafacturing, in actual practice the advertising budget of large corporations and their ability to make themselves part of the overall social and cultural fabric of consumer society gives them immensely more power than small family run startups.

[Dermezel]

Dermezel I disagree with you because I know many Lower and Upper Middle Class people who have started Small Businesses.

The "some people say" argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw

[Bud Struggle]

Uh, give examples. What do you mean by "lots of people"? People start businesses every day. Drive down the street and see all the businesses, go to an industrial park.


A "good number"-- well how scientific. Let's gamble our lives on that approximation. People succeed. I did--and it wasn't that hard.


Let's say someone built a plane and argued you should right in it because a "good number" of parts are in the right place. Businesses aren't planes.


How do you know they don't try? What if they try but making 8 bucks an hour isn't exactly an efficient way to save money for starting "a business" (whatever that means- remember "a business" has to actually be doing something. What new service or industry are you proposing they establish specifically? ) Some people are interested and some aren't. It's like anything else in life. Some people learn to play the piano and some don't. It's a matter of interest. It's much easier to get a job and stick with it--to be sure.


In any case you are ignoring the fact that Capital Centralizes over time. That is a rock-solid economic law that is proven by a mountain of statistics, the formation of monopolies and the rise of international corporations. So what? Move the business equasion over to the side a bit and you have a whole new playing field.


It's sort of like saying people don't try to fight Gravity, or animals don't try to fight Natural Selection. Simply put your argument is unscientific because it doesn't take into account Economic Laws. And I guess that's why no one ever starts new businesses?

For example:

http://www.businesspundit.com/fortune-500-rags-to-riches/

[tradeunionsupporter]

Do you deny Dermezel that Lower and Upper Middle Class people can start Small Businesses they can even get Business Loans to start Businesses. Im not asking you if you think these Small Businesses can be successful or fail. Im asking if you deny that Lower and Upper Middle Class people can start Small Businesses ?

[Dermezel]

People start businesses every day. Drive down the street and see all the businesses, go to an industrial park.

Violations of Natural Selection happen every day. Say a fire breaks out and kills more fit organisms. I guess Darwin was wrong.


People succeed. I did--and it wasn't that hard.

People win the Lotto. I did- it wasn't that hard.


Businesses aren't planes.

A Moment of Zen.


Some people are interested and some aren't. It's like anything else in life. Some people learn to play the piano and some don't. It's a matter of interest. It's much easier to get a job and stick with it--to be sure.

Except in this matter of interest (the economy) people can starve to death.


So what? Move the business equasion over to the side a bit and you have a whole new playing field.

Except that's not how the Economic Laws actually work. Move the Gravity Equation over a bit and people can float through the air. Doesn't mean I'm gonna jump off a cliff and flap my arms hoping to fly.


And I guess that's why no one ever starts new businesses?

It's very rare for a Working Class person to have enough free time and money to try. And even if they do over 50% of small businesses fail in their first year. Most never see a profit.


For example:

http://www.businesspundit.com/fortune-500-rags-to-riches/

That is not showing small business but large corporations. Apple, Coor's, Ebay and Starbucks are the examples of small businesses. All that means is large corporations began as small and then grew to large. That is evidence of the Centralization of Capital because now those large businesses prevent further competition and have consolidated the market.

Consider how many local coffee shops Starbucks has put out of business.

Also you are ignoring the Stock Owners. And the fact that 75% of the top 400 richest people pretty much inherited their wealth:

http://www.faireconomy.org/press_room/1997/born_on_third_base_sources_of_wealth_of_1997_forbe s_400

The remaining 25% were born upper class or "middle" upper class. I don't know of any proletariat that made it into the top 400.

[Dermezel]

Do you deny Dermezel that Lower and Upper Middle Class people can start Small Businesses they can even get Business Loans to start Businesses. Im not asking you if you think these Small Businesses can be successful or fail.

Basically you mean to ask if people can get loans. That has about as much to do with the legitimacy of the Centralization of Capital Theory as the request of whether or not jumping in the air defies Gravity because at the peak of your jump you have zero weight.

So I guess you are asking whether or not people can jump off off a cliff. The answer is yes.

[Bud Struggle]

[quote]It's very rare for a Working Class person to have enough free time and money to try. And even if they do over 50% of small businesses fail in their first year. Most never see a profit. And 50% succeed! And a lot of these people didn't know business from a hole in the ground. And people are allowed to try and try again. Could life get any better?


is not showing small business but large corporations. Apple, Coor's, Ebay and Starbucks are the examples of small businesses. All that means is large corporations began as small and then grew to large. That is evidence of the Centralization of Capital because now those large businesses prevent further competition and have consolidated the market. These are large businesses that were started with "no money down." With nothing.


r how many local coffee shops Starbucks has put out of business. Comrade--can ANYONE have a better sense of FAIL than you? :D


u are ignoring the Stock Owners. And the fact that 75% of the top 400 richest people pretty much inherited their wealth:


The remaining 25% were born upper class or "middle" upper class. I don't know of any proletariat that made it into the top 400.Who cares if people are richer than me, Brad Pitt's better looking than I am--am I worried about it? How about you? :D

[tradeunionsupporter]

Dermezel I want to understand what your saying are you saying that Lower and Upper Middle Class people can start Small Businesses but they will fail and not be successful because of competition with Big Businesses and many other reasons ?

[Dermezel]

And 50% succeed! And a lot of these people didn't know business from a hole in the ground. And people are allowed to try and try again. Could life get any better?

And a lot of people got rich in Vegas. What's your point?

Also you are way misreading. I just said over 50% go under in their first year. Where did I say the rest succeeded?


These are large businesses that were started with "no money down." With nothing.

Let's take one example: "Based on Adolf Coors initial investment of $2000 in 1872"

So you are going back to the 19th century? Capital was not as centralized back then as it is today. And he invested 2 grand, which today is the equivalent of a lot of money. And it isn't saying how he got the initial capital. So I looked it up:


In 1873, German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) immigrants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration) Adolph Coors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolph_Coors) and Jacob Schueler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schueler), a Denver businessman, established a brewery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewery) in Golden, Colorado (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden,_Colorado). Coors invested $2,000 in the operation in addition to Schueler's investment of $18,000. In 1880, Coors bought out his partner, becoming sole owner of the company.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coors_Brewing_Company#Founding


Who cares if people are richer than me, Brad Pitt's better looking than I am--am I worried about it? How about you? :D

I care because it translates into political power. And not just a little like looking better does, but if someone has a billion dollars, and I am working at a factory for 8 bucks an hour they have a huge advantage in determining who is in office, and how the future of the economy will be in general.

To give a concrete example- Global Warming. Some rich guy with a vested interest in Coal and Oil will get more say then I do, even though the issue effects me directly.

[Dermezel]

Dermezel I want to understand what your saying are you saying that Lower and Upper Middle Class people can start Small Businesses but they will fail and not be successful because of competition with Big Businesses and many other reasons ?

They can get a loan. They can start a Lemonade Stand. That's hardly the same as violating the Law of Centralization and saying everyone could succeed at starting a Small Business if they tried.

That's like saying because anyone can buy a Lotto ticket, everyone who does so will win the Lotto. You aren't even talking about the Winners at this point.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Dermezel are you saying that Lower and Upper Middle Class people can start Small Businesses but they will fail in you opinion please answer yes or no thank you for your answer.

[Dermezel]

Dermezel are you saying that Lower and Upper Middle Class people can start Small Businesses but they will fail in you opinion please answer yes or no thank you for your answer.


You can have zero weight for an instant if you jump off a cliff.

[Dimentio]

[QUOTE=Dermezel;1726492]
And 50% succeed! And a lot of these people didn't know business from a hole in the ground. And people are allowed to try and try again. Could life get any better?

That depends on. In Sweden, if you fail to make a company the first time, people would be extremely cautious to give you grants for the next attempt, though it probably is easier to start a company in Sweden than in America (I don't remember where I have read that).

[Dermezel]

it probably is easier to start a company in Sweden than in America (I don't remember where I have read that).

I don't doubt it. They have way more Social Programs. That being the case just about anything will be easier.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Dermezel are you saying that Lower and Upper Middle Class people starting Small Businesses and failing is like jumping off a cliff ?

[Bud Struggle]

And a lot of people got rich in Vegas. What's your point?

Also you are way misreading. I just said over 50% go under in their first year. Where did I say the rest succeeded? So there's fail and succeed--and then what exactly is the middle?




Let's take one example: "Based on Adolf Coors initial investment of $2000 in 1872"

So you are going back to the 19th century? Capital was not as centralized back then as it is today. And he invested 2 grand, which today is the equivalent of a lot of money. And it isn't saying how he got the initial capital. So I looked it up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coors_Brewing_Company#Founding

It was an example. Most companies don't make billions--mine sure doesn't, but I was born from working class first generation Polish peasents--and with a little work and effort I did OK. I did it--it wasn't that hard.


I care because it translates into political power. And not just a little like looking better does, but if someone has a billion dollars, and I am working at a factory for 8 bucks an hour they have a huge advantage in determining who is in office, and how the future of the economy will be in general. Well if you are in it for the power, fine. Me: my kid is into dressage and she always wants a new and more expensive horse--that's tough enough for me to keep up with.


To give a concrete example- Global Warming. Some rich guy with a vested interest in Coal and Oil will get more say then I do, even though the issue effects me directly. Well then get to work and get a vested interest in Coal and Oil.

[Dermezel]

Dermezel are you saying that Lower and Upper Middle Class people starting Small Businesses and failing is like jumping off a cliff ?

Pretty much. You end up with a lot of debt.

[Bud Struggle]

[QUOTE=Bud Struggle;1726511]

That depends on. In Sweden, if you fail to make a company the first time, people would be extremely cautious to give you grants for the next attempt, though it probably is easier to start a company in Sweden than in America (I don't remember where I have read that).

Maybe it's me--but I know a lot of business owners like myself and I don't know any that started out with a loan from a bank. Maybe some do, but I sure don't know any.

[Bud Struggle]

You can have zero weight for an instant if you jump off a cliff.

No, you have a constant weight--you just aren't falling for an instant.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Dermezel thank you for answering my questions.

[Dermezel]

So there's fail and succeed--and then what exactly is the middle?

Last a little while and the fail. I guess that is like the guy who jumped off the cliff with a shoddy parachute. Or a Jet Plane that was built mostly correct and blew apart during turbulence.


It was an example. Most companies don't make billions--mine sure doesn't, but I was born from working class first generation Polish peasents--and with a little work and effort I did OK. I did it--it wasn't that hard.

There could be all sorts of factors to your circumstances that you are not fully disclosing or downplaying or not aware of.

For that reason your story is about as convincing as someone who says they've smoked all their life and are perfectly healthy.


Well if you are in it for the power, fine. Me: my kid is into dressage and she always wants a new and more expensive horse--that's tough enough for me to keep up with.

But you are ignoring the fact that being super-rich does give you political power. And if you aren't concerned with political power you are just setting yourself up to be exploited.

Also aren't you concerned with things like Global Warming, and environmental destruction or future wars for the sake of your kid?

[Dermezel]

No, you have a constant weight--you just aren't falling for an instant.

Uh okay, not sure if that's gonna save you but fine.

[Bud Struggle]

Last a little while and the fail. I guess that is like the guy who jumped off the cliff with a shoddy parachute. Or a Jet Plane that was built mostly correct and blew apart during turbulence. No offense, but you haven't written many posts here without the word "fail" being the theme. Maybe you have an issue?


There could be all sorts of factors to your circumstances that you are not fully disclosing or downplaying or not aware of.

For that reason your story is about as convincing as someone who says they've smoked all their life and are perfectly healthy. Oh, I fuck up a lot--I just succeed a bit more.


But you are ignoring the fact that being super-rich does give you political power. And if you aren't concerned with political power you are just setting yourself up to be exploited. I actually have plenty of political power--I'm in the Real Estste business and the local zoning boards are quite friendly to me for some reason ;)--that's all the power I want.


Also aren't you concerned with things like Global Warming, and environmental destruction or future wars for the sake of your kid? I honestly things are getting better and I think society is becomming more fair--change takes time.

[Dermezel]

Oh, I fuck up a lot--I just succeed a bit more.

That's your success story?


I actually have plenty of political power--I'm in the Real Estste business and the local zoning boards are quite friendly to me for some reason ;)--that's all the power I want.

Okay, tell me your definition of "Small Business"? Also Land Lord- how productive!


I honestly things are getting better and I think society is becomming more fair--change takes time.

Yeah sometimes it takes time, sometimes it is rapid. Gradual change is generally more accurate, rapid change is more powerful.

[Dimentio]

Maybe it's me--but I know a lot of business owners like myself and I don't know any that started out with a loan from a bank. Maybe some do, but I sure don't know any.

In Sweden, you either receive grants from your municipality or borrows money from a bank before starting a company. To get grants, you must show them a business plan. Sure you could do some operations before, but it is very hard to have an unregistered company and work full- or part-time simultaneously. The reason why so few people could start companies from scratch here without aid from the local government is that most Swedes don't have too much savings and most who are college-educated are indebted.

Small business-owners with newly started companies get three years tax-free though.

[Dermezel]

[QUOTE=Bud Struggle;1726556]

In Sweden, you either receive grants from your municipality or borrows money from a bank before starting a company. To get grants, you must show them a business plan. Sure you could do some operations before, but it is very hard to have an unregistered company and work full- or part-time simultaneously.

Small business-owners with newly started companies get three years tax-free though.

Okay I missed that part. The guy is lying. There is no way you can start a small business without a loan. How are you going to do it?

How are you going to make the product? Get customers? Get workers? Get an office?

You'd need a job on the side. What kind of job? Working at Wal-Mart? You are literally "living" paycheck to paycheck doing that and are likely already in debt.

Even a good job, say UPS driver making 20 bucks an hour (due to Unions) you are working more then 48 hours a week. You will not have enough energy to have some random business on the side.

Businesses have costs, unless you can cover those costs PLUS your living expenses you are SOL. And wages have not kept up with living expenses.

[Dimentio]

What is wrong with the quotation system?

[Bud Struggle]

Okay I missed that part. The guy is lying. There is no way you can start a small business without a loan. How are you going to do it?

How are you going to make the product? Get customers? Get workers? Get an office?

You'd need a job on the side. What kind of job? Working at Wal-Mart? You are literally "living" paycheck to paycheck doing that and are likely already in debt.

Even a good job, say UPS driver making 20 bucks an hour (due to Unions) you are working more then 48 hours a week. You will not have enough energy to have some random business on the side.

Businesses have costs, unless you can cover those costs PLUS your living expenses you are SOL. And wages have not kept up with living expenses.

I started my first business in my mom's basement with a printing press that I bought for $10 at a garage sale. I sold the business four years later and bought my first piece of real estate with the proceeds. Later when I was bored I started a chemical compounding business in my garage for about $300. I'm not saying any of it was easy--but you don't need and office, you sell the stuff yourself, you make the stuff yourself (I did when I started) and when I could afford all the rest--I got those things.

No offense Comrade, but you have no idea what it's like to start a business.

[Dermezel]

I started my first business in my mom's basement with a printing press that I bought for $10 at a garage sale. I sold the business four years later and bought my first piece of real estate with the proceeds. Later when I was bored I started a chemical compounding business in my garage for about $300. I'm not saying any of it was easy--but you don't need and office, you sell the stuff yourself, you make the stuff yourself (I did when I started) and when I could afford all the rest--I got those things.


You just said it was easy a couple posts back.

[Dr Mindbender]

It probably is relatively possible for most people to start a business yes. If being a prostitute counts as a business then yes, certainly almost anyone can. Being successful in business can be the consequence of being a good bullshitter, liar or arselicker as much or even more than it can have do with having access to mass amounts of money. The most successful and powerful people in my workplace are the ones who have wormed their way into the good graces of upper management with or without displaying any obvious or tangible skill. Where i work, the term and concept of skill seems to be substituted with meaningless buzzwords that they use to justify their own prestige, perks and privileges.

IMO there is nothing wrong with starting a business in itself if it used as a means to an end, rather than the end itself (running a business does not necessarilly necessitate hiring others).The dilemma we have at the moment is that there are far too many non-specialists without useful skills knowledge or eptitude being able to permeate positions of social influence for no other reason than their 'business mojo'. The pertinent question should be, should we really tolerate a social system is sole onus is the rewarding of those whose only tangible skill is fanning the flames of the current economic zeitgeist?

[Dermezel]

It probably is relatively possible for most people to start a business yes. If being a prostitute counts as a business then yes, certainly almost anyone can. Being successful in business can be the consequence of being a good bullshitter, liar or arselicker as much or even more than it can have do with having access to mass amounts of money.

Even then it is pretty much impossible without the money.

[Dr Mindbender]

Even then it is pretty much impossible without the money.

I dont know. I guess the rub of it is how far do you want to lower the definition of a business.

Is a little child chopping lemons and squeezing the juice for a few pennies a glass by the kerb a business?

Ultimately its one of those circular objectivist arguments that fails to ground itself in the real world of monopolies and the power of existing big businesses. The little child may chop lemons but in reality they'll never compete with Sprite or 7 up.

[Bud Struggle]

You just said it was easy a couple posts back.

Well I did have to work a bit--nothing more than an honest day's work though.

[Dr Mindbender]

Well I did have to work a bit--nothing more than an honest day's work though.

I suppose that depends if you subscribe to the labour theory of value though.

But since you dont we've clearly come to an impasse.

[Bud Struggle]

The dilemma we have at the moment is that there are far too many non-specialists without useful skills knowledge or eptitude being able to permeate positions of social influence for no other reason than their 'business mojo'. The pertinent question should be, should we really tolerate a social system is sole onus is the rewarding of those whose only tangible skill is fanning the flames of the current economic zeitgeist?

That is a very interesting perception. And it makes a lot of sense.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I think I read some statistic somewhere that 95 percent of startup businesses fail in the first couple of years.

So basically, yes, you could try it, but you'll have very slim odds, so unless you really are hot shit, don't try it and leave it to equally non exceptional but rich, people.

EDIT: and by hot shit, I also mean an asshole willing to screw people over.

[Dermezel]

I suppose that depends if you subscribe to the labour theory of value though.

But since you dont we've clearly come to an impasse.

But you aren't at an impasse. He's clearly wrong. You don't even need the labor theory of value, just the centralization of capital which is empirically proven:

http://www.endgame.org/primer-wealth.html



The richest 1% of adults owned 40% of the world’s total assets in the year 2000. The richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of total assets. The bottom half of the world adult population owned 1% of global wealth. (Source: World Institute for Development Economics Research, The World Distribution of Household Wealth (http://www.wider.unu.edu/research/2006-2007/2006-2007-1/wider-wdhw-launch-5-12-2006/wider-wdhw-report-5-12-2006.pdf), 2006).
"There were an estimated 7.7 million millionaires in the world at the end of 2003, half a million more than at the end of 2002, as stock markets and economic growth picked up and the rich took more risks with their cash.These wealthy individuals saw their riches increase by 7.7 percent to $28.8 trillion in 2003, recovering to levels seen before the global recession took hold in 2001, according to a survey on Tuesday from U.S. investment bank Merrill Lynch and technology consultancy Capgemini. And the rich are set to get richer, with their wealth forecast to grow by seven percent a year and to exceed $40.7 trillion by 2008, the survey predicted... The survey also highlighted a small, but fast-growing global group of 70,000 super rich individuals with more than $30 million in financial assets. It found that this group was growing at a faster pace than those in the $1 million-plus bracket." (World's richest worth $29 trillion in 2003 (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5214919/); Survey: Wealthy now back at level before dot-com bust. MSNBC.com, June 15, 2004,)
Very Richest's Share of Income Grew Even Bigger (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/26/business/26TAX.html?pagewanted=print&position=), New York Times, June 26, 2003
In the late 1970s, the top one percent of the US population held 13 percent of the wealth; in 1995 it held 38 percent. (Levy, Frank. The New Dollars and Dreams ).
In 1998 the top 1 percent of the population owned 38 percent of the wealth, the top 5 percent owned over 60 percent (source: www.inequality.org/fatcsfr.html (http://www.inequality.org/fatcsfr.html)).
The top ten percent of the U.S. population owns 81.8 percent of the real estate, 81.2 percent of the stock, and 88 percent of the bonds. (Federal Reserve Bank data in Left Business Observer, No. 72, Apr. 3, 1996, p. 5).
One percent of the U.S. population owns sixty percent of the stock and forty percent of the total wealth. (Hawken, Paul, The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability. New York: HarperBusiness, 1993).
The top one percent of U.S. households owned 42 percent of all stock in 1997...
The top ten percent of households owned 82 percent of all stock-market wealth...
Only 27 percent of households held more than $10,000 in stock in 1997...
57 percent of Americans didn't own any stock at all...
The top fifth of households saw their income rise 43 percent between 1977 and 1999, while the bottom fifth saw their income fall 9 percent....
Since 1973, every group in society except the top 20 percent has seen its share of the national income decline, with the bottom 20 percent losing the most. They have just 3.6 percent of national income, down from 4.4 percent a quarter century ago.
Indeed, the top fifth now makes more than the rest of the nation combined...
Rebecca Blank, who recently left the President's Council of Economic Advisors, pointed out, ‘We've gone back to levels of income and wealth inequality that this country hasn't seen since the teens and 1920s.’" (Source: Merrill Goozner, Crash of '99?, Salon.com, Oct. 1, 1999).
The top one percent of Americans receive more income than the bottom 40 percent. (Korten, David. When Corporations Rule the World, p. 108).
When he was worth $40 billion, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates was worth more than the bottom 110 million Americans (the bottom 40 percent of the population). By 1998, Gates was worth $59 billion; a year later, he was worth $85 billion. Gates is twice as wealthy as the second richest American, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen (worth $40 billion). (Source: open letter from Ralph Nader (December 1998), citing Edward Wolff of New York University, whose calculations included home equity, pensions and mutual funds, but excluded personal cars, based on Gates' then-current net worth of $40 billion).
In 1995, 358 billionaires were worth $760 billion, the same as the poorest 20 percent of the world’s people. (Korten, David. When Corporations Rule the World, p. 83).
Also this guy's story defies logic, statistics and common sense. He's just making crap up.

I mean he even contradicts himself. First he said it wasn't hard, then he says it was hard to start a business. Can't even get his BS straight.

[Dr Mindbender]

But you aren't at an impasse. He's clearly wrong. You don't even need the labor theory of value, just the centralization of capital which is empirically proven:
It is an impasse. If he wants to apply the bourgeoise interpretation of earning and theft theres not much i can say that will convince him otherwise.




So basically, yes, you could try it, but you'll have very slim odds, so unless you really are hot shit, don't try it and leave it to equally non exceptional but rich, people.


It probably helps largely if you are working in an industry that you are particularly passionate and skilled in, as opposed to starting a business for the sake of starting a business. People go into self employment with naive expectations but get bored and distracted of what they are doing, which i suspect is one of the pitfalls that claim many start up companies.

As a rule of thumb rich people arent necessarilly 'skilled' in the professional sense of the term. Again though, the question shouldnt be how hard it is for workers to go into business for themselves, more how do we counter the crazy reality that any idiot can buy their way into social influence.

[Dermezel]

It is an impasse. If he wants to apply the bourgeoise interpretation of earning theres not much i can say that will convince him otherwise.

Use science. Even if you don't convince him you look better before the General Public.

It isn't like we are debating religion. Economics is measurable. And we have scientific theories to back our case. That and lots of empirical evidence in support of those theories.

That's like if a biologist just says he is at an impasse with a creationist.


It probably helps largely if you are working in an industry that you are particularly passionate and skilled in, as opposed to starting a business for the sake of starting a business.

That has nothing to do with the Centralization of Capital or the Labor Theory of Value. Those are proven by empirical data, not subjective well-being.


As a rule of thumb rich people arent necessarilly 'skilled' in the professional sense of the term. Again though, the question shouldnt be how hard it is for workers to go into business for themselves, more how do we counter the crazy reality that any idiot can buy their way into social influence.

Well first you need Class Consciousness, and that depends on proving your case. If you can't prove your case then why should anyone listen to you?

[Dr Mindbender]

That's like if a biologist just says he is at an impasse with a creationist.

Its a philosophical impasse though.

A creationist will not budge from his position because god made the world and nature so that is that.

The same applies for a capitalist and his percieved outlook that capitalism is an infallible or justifiable system.

[Dermezel]

Its a philosophical impasse though.

No it's not. The Labor Theory of Value and Law of Centralization are scientific theories.


A creationist will not budge from his position because god made the world and nature so that is that.

Darwin argued with Creationists and changed a lot of minds. Imagine if instead of arguing Darwin had declared it an "impasse".


The same applies for a capitalist and his percieved outlook that capitalism is an infallible or justifiable system.

Again use science. Even if you don't convince him you can still convince anyone reading the thread.

[Bud Struggle]

The same applies for a capitalist and his percieved outlook that capitalism is an infallible or justifiable system.

FYI: I'm not saying Capitalism's a great system. I'm just saying that it works correctly enough of the time if you make it. That's why it's still around after all these many years. If it was ossified like feudalism it would be abolished easily. For what it's worth, it works great a lot of the time for a reasonable number of people.

That's why it's so difficult to get rid of.

[Bud Struggle]

No it's not. The Labor Theory of Value and Law of Centralization are scientific theories.

If you believe such things--if you don't it's not. Economic's isn't 2+2=4. It's an interpretation of reality by the human mind--IT ISN'T REALITY ITSELF.

[Dermezel]

FYI: I'm not saying Capitalism's a great system. I'm just saying that it works correctly enough of the time if you make it.

How are you going to make it when Capital Centralizes over time and the relative value of wages declines? That's like saying Gravity works to keep you floating if you make it.

[Dermezel]

If you believe such things--if you don't it's not. Economic's isn't 2+2=4. It's an interpretation of reality by the human mind--IT ISN'T REALITY ITSELF.

So why does the economic law hold true according to empirical data?


Today we know that corporations, for good or bad, are major influences on our lives. For example, of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations while only 49 are countries, based on a comparison of corporate sales and country GDPs (See the facts (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Corporations/Facts.asp) page for more examples). In this era of globalization, marginalized people are becoming especially angry at the motives of multinational corporations, and corporate-led globalization is being met with increasing protest and resistance. How did corporations ever get such power in the first place?

http://www.globalissues.org/article/234/the-rise-of-corporations

For the last 100 years Capital has Centralized all over the world almost without pause. That is proven by the facts.

[Bud Struggle]

How are you going to make it when Capital Centralizes over time and the relative value of wages declines? That's like saying Gravity works to keep you floating if you make it.

Things get centralized and then new things are constantly bneing ceated at the fringes--and I'm not always happy about the centralization, but there are ways around it. My business competes against vast corporations--and there's enough for everyone. I don't see it as a big issue.

[Dermezel]

Things get centralized and then new things are constantly bneing ceated at the fringes--and I'm not always happy about the centralization, but there are ways around it. My business competes against vast corporations--and there's enough for everyone. I don't see it as a big issue.

The things in the fringes get centralized too eventually. In any case the Law of Centralization is admitted to be factual and proven.

And this is objectively bad under capitalism because it means only a few get more value over time, and the rest get less value because constant capital displaces variable capital. I.e. machinery displaces human labor, and the owners of the machines get fewer in number.

[Dr Mindbender]

FYI: I'm not saying Capitalism's a great system. I'm just saying that it works correctly

Im not denying it works. My problem is who it works for.

[Dermezel]

Im not denying it works. My problem is who it works for.

Pretty much nobody. I wouldn't like it even as a capitalist unless I was one of the most superficial or unconscionable people on the planet.

[RGacky3]

Things get centralized and then new things are constantly bneing ceated at the fringes--and I'm not always happy about the centralization, but there are ways around it. My business competes against vast corporations--and there's enough for everyone. I don't see it as a big issue.

Your the exception, the vast majority of small buisiness fail, an you can't puit that all on "they wern't smart enough."


FYI: I'm not saying Capitalism's a great system. I'm just saying that it works correctly enough of the time if you make it. That's why it's still around after all these many years. If it was ossified like feudalism it would be abolished easily. For what it's worth, it works great a lot of the time for a reasonable number of people.

That's why it's so difficult to get rid of.

Do you know how long feudalism stayed around? It works great for about 5% of the population.

[Dermezel]

Your the exception, the vast majority of small business fail, an you can't put that all on "they weren't smart enough."


Yeah I know it's Social Darwinism. Everyone who fails just = stupid or lazy.

And so what if they were? That mean they deserve to suffer or die? Do we just act like, not just animals, but the worst animals, and eat our own? Sick shit man.

[AK]

Keep in mind many of the so-called Leftists on this forum, i.e. Khad's faction and the other Cliffites do not see the "Value" or "Importance" of a State run economy (i.e. I guess they are socialists who want privatization. )

Or as they put it "What's so great about State ownership?" :rolleyes:
Did you ever hear of worker ownership? :rolleyes: