Could everyone run and own a Business if they had the money to why or why not ? [Archive]

Ovi

5th August 2010, 04:14

Robots or machines...? :rolleyes:
Yes; we would also beam ourselves to work to save time and go on vacations on Mars. But only if everyone would open his own business...
There's a limit to how much we can automate today; doctors are still needed and so are teachers, engineers, writers, philosophers and scientists. Working outside of a perfectly controlled environment it's not something robots can easily do, which means humans will still be needed in building construction, agriculture or when fixing things. Sure, industry can be automated a lot and it already is in developed countries, but we haven't yet reached the level where robots can fix themselves in any situation and probably won't until actually intelligent machines are invented (if ever).

The majority of people do not want to take that chance to start a business so there will always be working class people does anyone here agree with me ?
It is big business that thrives today due to economy of scale and many other reasons (advertising: consumer awareness of various trademarks in this competitive economy is crucial, leaving behind small companies who cannot afford such large sums spent on ads; big companies can invest large sums of money in R&D and the cost is small compared to its profits; however, it is prohibitive to small companies; you can read more here (http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionC4)). If everyone would have their own company, then these companies would have to be cooperatives due to lack of a labor market; and cooperatives don't grow; unlike corporations which always seek to grow and increase its profits, cooperative do not have any profit motive to grow, but quite on the contrary. There is no exploitation of labor, thus individual workers do not have the need to conquer new markets and build new factories. This is one of the main reasons cooperatives cannot replace corporations in a capitalist economy (you can read more here (http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionJ5#secj511)). You need cooperative economics instead, which would be far more efficient (no industrial secrets, patents and other intellectual property rights, no more products made to break as soon as possible to increase consumption etc).

synthesis

5th August 2010, 04:39

Maybe this is the back door to Communism. :D

What exactly do you mean by this? I would have thought it fairly obvious that capitalism as a system requires a proletariat - just to exist.

Dean

5th August 2010, 04:42

Could everyone run and own a Business if they had the money to why or why not ?
It depends on how you define "business." Homes are a form of capital, for instance, so if each person owned his or her house, we would all own capital.

However, the working class in its economic pursuits will always suffer the inefficiency of the small-scale economy. If you don't have a sizable investment to make, you can't expect much of a return.

Im asking this question because if everyone could run and own a Business does that mean that the Working Class disappears or would Small Businesses just disapperar because of competition with Big Businesses ?
The working class would re emerge since competition creates unfavorable conditions for the losing parties. Small businesses have and will continue to fail so long as the political forces defending them are increasingly distant. Deregulation and free market policies will always centralize economic power - the importance of the state is to manage the centralization of this power among economic elites in such a way as to boil the water before the frog jumps out. This is why historical power accumulation was met with so much conflict, but today's increasing wealth disparity is calculated, apparent and 'peaceful.' You just have to make sure that there is enough obfuscation between removing economic power from the working class and your ultimate dispersal of that power to your favored economic allies.

Victory

5th August 2010, 04:52

The majority of people do not want to take that chance to start a business so there will always be working class people does anyone here agree with me ?

There will always be a working class in the Capitalist system because it is necessary to have a working class in order for the Capitalist system to continue.

For the products in businesses to be created supplied, it is necessary for a worker to do that. Without a Worker, who is going to create the products or gather the resources?

The Ruling Class need the Workers, but the Workers do not need the Ruling Class.

RGacky3

5th August 2010, 08:46

What exactly do you mean by this? I would have thought it fairly obvious that capitalism as a system requires a proletariat - just to exist.

Infact it REQURES a class system, a small ruling class and a large proletariat class.

Bud Struggle

5th August 2010, 13:23

What exactly do you mean by this? I would have thought it fairly obvious that capitalism as a system requires a proletariat - just to exist.

If everyone was a small business owner there would be any Bourgeois and there would be any Proletariat. The entire world would be classless because everyone would be a small business owner.

I dodn't mean the point to be taken to seriously.

synthesis

5th August 2010, 13:27

If everyone was a small business owner there would be any Bourgeois and there would be any Proletariat. The entire world would be classless because everyone would be a small business owner.

I dodn't mean the point to be taken to seriously.

But you said it all right there. If everyone ran their own business, you couldn't have any factories or public services. Not everyone can live the American Dream - who'll sew the T-shirts?

Scary Monster

5th August 2010, 22:18

But you said it all right there. If everyone ran their own business, you couldn't have any factories or public services. Not everyone can live the American Dream - who'll sew the T-shirts?

It is a classic example of the contradictions in capitalism, is all. Under capitalism, there will always be a population that needs to be subjugated to produce goods in mass quanitities using slave labor/cheap labor, so that they will be affordable in places where capital has accumulated the most. Not everyone can live the american dream, as you say.

Bud Struggle

5th August 2010, 23:27

But you said it all right there. If everyone ran their own business, you couldn't have any factories or public services. Not everyone can live the American Dream - who'll sew the T-shirts?

But why should everyone be required to live the SAME American dream? Some people may want to have businesses, some may want to do their 40 hours and punch out. Besides, what America offers is an opportunity to persue whatever life you want. It never promises anything but the opportunity. How dull life would be if there weren't any risks and rewards. I really do enjoy it the way it is.

tradeunionsupporter

6th August 2010, 01:09

I can answer my own question and the answer is this
Yes everyone could but not have success having there own business. If you had robots working for you then no one would make money to spend. You need people to work for you so they can make money to spend on your product if everyone decided to have there own they would spend so much for there own business and not be able to buy from other business. Besides this can never happen that would be crazy and everyone would be in Competition with everyone and no one would get anywhere. What do you think?
A business depends on People having jobs to earn money to buy their service or product. So the short answer is NO!

tradeunionsupporter

6th August 2010, 15:52

Could every person in the world own a business like Bill Gates if they had robots to replace human workers or would this not work this ? I ask this question because I want to know if we wil always need the Working Class. What Im asking is could everyone be an Entrepreneur like Bill Gates is ?

#FF0000

6th August 2010, 15:58

I don't think so. Running a business is sort of complicated and even with tons of resources someone can still be awful at managing things on their own.

Running a business requires some pretty specific skills, most of which would be useless in socialism.

Dean

6th August 2010, 16:07

I've merged these two threads since they're almost exactly the same topic. 08-06-10 Dean

synthesis

7th August 2010, 12:19

But why should everyone be required to live the SAME American dream? Some people may want to have businesses, some may want to do their 40 hours and punch out. Besides, what America offers is an opportunity to persue whatever life you want. It never promises anything but the opportunity. How dull life would be if there weren't any risks and rewards. I really do enjoy it the way it is.

Your first point is irrelevant, the second parochial, the third quite obvious.

1. The question was could everyone run and own their own small business. Whether everyone would want to is not important. The heart of the matter is that, again, capitalism requires a proletariat in order to simply exist.

2. America can offer opportunity because we use all kinds of leverage at our disposal to get our imported goods as cheaply as possible. If we didn't have that leverage, we wouldn't have the opportunity. Again, capitalism depends on the existence of a proletariat, regardless of where the latter is physically located.

3. Of course you enjoy it the way it is - you're at the top of the food chain. You never hear from the people who risked everything and lost.

Bud Struggle

7th August 2010, 13:24

Your first point is irrelevant, the second parochial, the third quite obvious. Let's see. :)

1. The question was could everyone run and own their own small business. Whether everyone would want to is not important. The heart of the matter is that, again, capitalism requires a proletariat in order to simply exist. Could everyone be a New Your Yankee if they wanted? Could everyone be a rock star if they wanted? Could everyone be a marine biologist? Not everyone could be anything--same goes for a business owner. That's not economics, that's life.

2. America can offer opportunity because we use all kinds of leverage at our disposal to get our imported goods as cheaply as possible. If we didn't have that leverage, we wouldn't have the opportunity. Again, capitalism depends on the existence of a proletariat, regardless of where the latter is physically located. America operates that way now, it the past it did not. It still was America and still had small business. I'm sure (granted, with much change) it could be that way now--there just isn't any need to be. As far as there being a need for a Proletariat, that's true--but there also is a need for a Bourgeois element--what's the point?

3. Of course you enjoy it the way it is - you're at the top of the food chain. You never hear from the people who risked everything and lost. Being at the top (personally I am far from the top) of the food chain really doesn't matter all that much. I enjoy the climb much more than the summit. That's why I (and other busnessmen) usually don't stop with owning one business--but they keep starting new businesses. There is a lot of fun and excitement and challenge to move the business world. And yea, sometimes you fail--and the losers stay failed and the winners pick theselves up and try agaqin and again and again if they need to. That's why people keep going long after they have all the money they could ever need. It's hard to explain, but that drive is real.

RGacky3

8th August 2010, 21:05

Could everyone be a New Your Yankee if they wanted? Could everyone be a rock star if they wanted? Could everyone be a marine biologist? Not everyone could be anything--same goes for a business owner. That's not economics, that's life.

Its not life, its Capitalism, get rid of buisiness ownership. Just replace buisiness owner with King, but anyway, you just contradicted yourself, or did you have a change of heart?

It still was America and still had small business. I'm sure (granted, with much change) it could be that way now--there just isn't any need to be. As far as there being a need for a Proletariat, that's true--but there also is a need for a Bourgeois element--what's the point?

when did it not operate that way? The 1800s maybe? Not really the best model.

There actaully is'nt a need for a Bourgeois, anymore than a "king" was needed in the middle ages.

That's why people keep going long after they have all the money they could ever need. It's hard to explain, but that drive is real.

Or when they have no money, and they've ruined their family life, because they believed in the "american dream."

But if you look at the attitude of the Capitalist, in Bud Struggles case, its EXACTLY the same outlook that the liberal nobility and monarchies had in the middle ages.

Dr Mindbender

8th August 2010, 21:20

Could everyone run and own a Business if they had the money to why or why not ? Im asking this question because if everyone could run and own a Business does that mean that the Working Class disappears or would Small Businesses just disapperar because of competition with Big Businesses ?

Depends how you want to define a business. Technically, being a prostitute is running a business.

jake williams

8th August 2010, 21:32

Depends how you want to define a business. Technically, being a prostitute is running a business.
To expand on this, it's kind of a meaningless question. In principle almost everyone could declare themselves to own a "business" which consists of themselves subcontracting their own labour to other, larger corporations. In such a society, everyone could be said to be a business owner and their own bodies could, in a pretty intense contortion of language, be said to constitute capital. But such a society, though legally and nominally quite distinct from our own, would be more or less functionally identical to real modern industrial capitalism. The answer then, if the question is posed this way, is quite certainly yes, because with this definition of "business" the word almost doesn't mean anything beyond an arbitrary declaration.

However, if what we're talking about is not the naming of our provision of our own labour to others as a "business" (as is increasingly done, with the primary effect of erecting practical and legal barriers to labour organizing), but we're instead asking if it's possible for everyone society to accumulate as much capital as the largest corporations - then the answer obviously is no. The only way to accumulate that much capital is through the mass exploitation of a labour force, a labour force which naturally can't be engaged in the same process themselves. Society simply doesn't produce that much.

Dermezel

9th August 2010, 01:25

No. You will not be able to run a competitive business in the market economy without a great deal of initial capital. Keep in mind you will have to run against whole sellers.

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q289/Dermezel/l-curve.gif

Your economic power is in the middle. Theirs is at the far right. The idea that the economic power of the former will outcompete the latter is extremely unrealistic.

As Rosa Luxemburg notes (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm) some small businesses can survive by inventing new products. Others may be favored by the community for biased reasons i.e. as cultural icons. But in the end they will be outcompeted and absorbed in the capitalist system.

In fact 95 percent of small businesses fail within their first five years (http://www.businessknowhow.com/startup/business-failure.htm). And the people are often left with ruined lives due to tons of debt.

Bud Struggle

9th August 2010, 01:48

In fact 95 percent of small businesses fail within their first five years (http://www.businessknowhow.com/startup/business-failure.htm). And the people are often left with ruined lives due to tons of debt.

Most of the reasons given on this site for business failure--adds up to the pure stupidity of the business owner. IF the businessman studies what he is going to do, works smart as well as hard, and plans ahead he has a good change of succeeding.

1. You start your business for the wrong reasons.
2. Poor Management
3. Insufficient Capital
4. Location, Location, Location
5. Lack of Planning
6. Overexpansion
7. No Website

Each and everyone of these reasons for failure are EASILY avoidable. If a businessman fails for anyone of these reasons--he deserves to fail.

Dermezel

9th August 2010, 02:00

Most of the reasons given on this site for business failure--adds up to the pure stupidity of the business owner. IF the businessman studies what he is going to do, works smart as well as hard, and plans ahead he has a good change of succeeding.

1. You start your business for the wrong reasons.
2. Poor Management
3. Insufficient Capital
4. Location, Location, Location
5. Lack of Planning
6. Overexpansion
7. No Website

Each and everyone of these reasons for failure are EASILY avoidable. If a businessman fails for anyone of these reasons--he deserves to fail.

Yeah I call BS. Usually when a right-winger says "X failed because people were too stupid" they are just making desperate attempts to justify an unjustifiable system.

According to your reasoning "95%" of people in general should be considered stupid. And since 50% fail within 1 year, that must mean 50% are extremely retarded.

Sorry but I don't buy that. I mean saying 95% of people have "less then average intelligence" sounds incorrect by definition.

Bud Struggle

9th August 2010, 02:16

Yeah I call BS. Usually when a right-winger says "X failed because people were too stupid" they are just making desperate attempts to justify an unjustifiable system.

According to your reasoning "95%" of people in general should be considered stupid. And since 50% fail within 1 year, that must mean 50% are extremely retarded.

Sorry but I don't buy that. I mean saying 95% of people have "less then average intelligence" sounds incorrect by definition.

I don't know if it's just intelligence, there's a bit more to it but if they fail--it is their own fault. If they want to succeed they have to do things correctly. It's like becomming a doctor--only some people are intellectually capable and have the stamina to succeeding at it.

It's really not just that these people failed--it is that they weren't capable of succeeding in the first place. I AM a businessman. I see this stuff all of the time. People are always comming to me asking me to finance some hairbrained scheme of theirs. And they are not bad people or anything--they just don't have a clue what the hell they are doing and that's not their real problem--they won't listen. I'd say 90% of that 95% are to freakin' smart to listen. So they fail. That's their problem.

And that is a good list that you have.

Dermezel

9th August 2010, 03:13

I don't know if it's just intelligence, there's a bit more to it but if they fail--it is their own fault.

Wow, ASSUMPTION.

This is the typical reasoning of every reactionary- never blame the system, always the person.

"Gee if only people listened to the King, everything would be perfect."

"If only slaves were more obedient to their masters"

"If only we didn't have these inferior races."

"If only everyone made better decisions they'd all be millionaires with their own businesses!"

Sorry man but when a number reaches a staggering 95% you have to wonder if there is a systemic problem or these are individual cases. Seeing as this is from around the entire US I think there is a systemic problem.

RGacky3

9th August 2010, 11:16

Its not suprising that Bud wants to take ALL systemic influence on who makes it as a buisiness man.

If 2 people take out a loan and start a buisiness, one might make it and one might fail, the one that makes it will be priased as an euntreprenour and a risk taker, the other one would be called irresponsible for taking out a loan, and now he's gotta deal with it himself.

When you read the pronouncements of ancient monarchs you can hear the same attitude.

The fact is the whole situation here is a parrallel of feaudalism. Buds Assumption is that 95% fail only by their own account, which is the same argument for slavery, blacks are naturally slaves, or feaudalism, peasentry lack noble characteristics, its just the way it is. Sorry but thats not the way it works.

Bud Struggle

9th August 2010, 12:48

Wow, ASSUMPTION.

This is the typical reasoning of every reactionary- never blame the system, always the person.

"Gee if only people listened to the King, everything would be perfect."

"If only slaves were more obedient to their masters"

"If only we didn't have these inferior races."

"If only everyone made better decisions they'd all be millionaires with their own businesses!"

Sorry man but when a number reaches a staggering 95% you have to wonder if there is a systemic problem or these are individual cases. Seeing as this is from around the entire US I think there is a systemic problem.

You have to look at who these people are that fail--lots of people that have an idea and try to sell it somehow without really doing their homework. Starting a business is hard work and is VERY DIFFICULT. And only the best and the strongest survive, That is what is so great about it. If everyone could do it--what would be the fun?

From what I've seen--their main problem is the lack of a realistic business plan. Very few people have plans and even fewer have ones that correspond to the real world. I teach entrepreneurship at the local prison and that is the main lesson I try to get across and FWIW the few students of mine that do start businesses do pretty well.

Its not suprising that Bud wants to take ALL systemic influence on who makes it as a buisiness man.

If 2 people take out a loan and start a buisiness, one might make it and one might fail, the one that makes it will be priased as an euntreprenour and a risk taker, the other one would be called irresponsible for taking out a loan, and now he's gotta deal with it himself.

When you read the pronouncements of ancient monarchs you can hear the same attitude.

The fact is the whole situation here is a parrallel of feaudalism. Buds Assumption is that 95% fail only by their own account, which is the same argument for slavery, blacks are naturally slaves, or feaudalism, peasentry lack noble characteristics, its just the way it is. Sorry but thats not the way it works.

Slavery? That has got to be the worst analogy ever. No one is forcing these people to do anything. This is something they do of their own accord. No one is forcing anyone to borrow money and become a businessman.

(FYI: I'm not saying you should never borrow money to start a business--but it should be done rarley and with great caution.)

RGacky3

9th August 2010, 13:18

Starting a business is hard work and is VERY DIFFICULT. And only the best and the strongest survive, That is what is so great about it. If everyone could do it--what would be the fun?

Ok, so not everyone can do it, so your taking back what you said earlier :), whether or not success or failure just has to do with your "strength" is a different issue.

I teach entrepreneurship at the local prison and that is the main lesson I try to get across and FWIW the few students of mine that do start businesses do pretty well.

Again 95%.

Slavery? That has got to be the worst analogy ever. No one is forcing these people to do anything. This is something they do of their own accord. No one is forcing anyone to borrow money and become a businessman.

I'm not making that analogy, I'm comparing the arguments, and the explinations for people's lot in life, they are the same, i.e. all personal, ignoring all systemic factors.

(FYI: I'm not saying you should never borrow money to start a business--but it should be done rarley and with great caution.)

Well there we go, you gotta have it from the get go. Otherwise your braking your rule of having enough Capital. Starting buisinesses is for the rich, its a big risk for the middle class, and almost impossible for the poor.

Dermezel

9th August 2010, 14:03

Slavery? That has got to be the worst analogy ever. No one is forcing these people to do anything. This is something they do of their own accord. No one is forcing anyone to borrow money and become a businessman.

Actually it is a very good analogy. Many arguments for slavery were based on the idea that the slaves possessed some sort of intrinsic flaw that marked them for inferior status, lower intelligence, stupidity, an irresponsible nature.

Much of this reasoning is applied to so-called "failures" in the capitalist system. Failed business owners, or wage-slaves. They are just stupid or irresponsible- there's nothing wrong with the Darwinians system and everything wrong with the person's.

Some will even go so far as to condemn all humanity, decry "human nature" before decrying capitalism. So in other words, push comes to shove, humanity should be sacrificed to capitalism, not the other way around.

Jimmie Higgins

9th August 2010, 14:30

If you mean "can everyone" and not "can anyone" then...

This would be "primitiveist capitalism" I guess. And just like the primitivists, if capitalism suddenly (and, it would have to be magically) changed so that capital and production was decentralized, then the system would collapse. Where would you get start-up capital for anything if capital was more or less divided among small business owners? Well, I suppose that a bunch of small businesses could pool their resources to... ut-oh, that's a corporation and suddenly we are back to "the big fish eat the little fish" of capitalist competition.

Besides, centralization of production is much more efficient and productive than a bunch of small producers spread out. So if everyone was a producer, exploiting their own labor individually, then we would loose most surplus, huge amounts of people would not be able to sell enough to get the resources they need... hence the "primitivist" comparison.

Dermezel

9th August 2010, 14:35

Bud Struggle

9th August 2010, 14:54

Ok, so not everyone can do it, so your taking back what you said earlier :), whether or not success or failure just has to do with your "strength" is a different issue. Anyone can have a successful business just like anyone can be a doctor--the system lets you. If you are mentally incapable of doing those things, that is another story.

I'm not making that analogy, I'm comparing the arguments, and the explinations for people's lot in life, they are the same, i.e. all personal, ignoring all systemic factors. You aren't being exploited if you do it of your own volition.

Well there we go, you gotta have it from the get go. Otherwise your braking your rule of having enough Capital. Starting buisinesses is for the rich, its a big risk for the middle class, and almost impossible for the poor. No. It's about realizing that when you start a business you are going to be poorer than if you just got a job for a LOOOOOOG time. Most business people don't understand that. Most mon;t understand it's all about SALES. I can't tell you how many businesses I've seen where the owner borrows money and gets a nice office and some nice computers and hires people and gets himself a company car and opens his door and NOTHING HAPPENS. Nobody figures out that you get sales and sell stuff from your garage and work for 18 hours a day for 10 years and reinvest and reinvest and reinvest and only then do you take money out of your business.

Listen: my wife and her job supported my business for a long time. We were poor for a long time--while our friends were buying BMWs and big houses we lived inexpensively and we bought property and bought property. Then after 20 years--we're rich. An overnight success.

Jimmie Higgins

9th August 2010, 14:59

I don't know if it's just intelligence, there's a bit more to it but if they fail--it is their own fault. If they want to succeed they have to do things correctly. It's like becomming a doctor--only some people are intellectually capable and have the stamina to succeeding at it.Capitalism works on competition, it's not a meritocracy. You can do everything "correctly" in the logic of capitalism and still fail.

In fact, on the large-scale, success in capitalism is what causes business to fail in the long run. If you are a home builder in the early part of the decade... what do you need to do to suceede? You need to build McMansions because this is the most profitable use of your investment in building homes. the people who build more affordable homes? Well their profit were not as high and so the McMansion building competitors have more capital (and more cred with investors and banks) to buy more land and build more McMansions. If they stop doing this while it is profitable, they too will be driven out of business by people willing to build McMansions. But this causes a problem... everyone is trying to build the same McMansions, but not enough people can afford to buy the McMansions... suddenly sucess turns into a crash and you can not sell the homes at a profitable level anymore... boom, out of business and yet you were making more profits than anyone else.

Sure, this is not how small-business works all the time (although, what if you ran a successful video store in the 1990s... Blckbuster would have driven you out of business no matter if you did everything "correctly") but let's be serious, in the economy individual small businesses don't mean anything and have no influence individually (or collectively really for that matter).

Also if business-failures are an indication of how smart people are, then Most of Europe is smarter than the US since there are higher rates of small business ownership in Europe than in the states. Just thought you ought to know that you are an anti-american... a hater of liberty... and freedom. French-lover:lol:.

Dermezel

9th August 2010, 15:00

Bud has it occurred to you that it would be easier to run and preserve a small business under Socialism?

The laws of capitalism dictates that the economy is forced to centralize by competition. Big Businesses eat Small Businesses.

But under Socialism there need be no such competition. If the community wants to preserve a restaurant or book store that has been around hundreds of years, we can do so. It can be decided by vote. And I have no doubt such would occur, as human beings tend to value diversity and quality.

To give real examples, consider how many European countries, like Germany, France, Italy and Spain use protectionist measures exactly for this reason. They don't want to see the McDonald's drive their favorite restaurant out of business, so they use taxes, regulations and zoning restrictions. It's a sort of Artificial Selection which is counter-posed to your Natural Selection view of economics.

Bud Struggle

9th August 2010, 18:14

Capitalism works on competition, it's not a meritocracy. You can do everything "correctly" in the logic of capitalism and still fail. I agree. That's why it isn't a sure thing--it's a risk, a gamble. But there are plenty of thing that you can do to minimize that risk--that's the working smart part.

In fact, on the large-scale, success in capitalism is what causes business to fail in the long run. If you are a home builder in the early part of the decade... what do you need to do to suceede? You need to build McMansions because this is the most profitable use of your investment in building homes. the people who build more affordable homes? Well their profit were not as high and so the McMansion building competitors have more capital (and more cred with investors and banks) to buy more land and build more McMansions. If they stop doing this while it is profitable, they too will be driven out of business by people willing to build McMansions. But this causes a problem... everyone is trying to build the same McMansions, but not enough people can afford to buy the McMansions... suddenly sucess turns into a crash and you can not sell the homes at a profitable level anymore... boom, out of business and yet you were making more profits than anyone else. On a basic level that's true.

Also if business-failures are an indication of how smart people are, then Most of Europe is smarter than the US since there are higher rates of small business ownership in Europe than in the states. Just thought you ought to know that you are an anti-american... a hater of liberty... and freedom. French-lover:lol:. That may be the case. Personally I don't think the educational system in the US is very good at all--at least in the area of teaching people how to build and run a business.

Bud Struggle

9th August 2010, 18:20

Bud has it occurred to you that it would be easier to run and preserve a small business under Socialism? I can't argue that--I really don't know.

The laws of capitalism dictates that the economy is forced to centralize by competition. Big Businesses eat Small Businesses. I don't have any problem with that--that is the kind of thing that keeps small business inovative.

But under Socialism there need be no such competition. If the community wants to preserve a restaurant or book store that has been around hundreds of years, we can do so. It can be decided by vote. And I have no doubt such would occur, as human beings tend to value diversity and quality. But competition is GOOD. It keeps everyone on their toes and hungry. It is really the fun part of being in business. Don't forget an entreprenaur's realy goal in building a business isn't the money--if someone is starting a business for the money it is a good sign that they will fail--it is the excitement of venture that really makes a good businessman work.

To give real examples, consider how many European countries, like Germany, France, Italy and Spain use protectionist measures exactly for this reason. They don't want to see the McDonald's drive their favorite restaurant out of business, so they use taxes, regulations and zoning restrictions. It's a sort of Artificial Selection which is counter-posed to your Natural Selection view of economics.
I agree with that--and maybe it's a good system for most. Personally I wouldn't want any help from anyone.

RGacky3

9th August 2010, 19:11

Anyone can have a successful business just like anyone can be a doctor--the system lets you. If you are mentally incapable of doing those things, that is another story.

And a lot of Capital, money, so, no the system does'nt let you, unless you have the money.

You aren't being exploited if you do it of your own volition.

I don't think you understood what I was saying, I was comparing your argument as to why people are in what posistion in society to the arguments given to the same question when it was feaudalism or slavery, they were the same.

No. It's about realizing that when you start a business you are going to be poorer than if you just got a job for a LOOOOOOG time. Most business people don't understand that. Most mon;t understand it's all about SALES. I can't tell you how many businesses I've seen where the owner borrows money and gets a nice office and some nice computers and hires people and gets himself a company car and opens his door and NOTHING HAPPENS. Nobody figures out that you get sales and sell stuff from your garage and work for 18 hours a day for 10 years and reinvest and reinvest and reinvest and only then do you take money out of your business.

Most people CAN'T be poorer, because that would mean not feeding their family, or giving up their house, for something that has a 5% chance of success.

I can't argue that--I really don't know.

Well the fact that social-democracies have higher rates of small buisinesses, and it also makes sense, if the economy is more democratic there won't be huge accumulation of Capital making large corporations that hurt small buisinesses chances, also generally there is more public support of small buisinesses than large corporations.

I don't have any problem with that--that is the kind of thing that keeps small business inovative.

How so? Most innovation in the US lately has been financial innovation, which does'nt help anyone. Also it does'nt keep small buisiness inovative, it stops small buisinesses from existing.

But competition is GOOD. It keeps everyone on their toes and hungry. It is really the fun part of being in business. Don't forget an entreprenaur's realy goal in building a business isn't the money--if someone is starting a business for the money it is a good sign that they will fail--it is the excitement of venture that really makes a good businessman work.

Unfortunately that analysis is good for a self-help book or an inspirational speech, but not much when it comes to economics. The goal in ANY buisiness HAS to be making money, otherwise it won't make it, the excitement might be great, but the venture MUST make money.

I agree with that--and maybe it's a good system for most. Personally I wouldn't want any help from anyone.

Its not about getting help, its about democracy, for a small buisiness to succede they need to serve the community, so they don't only have to worry about pure profit.

Dermezel

9th August 2010, 23:29

But competition is GOOD. It keeps everyone on their toes and hungry.

Hungry people aren't innovative. Have you ever studied Darwinism? The actual process of natural selection? As one who has read extensively about it (Dawkins, Gould, Wilson, Darwin, etc. ) I can tell you right off the bat that it is an extremely inefficient system that very much holds back innovation.

In fact most of life's evolution occurred during the pre-Darwinian era (http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2007_fall/13_dyson.html).

Woese is postulating a golden age of pre-Darwinian life, during which horizontal gene transfer was universal and separate species did not exist. Life was then a community of cells of various kinds, sharing their genetic information so that clever chemical tricks and catalytic processes invented by one creature could be inherited by all of them. Evolution was a communal affair, the whole community advancing in metabolic and reproductive efficiency as the genes of the most efficient cells were shared. But then, one evil day, a cell resembling a primitive bacterium happened to find itself one jump ahead of its neighbors in efficiency. That cell separated itself from the community and refused to share. Its offspring became the first species. With its superior efficiency, it continued to prosper and to evolve separately. Some millions of years later, another cell separated itself from the community and became another species. And so it went on, until all life was divided into species.

The basic biochemical machinery of life evolved rapidly during the few hundred million years that preceded the Darwinian era and changed very little in the following 2 billion years of microbial evolution.

Dermezel

9th August 2010, 23:35

Darwinian evolution is slow because individual species, once established, evolve very little. Darwinian evolution requires species to become extinct so that new species can replace them. Three innovations helped to speed up the pace of evolution in the later stages of the Darwinian era. The first was sex, which is a form of horizontal gene transfer within species. The second innovation was multicellular organization, which opened up a whole new world of form and function. The third was brains, which opened a new world of coordinated sensation and action, culminating in the evolution of eyes and hands. All through the Darwinian era, occasional mass extinctions helped to open opportunities for new evolutionary ventures.

Now, after some 3 billion years, the Darwinian era is over.

We should not go back to the slow, inefficient, self-destructive Darwinian era. We should not seek to imitate it.

The fact is small businesses would do better, be more innovative, if we shared more data with them, supported them, and encouraged more people to invent.

Give people more resources and more free time and let them share knowledge and you will see learning, science, research, technology and general invention explode. Starve people and make them fight tooth, nail and claw over the most bare necessities, like Somalia and Haiti, and you will see almost complete stagnation. There is a reason war-torn countries devolve despite intense cut-throat competition.