To those that think Entrepreneur are Capitalism

[RGacky3]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an4ueKREX90

To all those that worship Capitalism, fast forward to 4:20 (and get the kids out the room), THIS is actually how capitalism works, not "hard work" or "entrepreneurship" (not that it should) or being smart or whatever, its .... as he says.

[anticap]

The conflation of the capitalist with the entrepreneur is fallacious to begin with.

[GPDP]

I do love how they have to add the qualifier "not that I'm against capitalism, but..." just so they don't come off as Marxists.

Still, it's very true. And I actually think everyone, from the poorest of the poor to the richest of the rich, knows it's true. Everyone except so-called entrepreneurs and people who want to be entrepreneurs and shill for them (i.e. libertarians), that is.

[Dean]

Pro-capitalists invariably want to return to the good old days of yore when entrepreneurship seems to have flourished. But that has always been a fiction supported by the capitalist class.

The fact is that the capitalist and bourgeois classes inhereted power from the previous regimes. They then used that power - transferred into the efficient liquidity of currency and capital - to consolidate and expand power.

Loosening market restrictions simply means more, greater and more efficient exploitation of markets by this privileged class. The childish notions of "get rid of the fed" (do we really want foreign manipulation of our currency?!) and "deregulation" (this is what caused the housing bubble - and also what led to its "resolution"*) are just going to further damage our economy.

*The solvency crisis was solved by a bill which allowed firms to personally value their assets rather than base their assets on market standards. This means that market efficiency is less expansive since the pricing models of the market cease to apply. So deregulation caused a disassociation from market efficiency, and there are other cases like this, too.

People who laud market efficiency would do well to know that that efficiency is only there insofar as firms are forced to use it. Apparently, it isn't in their self-interest to do so in this case.

[Bud Struggle]

I really don't know what the point of this thread is--I own 100% of Struggle Enterprises and I hire when I need workers. This is nonsense. If the economy grows and my business grows--I'll hire.

[Dean]

I really don't know what the point of this thread is--I own 100% of Struggle Enterprises and I hire when I need workers. This is nonsense. If the economy grows and my business grows--I'll hire.
Your situation is either:
-industry specific
-unnecessarily speculative
-altruistic

In any case - you seem to be the minority in that you're hiring.

[Bud Struggle]

Your situation is either:
-industry specific
-unnecessarily speculative
-altruistic

In any case - you seem to be the minority in that you're hiring.

Technically, I'm not. Just replacement workers.

[Revolution starts with U]

Entreprenuerialship is only tacitly connected to being a capitalist. Yes, all entrepreneurs are capitalists, but not all capitalists are entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneur; idea man, risk taker.
Capitalist; invests wealth, or rents property

[RGacky3]

I do love how they have to add the qualifier "not that I'm against capitalism, but..." just so they don't come off as Marxists.

They arn't Marxists, but yeah, its kind of rediculous.


I really don't know what the point of this thread is--I own 100% of Struggle Enterprises and I hire when I need workers. This is nonsense. If the economy grows and my business grows--I'll hire.

But YOU are not the economy, YOU are not most Corporations, most corporations are run by hired executives, who are selected by a board with other executives on it, who run the company for their own benefit.

Also your company is one that you own and run, which is a minority of the economy.

Also if the economy grows your buisiness still may not, if your buisiness growns the profitability of more workers may not.

But watch it again, its about how capitalism is really run, its not about entreprenours "making it," its about people going to buisiness school, screwing everyone, and making off with the money.

[¿Que?]

Gackman, is there more to this under the surface. I mean, does this have something to do with his aggressive posturing, and his repeated use of profanity?

I don't watch The Young Turks much, but is the show always so aggressive? What are the CEO's of msnbc thinking? You think they're going to let Cenk guest host if he keeps putting guys like this on? Regardless of the truth of what he was saying.

[RGacky3]

I mean, does this have something to do with his aggressive posturing, and his repeated use of profanity?


Why would it be? It has something to do with what he's talking about.


I don't watch The Young Turks much, but is the show always so aggressive?

No, very very rarely.


What are the CEO's of msnbc thinking? You think they're going to let Cenk guest host if he keeps putting guys like this on? Regardless of the truth of what he was saying.

Probably, because he brings big ratings. He's not a socialist, he's a progressive that is desperately trying to hold on to the idea of Capitalism like a kid still wanting to believe in Santa Clause dispite all the evidence. But still, he does a good show.

[Bud Struggle]

But YOU are not the economy, YOU are not most Corporations, most corporations are run by hired executives, who are selected by a board with other executives on it, who run the company for their own benefit.

Also your company is one that you own and run, which is a minority of the economy.

Also if the economy grows your buisiness still may not, if your buisiness growns the profitability of more workers may not.

But watch it again, its about how capitalism is really run, its not about entreprenours "making it," its about people going to buisiness school, screwing everyone, and making off with the money.


I hate to say it but you do make a good point. Most businesses are run by "hired guns" whose livelyhood depends on quaterly earnings statements and whose bonus depends on making more money than last year--at whatever the cost. There is absolutely no long range planning or development (where is Stalin and his 5 year plan when you need it? :D )

In a private business--none of that is in consideration. Well, maybe not none, but a privare business can sit it out for the long hall and slow down growth but keep the business running during a recession.

Publicly traded businesses really are at the mercy of Wall Street. The CEO, won't get a bonus is or worse get fired if earnings don't grow--because he us in competition with not just companies in the same field--but with every other company in the world that is publicly traded. If earning and dividends slack off, people won't buy the company's stock and the value of the shares will decline and investors will move elsewhere.

There is a lot of pressure to produce.

[RGacky3]

In a private business--none of that is in consideration. Well, maybe not none, but a privare business can sit it out for the long hall and slow down growth but keep the business running during a recession.

Sometimes, especially if one is emotionally invested in a buisiness, but sometimes its juts more profitable to sell the buisiness to a big company that will liquidate it, or just to liquidate it and move the money. So really many times its just relyant on buisiness owners being emotionally invested.


Publicly traded businesses really are at the mercy of Wall Street. The CEO, won't get a bonus is or worse get fired if earnings don't grow--because he us in competition with not just companies in the same field--but with every other company in the world that is publicly traded. If earning and dividends slack off, people won't buy the company's stock and the value of the shares will decline and investors will move elsewhere.


Which makes for a terrible way to run the economy.

[Bud Struggle]

Which makes for a terrible way to run the economy.

What it seems to be doing is building a world economy at the expense of the American economy. Sooner or later it will all even out economically, but politically it think won't do much to get rid of your run of the mill third world dictator.

[danyboy27]

What it seems to be doing is building a world economy at the expense of the American economy. Sooner or later it will all even out economically, but politically it think won't do much to get rid of your run of the mill third world dictator.

its not building the world economy but empowering the rulling class of other countries, at the expense of the worker worldwide.

the chinese and indian economy might be greater than the american economy, but that dosnt change the fact that the chinese working class have to survive on a miserable wage and work in totally unsafe, horrible condition.

things will not ''balence out''. it will get worse. if the chinese happen to become the next superpower, all they will do is use africa to manufacture their cheap good, at the end will create havoc in their economy, trouble for the working class until another state outsource them and do the same mistake over and over at the expense of the worker.

In the end, the worker always pay the note for the error of statemen and rulers.

[RGacky3]

What it seems to be doing is building a world economy at the expense of the American economy. Sooner or later it will all even out economically, but politically it think won't do much to get rid of your run of the mill third world dictator.

Its not building a world economy, ask the world, its building the ruling class of the world and the United States, at the expense of everyone else.

Sooner or later it will even out? They've been saying that since the begining of Capitalism.

[Bud Struggle]

Its not building a world economy, ask the world, its building the ruling class of the world and the United States, at the expense of everyone else.

Sooner or later it will even out? They've been saying that since the begining of Capitalism.

It's going to take a loooooooooooog time. Such things always do. Trying to short circuit the process with half assed Revolutions just delays things.

[Bud Struggle]

the chinese and indian economy might be greater than the american economy, but that dosnt change the fact that the chinese working class have to survive on a miserable wage and work in totally unsafe, horrible condition. Both those economies are moving at a really rapid pace considering that we are talking vast amounts of people and that Capitalism has only be working there for a few years. Things are much better in China now than when Mao was starving epople to death.


things will not ''balence out''. it will get worse. if the chinese happen to become the next superpower, all they will do is use africa to manufacture their cheap good, at the end will create havoc in their economy, trouble for the working class until another state outsource them and do the same mistake over and over at the expense of the worker. And then after that Africa will be the next superpower. It will take some time but sooner or later there will be no more inexpensive labor--and then the entire world will have a reasonably fair distribution of wealth.


In the end, the worker always pay the note for the error of statemen and rulers. I agree there--but I doubt that will ever change no matter what economic system is in charge.

[danyboy27]

Both those economies are moving at a really rapid pace considering that we are talking vast amounts of people and that Capitalism has only be working there for a few years. Things are much better in China now than when Mao was starving epople to death.

.
well, this is obvious why those economy are soaring, they are the main user of labor in this world beccause of their shitty work conditions , and while their living condition will improve, job will move oversea or will be performed by immigrant who will be even more exploited.

the chinese industrials are already planning to move most of their factory inland beccause the working condition in the belt around china increased.
slowly, the working condition in mainland china will improve, and those of the former industrial powerhouse like hong kong will decrease.



And then after that Africa will be the next superpower. It will take some time but sooner or later there will be no more inexpensive labor--and then the entire world will have a reasonably fair distribution of wealth.


Inexpensive labor is created by the system itself, look at the current process in the U.S, masive wage diminution for million of worker, a fews decades of this and the us will regress so much, its gonna be profitable to move job back in the us, once the Union will be completly crushed and all social net finally destroyed for good. there will be no end to this, we will either create something better, or be destroyed by our own economical system, reducing worker worldwide to mere slaves of the fews who have a tremendous control over the remaining ressources of this earth.




I agree there--but I doubt that will ever change no matter what economic system is in charge.
you are rather pessimestic, but with the current state of the economy this is probably normal for entrepreneur to witness the sinking of the titanic and be powerless about the current course of events.

[Lt. Ferret]

i make a damn good home made chile pepper wine. i think that makes me an entrepeneur, i want to end up selling it commercially. i will do so eventually.

[RGacky3]

It's going to take a loooooooooooog time.

You gotta lot of faith brotha, if only the facts agreed with you.


Both those economies are moving at a really rapid pace considering that we are talking vast amounts of people and that Capitalism has only be working there for a few years. Things are much better in China now than when Mao was starving epople to death.

when you say the economies are moving if by that you mean that capital is moving in those countries yes, if your saying its better for normal people, then no.

Look at the world, Capitalism does'nt work, no matter how much time you give it.


And then after that Africa will be the next superpower. It will take some time but sooner or later there will be no more inexpensive labor--and then the entire world will have a reasonably fair distribution of wealth.

Things have not been going in that direction at all, btw, Americas and Europes ruling class wealth depend on third world oppression. Look at history, your theory has no basis WITHOUT revolution.

[Revolution starts with U]

The point, LT, is that that doesn't make you a capitalist, per se. Capatialist own things, like buildings, land, large shares of stock. They are the investors, and as such, in capitalism, are the bosses. You don't need a capitalist class for entrepreneurialship.

[Lt. Ferret]

i want to own a building, and some land!

[Bud Struggle]

i want to own a building, and some land!

More than owning means of production, and having workers and making things--owing and leasing land is the true key to wealth.

[danyboy27]

More than owning means of production, and having workers and making things--owing and leasing land is the true key to wealth.

Owning land or mean of production is basicly the same thing.

well, at least until someone figure out to make flying factories, but i am sure if we go that far, somebody will try to ''own'' the sky to rent it to other peoples.