An obvious false dichotomy. Can you point to anyone who actually set up such a straw man (unless that’s what Obama himself was trying to do)?
Not just that but the arbitrary promotion of the entrepreneur over other value producing individuals creates a climate where concentration of income is justified at the expense of people that just want to serve their communities through jobs like carpentry and medical care. Being the sort that enjoys big gambles (that may work out or not for reasons that heavily involve dumb luck or dishonesty.) is not the pinnacle of human achievement in my book. That guy that pushes neuroscience to the point that tumors that couldn’t be removed before can be or the team that develops the next value magnifying technology are. The reward system for entrepreneurs is a boondoggle much too often divorced from its actual value to humanity. Thats not to say most business people arent rewarded properly or not enough, but there are millions of those, the tiny minority that slurp up everyone else’s milkshake on the other hand are not gods among men and should not be rewarded as such.
Can you justify your apparent belief that there is a zero sum game involved?
I did just what you said. In fact, I took it a step further. I asked two English teachers, three students, and a disgruntled lunch lady nearing retirement. They all interpreted it the same way.
I don’t see the word “like” in there anywhere. Last we heard from you, that was the linchpin of your whole argument. “…revolves around the word ‘like’”, you said.
So, c’mon, help us out here. What thing is “like” another thing?
At least I didn’t get a rolleyes this time, but I think he probably just forgot.
You think Romney’s existence or Bill Gate’s existence increased the value of humanity by their net worths? It doesn’t matter that it’s not a zero sum game, (sometimes it’s a negative sum game). They are no worth that much, other people in non-executive non-managerial roles (that work) are worth more than they’ve gotten throughout history. Apologetics of the ultra-rich by the not ultra-rich is Stockholm syndrome.
“Us”? You don’t speak for yourself? How surprising. Interesting that you feel the need to insinuate yourself as a member of a group. But, hey, if you’re more comfortable that way, why not? :rolleyes:
You need to work a bit harder at this, particularly with tracking from one post to the next. You asked why Phelps was brought in to the discussion, as if it was some mystery. I provided you with the excerpt, but you still couldn’t glean the reason. Though it should have be flatly obvious, I pointed out the “like”. Yet you still seem unable to understand that I used him, and a skier, to illustrate a point. I thought we finally moved on from there, but lo and behold you, puzzled you are again. This time for the lack of the “like”.
Tell me, do you have anything to add to the discussion other than questions that need;t be asked and puzzlement? Feigned or otherwise?
Oh, here you go::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Well, you brought up Phelps to start with. Then Merneith made a post quoting from Phelps, himself. Your response was to laugh, but with no clarification as to what you found so humorous.
I found this exchange to be particularly confounding:
Now, I thought Merneith’s quote answered your question about the medals pretty well, and from a seemingly authoritative source. But you seemed to feel the crux of your argument lay elsewhere, so I asked for clarification.
Clarification doesn’t seem to be forthcoming. You’ve gone from the properties of water (post #228) to towel boys and Exxon (post #276) to quoting yourself about water (post #281) to “like” (post #296) to craft stores (post #299). Tell me, do you get paid by the allusion?
If you make that face too often, it’s going to get stuck that way.
What’s your evidence for this claim? I would have thought individuals are encouraged to take risks when reminded of the support system that will be under them, rather than when reminded that it’s all completely up to them.
Let’s not forget that the risk-takers wouldn’t be able to succeed without the play-it-safers who are happy to take a steady wage to work for them as well as the other risk-takers and worker bees who pay for whatever they’re selling. Not everyone is suited to start a business, not everyone is suited to sit at a desk, not everyone is suited to work on an assembly line. And it’s this diversity of talents and interests that we all need to create and maintain a civilized and successful society.
Interestingly enough, yesterday on a news site I responded to someone who posited just such a position, and it wasn’t the first time. The article was about someone committing welfare fraud, and the person claimed that this single incident showed how corrupt and wasteful government programs were and they should all be shut down because we didn’t need the government running our lives.
Though they are rare, I have heard a number of Randian Capitalists try to claim that everything done by the government could be done better by private industry, or doesn’t need to be done at all. We’ve had discussions about this on this board as well, but I don’t recall anyone here claiming such extremities.
On your part, I think you go overboard in crediting a few select individuals for the triumphs of a very large number of people. Steve Jobs may have run Apple, but he didn’t do all the work himself. He didn’t design the products, he didn’t design or build the components in them, he didn’t personally sell them, or manage the stock, or lay out the stores, or any of the millions of tiny little things that had to happen for it to all come together as “Apple”. That kind of hero worship is how we get Kim Jong-Ils and the like, who require that everyone in their kingdom credit them for every success of their organization. It just ain’t so.
Well said.
I don’t think that anyone in this thread disputes this, but it highlights the fundamental disconnect between the various positions. Of course wage earners have value. Both of my grandfathers were content with working hard for a wage and supporting a family. There is nothing dishonorable about that.
The reason why Americans have traditionally looked up to entrepreneurs is that they take the next step, are not happy with simple existence, and have a passion and drive so great that they risk this comfort on a slight chance of success. And when one does become successful, we look at them and say, “Damn, I could be independently wealthy and doing something that I love instead of being a wage donkey.” They create a blueprint for future entrepreneurs. And were it not for these people, my grandfathers wouldn’t have had the option of living their content, semi risk-free lives. I’m not saying they should be worshiped as gods, but for the most part they are positive influences in young peoples lives.
I don’t think that anyone is saying that they could have done it without public roads or wage earners. To the extent that Obama was implying that it’s a bogus straw man argument.
I dunno, at this very moment I am engaged on another board with a man who makes the specious claim that all government programs are fraught with fraud and waste and should be shut down. Of course, he deliberately ignores questions about who would perform the functions necessary for society to operate if we did so.
Everything you mention was already in place at Apple up to 1997, when it was a shadow of its former self and speculated to be an acquisition target; kind of like the RIMM of its day. In 1997 Jobs was brought back as CEO, and boom. It seems as if he made a difference, I’d say.
Sure, but there is a difference between leadership and ‘automatic credit for every success the company enjoyed’.
You know, I’ve not done a huge amount of world changing stuff, but I’ve done the occasional “this helps the entire company do better”, and it sure as hell wasn’t the CEO who was responsible for doing it. Or even for dreaming it up or directing my work. I came up with the idea, I did the work.
And that’s been true at every other organization that has ever existed since Og worked for Thak. It’s only Thak’s ego that wants everyone else to think that he did it all.
Once again, the clarification you seek exists on the pages you read. But let me help you again:
He says it was due to 3 things. Of course, good fortune comes into it, he was born with four limbs and a swimmer’s body and in the U.S. instead of Zimbabwe. Past that, his success is due to hard work. If you take the supporter line to be anything but being polite, you’re more than a little gullible. When a team wins a champion and the coach or one of the stars say, “we’d like to thanks the fans, we couldn’t have done it without them”, don’t tell me you swallow that. They are being similarly polite. Other than the fact that the fans paying money to see them play and watch them on TV pays their salaries allowing them to play. But the athletic success has nothing to do with the fans. It helps with endorsements and a Q score, but not points on the board or fast times in the pool.
Like I said, it appears you need to work harder at this digesting the words on the page thing.
:rolleyes: Better the face be stuck than the mind.
What? Now roads are bridges are not infrastructure, but a support system? You’ll have to explain that one.
Except that if you left, someone else would have done something similar to help your company do better.
If Jobs left, that’s not the case.
It’s not “he did all the work.” it’s “without him, this would not happen.” Sure, your contribution helped, but you weren’t uniquely responsible.
And neither was Jobs “uniquely responsible”, as you obliquely acknowledge.