have to say most of the people I see claiming to be risk takers clearly are not. It may seem glib to ask how you can tell the difference between a risk taker and a moron but I'd argue this gets to the root of a big lie about risk. I tend to look at why humans organise so badly before thinking about leadership and risk-taking. I'm a long way from convinced anyone is much good at either. I'm also concerned on how long we have to keep rewarding inventors with rents (in the sense of economic rents or tolls). Windows should be free by now - a utility - but this is only one example. I suspect big companies and banks actually prevent a lot of creativity and would be better run as utilities until we don't need them.
But we have nearly all economics upside down. The first question should be about what the planet can maintain. Economics seems to deny that we can organise decent, better ways of living rationally and have instead to rely on entrepreneurs, charismatics and other vapours in a system that rather fortunately keeps the rich richer and makes them richer. Jurgen Habermas wrote an interesting critique of this in 1970 called 'Technology as ideology' - but all we really lack is a true accounting system for what is going on. The rich need the motivation of something they already have (money) but workers can put up with wages declining in respect of productivity. And no one seems to think, as we approach robot heaven (admittedly not yet available on Earth - but we are approaching this) we might need new work and distributive ethics? What place in a world where robots could do all the work would there be for current half-wits who laud hard work as necessary to success? On 7 Mar, 16:19, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello stephenk..... you can be contrarian... I don't object.... you can > speak your mind in any way, it's your (everyone's) right that I never > contest.... besides, you seem to be a "good" person, too..... > I guess, in one sense, it gets to be a matter of semantics or > definition.... "entrepreneur".... as distinguished from, say...maybe.... > venture capitalist....I don't mind the actual "creator" of something, > object (product) or business (service), etc...but those that just "game" > the system.... they are just parasites that often wind up killing the > host.... I opine... > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneur > > http://anthillonline.com/the-entrepreneur-vs-venture-capitalist-2/ > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor > > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 7, 2013 10:49:23 AM UTC-5, stephenk wrote: > > > On 3/7/2013 10:30 AM, nominal9 wrote: > > > I go with the "sequestrate their assets" part... but the letting them > > > go part I'm against... As "entrepreneurs", such people would just > > > "steal" their way back up to wealth, without actually creating > > > anything beneficial for any economy, like jobs or even "products" to > > > speak of..... > > > Hi Nom, > > > Not to be merely contrarian, but how is *wealth* created in your > > theory of the world? Does "risk" exist in any positive sense in your > > model? I would like to understand your thoughts. If there is a way to > > define wealth creation that is not, in some way, a form of exploitation > > of one entity of another, please explain. > > Can entrepreneurship be a mutually beneficial process of wealth > > generation to and for all involved in a way that does not require > > top-down controls? I think it can... > > > -- > > Onward! > > > Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
