On 3/11/2013 12:03 PM, nominal9 wrote:
> I'd like to go off on a tangent... a little....
> I've known and met some actual "creators"....some and not all tend to be
> very focused in their fields, they do their research and come up with some
> innovation, that their "creative ethic" wants leads them to divulge to
> their expertise professional peers for the advancement of "knowledge"....
> yes, in my opinion, many of these "creators" are genuinely motivated by the
> altruistic goal of advancing knowledge (at least at first) then the "
> Product Development" folks get involved... patents.... leading to
> production plans sales and so no.... Most often, at the later stages is
> when the so-called entrepreneurs get involved... and they are most often
> people other than the actual original "creators".....the altruistic impulse
> of advancing and sharing knowledge (for the betterment of all) is subverted
> and diverted by the "entrepreneurs, Capitalists and the MBAs.... looking to
> extract the maximum amount of profit at every stage from their business
> venture.....Archytas can probably speak better and more in detail about
> this than I can.... but stephen.... that's my main point.....the actual
> creation and even the "working parts" of a business venture are not what I
> object to.... at that level it can be beneficial to all.... it is the
> others.. the middle men and on who work their "profit-making" games at
> every possible stage of the actual "sale" or "business exchange" level that
> I'm very wary about....
> I think that is what Archytas knows.... the actual "products and services"
> in and of themselves are not the problem.... they are available in
> abundance for all.... maybe even overabundance (including the new ideas
> part).... the trouble lies with those who then speculate on and choke the
> distribution of the "hoarded" supply of those products and services.... etc.
>
Hi,
I am here for advice. I am swimming in deep waters.
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2013 7:11:42 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>
--
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.
