Topic: Thoughts have been left unsaid. (Read 6910 times)

Oh, I went back and reviewed some of your other posts. You are that crazy guy who wants the government to monitor every bitcoin account! I had you confused with someone coherent. My mistake. I never should have awarded any of my time to you.

You are a Scientologist that believes in centralized control of resources for the supposed good of everyone. Of course you do. You would have to now wouldn't you. Nothing more really needs to be said.

You have been ignoring what I've actually been saying since you started talking to me, lol, it hasn't stopped anything yet.

Nope. I reread everything you wrote. Pure fantasy nonsense. I stand by my comments.
If you can't understand my comments, I find that fact, well... unsurprising.

But do keep in mind, you are the one aiming to change the world. I maintain our status quo is better than any fantasy you might have in your head. It is your burden to convince the world. We don't have the burden of convincing you. All we have to do is ignore you to get our way.

So, bye bye!

Strawman, responding to argument that was not offered.


Pretending the word award was not just quoted, pretends not to know the words are synonyms.


Stawman, responding to made up argument.


Strawmanning, making up argument to respond to.  Please start your own thread if you want to talk to the imaginary voices in your head.


And when you land roughly you may be in need of someone to help you move.  That is why we save as many people as we can.   You have again wasted a post hoping that making up fantasy arguments constitutes actually entering into a debate.  It does not.  You need not restate my thesis, as it has already been stated and is still awaiting response on the actual points, anytime you actually wish to engage on the arguments, I will be here.

I'm sorry you choose to believe in something in the absence of all mathematical logic. Certainly you can't subsidize 50% unprofitable businesses based on the profits of the others. Not to mention that to try to do so is just stupid.



I have no idea why. It could be your complete detachment from business concepts and reality as a whole.



The word you used was "reward".



Curiously, I do speak the language, semantics and all. By the way, semantics means "meaning". If you are not capable of writing what you mean, why should I rewarding you with any attention at all?

But if you didn't grasp my meaning, I'm saying directly, the results are exactly what they should be. If you try and fail, I don't care. Don't expect me or anyone else to analyze your failure to try and decide how close you were to not failing. No one gets points for pretending.


I'm quite sure I understand your fantasy world.
I'm quite sure you understand my reality world.
I'm not at all sure you understand your world is a fantasy.

So to be completely clear, let me restate your thesis. You are saying:
    Because we should relieve the successful of credit for their success, (it was only luck)
    Then we should relieve the failures of responsibility for their failures. (it was only bad luck)

I am saying unconditionally, that this argument and the self-referential logic behind it, IS BUNK! Entirely content free. It isn't even sound as wishful thinking. It doesn't even provide an intriguing plot line for a fantasy.

You are free to live your life following those tenets. I'm quite certain you will find your life filled with unexplainable "bad luck".
I assure you, however, that bad luck will not be unexplainable to me or others.

[This is a metaphor]
If you jump of a cliff, you are much more "in need" of the ability of flight than I am. If as it turns out you don't receive the reward of flight, you are free to consider that as "bad luck". Fortunately, you will only have to ponder your bad luck for a very short while. The reason you jumped off the cliff has very little bearing on the situation. There is zero difference to gravity if you jumped because you were on crack, of if you jumped because you were testing your handcrafted flight suit. If you don't succeed in flying, it is not gravity's fault.

And it's not my fault either. Not even if I decide to handcraft a working flight suit.

Duh.  That is the entire reason I believe in a strong safety net for such people.  The economy requires many people to take this risk for it to function and the more the better for the economy as a whole.  Every failed business makes a contribution to other business revenue and to tax revenue during their time in business.



I don't know why you decided to think you are talking with someone without business experience, if you knew me personally you would find it kind of ridiculous.  Is your whole collapse of logic here because of a semantic choice of word?

Please familiarize yourself with a common English term:  to award a loan.

There was no hidden political meaning in my choice of phrase.  You really never encountered this before or are you, as I have suspected all along, just trolling here?


Again, is semantics all you have?  Punishment or consequences the argument holds the same meaning, the results of the failure are too dire. 

I think our conversation has been entirely unproductive from your end so I can only conclude you are trolling.  You have bounced from strawmen, to dodging arguments entirely, to hooking on to random word choice to try and argue semantics instead of the issue at hand...It's fairly disappointing.

As luck would have it, the New York Times just published a really interesting article on luck.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/business/luck-is-just-the-spark-for-business-giants.html

OK, that makes more sense. It was a kind of interesting thread too. Unrealistic, but unrealism permeates this site.


The reason I assumed you were trolling is because the terms you use are hopelessly naive. As I linked earlier, more than 50% of all startup ventures fail within 5 years. That puts a huge amount of money at risk. Mostly the money of those who started the venture. This is as it should be.

If you are loaning money, a "reasonable chance of success" is nowhere near good enough. Bankers are loaning someone else's money. Those people depend on the bankers not to lose their savings. If the bankers lost the loan money on 50% of the loans, it would be a catastrophe that makes the wall street guys look like rocket scientists.

Bankers require basically 100% assurance that the loan with be paid back with interest. They are not business partners sharing risk. They get this assurance by making sure borrowers have skin in the game, and requiring collateral that can be foreclosed on and sold if the borrowers fail to pay back the loan for any reason. If a startup found puts $100,000 worth of cash into his new business and borrows another $100,000 worth from the bank against his home, this is in no way a *reward* for writing a good business plan.


If the above startup fails, the owner loses his $100,000 investment. He must also pay back the loan, even if he has to sell his house to do so. I'm sorry if this sounds to you like "punishment" it isn't. It is what grownups call "consequences".

Venture capital works differently. These folks invest at risk, but they take the lion's share of the business (often ownership) to do so. This means they get the lion share of the reward even if they didn't have the idea and didn't do any work. Risk takes the reward.

If it seems like the above process is kills many ideas before they start, it does. Fortunately, most of those ideas would have failed anyway. Even if the idea was good. Most of those people would have failed anyway. There is a saying in business that goes to start a successful company you need three things: A good idea, balls & money. If you have balls and money you win. Because ideas are trivial to find.

The real world really isn't high school. There are no *awards* for turning in good papers. You actually have to take risk and produce salable things to succeed.



If you borrow money from people, to which you've promised to pay it back. They don't care why you are failing to pay them back. They just expect you to make good on your word. There is no punishment for "bad luck". It does, however, have consequences. Consequences are what keep smart people from doing stupid things.

There is only "punishment" for failing to meet your obligations. Punishment is used to dissuade dishonest people from doing bad things. Like taking other people's money and breaking your promise to pay it back.

Those who fail because of "bad luck" are welcome to bring those facts to their investors. They are also welcome to convince their investors they've learned from their mistakes and the "bad luck" is sure to stop. However, those are your investor's decisions to make because it is they that must live with the consequences of their risk.

I'm sorry the real world seems harsh. It is.

It means that loans are not awarded to amateurs who lack a sound business plan.  Developing a business concept that has reasonable chance of success is a difficult task and is something society should respect even when the endeavor ultimately fails.  If you are too harsh in your punishment for failure, for instance making healthcare or housing unaffordable, you risk losing people who have ideas that will work because they can't take the chance.  This is a loss for the economy as a whole.  There are also people who fail because of luck, just as some benefit by it.  They deserve not to be overly punished as well.

I concede! I can't possibly compete with the superior intellect! Khan!!!!

But I have to ask, WTF does "Do you think they just hand them out to anyone saying they want to restore a theatre?" mean?

Attacking my spiritual beliefs and insulting me doesn't make it any less clear you have lost this debate.

LOL! OK, OK, you got me! I've been trolled by the best. I totally thought you were serious until I read this line.


LMAO! You are the master!

It rewards offering a sound business plan.  Do you think they just hand them out to anyone saying they want to restore a theatre?  Every step along the way is a milestone that took work to achieve and people who make that effort should be treasured by society instead of being at risk of ruin so great they can't pay for their own healthcare.

Your protestations that my arguments were weak would be more convincing had you actually addressed them instead of repeatedly refusing to address the substance and bowing out with insults.  Look, it's okay to examine the fact that you have come to entirely incorrect conclusions about the world, don't let your cognitive dissonance lead you to lash out with pointless insults instead of debate to discover the truth.

Do you think Bill Gates gave up in the face of his problems?  Or tried to smear his critics with insults?  No, you can fix your mistakes and move on.

Do you really believe that children starving to death is not a waste of economic potential that could have benefitted you, or is it just that the implications for your chosen economic ideology are too dire for you to consider? All I hope for is "a civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights” and I think that is a goal worth fighting for, even if it means I have to pay higher taxes.

You called a loan a "reward". I'm not even convinced we speak the same language.

But quite frankly you aren't saying anything even remotely interesting. It is like badly rephrased arguments from the standard liberal talking points. I've heard them all. They all fall flat. You just happen to make them even less compelling then reading legal boilerplate.

Your philosophy requires the "sanction of your victims" as Rand would put it. You seem incapable of compelling that from anyone. Quite frankly is was amusing to watch your early attempts, but now you just come off as precocious and more than a little tedious.

That is most disappointing, I had hoped you had come to understand the topic under discussion and were not cutting and running from an argument you had lost by posting a snide insult.  I look for the best in people.  

LMAO! I meant your opinions are so ill considered and childish as to not be worthy of rewarding with discussion.


But they are not all entitled to consideration.

Yes it is!

But you are wrong about Atlas Shrugged, it was really interesting as a novel. You should pick up the audio version and play it at double speed. You'll be done with it in only 26 hours or so.

Your opinions aren't that bad, it's better to have them be brought into the open and discussed and corrected rather than hold them in. 

All men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.

That's the engine of progress, my friend.

There really zero benefit to continuing this discussion. Somethings are so stupid they should be left to die.