The question raised by Marxism and the French revolution was, granting that aristocratic rule is oppressive, which is the liberating class: the bourgeoisie or the proletariat?
It seems that the West developed the most both economically and culturally during the bourgeois rule of the 19th century.
What you call 'business' today is really 'allowed' regulated and taxed business activity under the redistributive proletarian rule of the social democrats, ie., post-liberals (see P. Gottfried 'After Liberalism').
That means, that your critique of business is critique of business in the context of extractive corporate capitalism in which big businesses are rent-seeking and small to medium size businesses barely survive.
If you travel, you can see how in different countries different size of enterprise (medium size vs. big corporations) predominates, eg., giant conglomerates in S Korea vs. medium size businesses in Taiwan.
This then affects which of these influences culture of the country: petit bougeoisie vs. big business oligarchs plus politicians.
I think the medium size enterprise is preferable.
The anarcho-capitalist Hans Hermann Hoppe argues that monarchy is preferable to mass democracy, or any democracy for that matter, and so might agree with your aristocratic elitism, though it's not clear that monarchy and aristocratic rule are identical.
"The entrance of the idea that fortune (wealth) is a result of fortune (luck) contradicts the idea that “you could do it too.” "
No, these are not mutually exclusive ideas.
Everyone knows that there is overlap, as in, you make your own luck, ie., you increase the probability of success by 'doing something rather than nothing'.
That's the message of every motivational guru and it makes basic logical sense.
Thus, men are often admonished to 'do something', because doing nothing pretty much guarantees failure.
In psychology there's even the phenomenon called 'learned helplessness' where people fail and don't do anything even when doing something will solve the problem.
I think this is the state of modern society in the West expressed in dependence on the stater and welfarism.
Luck is a matter of probabilities and you increase the probability of success by acting. It's not rocket science. It doesn't guarantee that you won't fail, and in fact most entrepreneurs testify that they failed repeatedly before succeeding.
Next, what this guy is talking about is entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship, in contrast to management, ('business' can mean either) is fundamentally creative.
You'd not be able to publish this article on this website without entrepreneurship, so you're dependent on risk-taking entrepreneurship having taken place at some point in the past.
The risk-taking aspect of entrepreneurship absolutely justifies outsized potential gains because that's the basic incentive.
In a market that is already established businesses compete at the margin and the businessman essentially earns a manager's salary for calculating costs and revenues.
This is essentially how business runs in China: copy and compete on price.
This explains the relatively low profitability of Chinese companies.
Only in the case of innovating and/or risk taking entrepreneurship, that is, entering a not yet existent market, is there incentive to enter because of the potential outsized gains.
This is all discussed in minute detail in lectures on the Mises institute Youtube channel.
It's a real problem that many people on the right are alergic to basic economic education and fall prey to Marxist fallacies.
Mises institute is retarded and neoclassical + Austrian economics is pseudoscience.
>You'd not be able to publish this article on this website without entrepreneurship, so you're dependent on risk-taking entrepreneurship having taken place at some point in the past.
I have my own publishing platform https://sociobiology.org I built with open source technologies. I absolutely do not rely on entrepreneurship. If Substack did not exist, I would still publish, but less tards would because they can't code. So the entrepreneurship if anything takes attention away from the best thinkers by commoditizing thought.
>The risk-taking aspect of entrepreneurship absolutely justifies outsized potential gains because that's the basic incentive.
I am writing about ethics, so what matters is natural entitlement and not incentives. There are ways to arrange society justly and have more technological development and wealth than today. Worshiping risk is not a needed component of this.
>No, these are not mutually exclusive ideas.
They are by definition at the poles. Luck is not made -- that is the definition I use. As soon as you switch to "made luck" you are discussing profit. Of course, the process of gaining wealth probably has a partial, but significant wealth component, as well as a merit component. What this means is that there is still randomness given a merit level, which is what matters from the aristocratic POV.
>What you call 'business' today is really 'allowed' regulated and taxed business activity under the redistributive proletarian rule of the social democrats, ie., post-liberals (see P. Gottfried 'After Liberalism').
I broadly agree with this analysis but still the prole government mostly did not disturb Hayworth's bourgeois undertaking. His story reflects 19th century bourgeois government which I am critical of as well as prole governments.
It's clear you're just not cut out for this and need your retarded words and free market dogmas over at the verbal econ center for wannabe geniuses who have sub 130 quantitative IQs. Bye
The free market is the system where money can only be earned by delivering goods or services that are valued by your fellow men so that they voluntarily hand over their cash to you in return for your goods or services. The only alternative system is one where people are forced to fork over their money against their will: a system of institutionalised robbery . That’s the system you’re advocating. At the same time you seem to think that your system of institutionalised robbery is the moral one . Sad!
The question raised by Marxism and the French revolution was, granting that aristocratic rule is oppressive, which is the liberating class: the bourgeoisie or the proletariat?
It seems that the West developed the most both economically and culturally during the bourgeois rule of the 19th century.
What you call 'business' today is really 'allowed' regulated and taxed business activity under the redistributive proletarian rule of the social democrats, ie., post-liberals (see P. Gottfried 'After Liberalism').
That means, that your critique of business is critique of business in the context of extractive corporate capitalism in which big businesses are rent-seeking and small to medium size businesses barely survive.
If you travel, you can see how in different countries different size of enterprise (medium size vs. big corporations) predominates, eg., giant conglomerates in S Korea vs. medium size businesses in Taiwan.
This then affects which of these influences culture of the country: petit bougeoisie vs. big business oligarchs plus politicians.
I think the medium size enterprise is preferable.
The anarcho-capitalist Hans Hermann Hoppe argues that monarchy is preferable to mass democracy, or any democracy for that matter, and so might agree with your aristocratic elitism, though it's not clear that monarchy and aristocratic rule are identical.
"The entrance of the idea that fortune (wealth) is a result of fortune (luck) contradicts the idea that “you could do it too.” "
No, these are not mutually exclusive ideas.
Everyone knows that there is overlap, as in, you make your own luck, ie., you increase the probability of success by 'doing something rather than nothing'.
That's the message of every motivational guru and it makes basic logical sense.
Thus, men are often admonished to 'do something', because doing nothing pretty much guarantees failure.
In psychology there's even the phenomenon called 'learned helplessness' where people fail and don't do anything even when doing something will solve the problem.
I think this is the state of modern society in the West expressed in dependence on the stater and welfarism.
Luck is a matter of probabilities and you increase the probability of success by acting. It's not rocket science. It doesn't guarantee that you won't fail, and in fact most entrepreneurs testify that they failed repeatedly before succeeding.
Next, what this guy is talking about is entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship, in contrast to management, ('business' can mean either) is fundamentally creative.
You'd not be able to publish this article on this website without entrepreneurship, so you're dependent on risk-taking entrepreneurship having taken place at some point in the past.
The risk-taking aspect of entrepreneurship absolutely justifies outsized potential gains because that's the basic incentive.
In a market that is already established businesses compete at the margin and the businessman essentially earns a manager's salary for calculating costs and revenues.
This is essentially how business runs in China: copy and compete on price.
This explains the relatively low profitability of Chinese companies.
Only in the case of innovating and/or risk taking entrepreneurship, that is, entering a not yet existent market, is there incentive to enter because of the potential outsized gains.
This is all discussed in minute detail in lectures on the Mises institute Youtube channel.
It's a real problem that many people on the right are alergic to basic economic education and fall prey to Marxist fallacies.
Mises institute is retarded and neoclassical + Austrian economics is pseudoscience.
>You'd not be able to publish this article on this website without entrepreneurship, so you're dependent on risk-taking entrepreneurship having taken place at some point in the past.
I have my own publishing platform https://sociobiology.org I built with open source technologies. I absolutely do not rely on entrepreneurship. If Substack did not exist, I would still publish, but less tards would because they can't code. So the entrepreneurship if anything takes attention away from the best thinkers by commoditizing thought.
>The risk-taking aspect of entrepreneurship absolutely justifies outsized potential gains because that's the basic incentive.
I am writing about ethics, so what matters is natural entitlement and not incentives. There are ways to arrange society justly and have more technological development and wealth than today. Worshiping risk is not a needed component of this.
>No, these are not mutually exclusive ideas.
They are by definition at the poles. Luck is not made -- that is the definition I use. As soon as you switch to "made luck" you are discussing profit. Of course, the process of gaining wealth probably has a partial, but significant wealth component, as well as a merit component. What this means is that there is still randomness given a merit level, which is what matters from the aristocratic POV.
>What you call 'business' today is really 'allowed' regulated and taxed business activity under the redistributive proletarian rule of the social democrats, ie., post-liberals (see P. Gottfried 'After Liberalism').
I broadly agree with this analysis but still the prole government mostly did not disturb Hayworth's bourgeois undertaking. His story reflects 19th century bourgeois government which I am critical of as well as prole governments.
yeah this is so low brow, the physics of the "social sciences", sure bro https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd5b996da-f6d8-476d-be3f-07fd1682486c_1684x1962.png
It's clear you're just not cut out for this and need your retarded words and free market dogmas over at the verbal econ center for wannabe geniuses who have sub 130 quantitative IQs. Bye
The free market is the system where money can only be earned by delivering goods or services that are valued by your fellow men so that they voluntarily hand over their cash to you in return for your goods or services. The only alternative system is one where people are forced to fork over their money against their will: a system of institutionalised robbery . That’s the system you’re advocating. At the same time you seem to think that your system of institutionalised robbery is the moral one . Sad!