So his complaint is that he can't make enough money by competing. Got it...he's actually a pretty shitty businessman then.

The industrial age is part of 'economic liberty'.

People were free to make inventions that use coal, or use oil, and were free to market them either as products or services.

That differs from the earlier times/case where folks were obligated to participate only in activities sanctioned by their local lords. Often where they couldn't even travel freely.

Much of the math and chemistry we have comes from centuries worth of largely superfluous [essentially hobbyist at the time] higher education of the privileged classes. (eg. Boyle's/Charles' laws being a foundation of modern internal combustion engines, not used in said form for centuries after written down).

(Note : Which still continues to be the case, what we come up with in a purely theoretical form today, ends up being used in practical application much later. Although maybe it's speeding up. eg. Relativity is used in making GPS work, and that time delta isn't quote as large.)

Once the idea of economic liberty took hold, and people were free to come up with ideas that use the universes natural/physical properties to replace 'manpower', you had the industrial revolution.



The 'honor' part plays a good role too. You can witness this still being an issue today.
You can go to parts of eastern Europe, and talk with people about jobs and respectability.

There are plenty of places where a laborer is scum, and a businessman (eg. owner, who does not himself work, but has people working for him) is highly respected.
In these places, you don't see much work getting done, as a large portion of the typical western service sectors just doesn't exist.
For example, there are ~no house painters. Showing up with paint buckets and overalls would just get you strange stares and mumbles from people around you, and parents would be saying to their kids "See, this is what happens if you don't get good grades".
If you want your house painted, you gotta do it yourself. Few self respecting people are willing to do that job.
In contrast, ask people around the U.S. about who painted their house. Odds are, they hired for it.

The effects on small business are visible too. Lots of shops, the moment the owner can afford to not come in himself, that's exactly what they do.
And on top of that, they take every chance they can get to point out to folks that 'they don't work anymore - people work for them'.

It's a culture where the people responsible for productivity are looked down on, and it has a chilling effect on productivity.

-scheherazade

@lantern53

jesus hung out with the prostitutes,the beggars,the sick and the broken.

basically the freaks.

you would not find him in your station house,nor having cocktails in the posh businessmans house but rather you would find him in the crack houses,the whore house and maybe sleeping on a park bench with the homeless.

you know...the people you arrest on a daily basis.

there is actually a reason why many gay folk are flambouyant,gregarious and do not fit into a societal norm that you may find comfortable.

the process in coming to terms with ones sexuality can be arduous and takes immense courage.it is an experience a heterosexual human never encounters...ever.

so while you may find their decisions and behavior abnormal,and it may even make you uncomfortable if too much in your face.you should respect the fact that they lives their lives with a freedom you could never match.

societal norms have you firmly shackled to the wall.
they are free.
and you ridicule something you have little understanding of,but at its heart...you envy.
and what you envy.....you ridicule.

these folks are not moved nor influenced by your (or others) opinion of how they live.
can you say the same?

US has the corruption at the very highest levels (so does a lot of western societies..). They just call it Lobbyism and approve it publicly. So it's not corruption if it's legal right? Most countries that are accused of corruption, it occurs at lowest level of the government: police, civil servants etc. But when it's the high end, it's not corruption anymore..

Same goes for most crimes: you swindle hundred bucks: you're criminal, low life scum with no human rights. You swindle billions: you're a businessman, a hero of sort and you get to keep everything.

This guy's first mistake was to give Sears any slack at all by agreeing not to sell his product anywhere else. The issue has nothing to do with things being made in China at all. It has to do with being a shrewd businessman, which as we all know, means to assume the other guy is always trying to fuck you, and then fucking him harder and faster. I feel bad for him and everyone else involved but come on, he committed to one company on a one season deal?

If this guy had a decent strategy, then this Christmas his product would be selling at every store but Sears.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by kulpims. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Drunk-Businessman-vs-Escalator ?

Your video, Drunk Businessman vs Escalator, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Like @NetRunner said, he's X minus 20.

In other words, he's the second closest person on the planet to the most powerful position on the planet. It's due in large part to his being the American-born privileged white male heterosexual Christian son of a wealthy businessman and governor who sent him through Harvard Law. And now he's standing in a room full of insanely rich (and I'm assuming) heterosexual-identified Christians complaining that he would be better off if he were Latino. Would he even be in that room if he were Latino? I doubt it.

He had all those advantages in life and has reached such heights from them, and that's fine. But then, when it would be convenient, he wishes he could briefly be Latino, so he can have that limited advantage too. This shows a complete lack of appreciation (both meanings) for the advantages he has and the benefits they have gained him. He wouldn't have even gotten into the primaries.

Careful now, I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent. You should try it sometime.

At one time or another I've been an anarchist, liberal, conservative and (card-carrying) Libertarian. Like anyone here, my views are complex because life is complex.

I don't put much merit on any of the attributes you've given Romney. Inheriting money isn't successful -- creating it is; knocking up a your wife isn't noble, it's natural; using laws as a barometer for morality is repulsive; and squares are just fearful of everything everybody but themselves do.

Many people inherit money and burn through it irresponsibly. Romney worked hard and created value, which brought him more wealth.

Clinton knocked up Hillary, are you going to compare his "natural" abuse of women and dishonoring of his marriage with Romney's marriage?

Laws, for the most part, reflect morality. Plenty of stupid, unjust laws exist and are bent. I believe if anarchy ensued, Romney would still be the same decent square. He could be fooling us all, of course.

The fact is, Obama has been vetted.

Where are his grades and college papers? Does anyone have a timeline of his immigration status? When did he have dual citizenship and for how long? Do you think a boy raised by marxists in a foreign land shares American values? I don't. Obama was a spoiled kid who decided to "forward" himself playing the race card. He had no reason to be bitter about anything except by choice.

And if you want to talk trash, call him out for: not closing Guantanamo; for not using his position to limit Wall Street's power and corruption; for allowing indefinite detention; for allowing citizen executions without a trial; for extending unwarranted wiretapping; for catering to the pharmaceutical industries during negotiations for the Affordable Care Act; etc.

Arch-liberals 'hate' Obama for reasons different than centrists. On many points, we would agree Obama poses a serious threat to liberty, and there are other additional points which make him an unacceptable candidate to me, but not to you. So be it.


>> ^MrFisk:

Careful now, I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent. You should try it sometime.
I don't put much merit on any of the attributes you've given Romney. Inheriting money isn't successful -- creating it is; knocking up a your wife isn't noble, it's natural; using laws as a barometer for morality is repulsive; and squares are just fearful of everything everybody but themselves do.
The fact is, Obama has been vetted. And if you want to talk trash, call him out for: not closing Guantanamo; for not using his position to limit Wall Street's power and corruption; for allowing indefinite detention; for allowing citizen executions without a trial; for extending unwarranted wiretapping; for catering to the pharmaceutical industries during negotiations for the Affordable Care Act; etc.
But I know the foam at your mouth hinders any reasoning in your brain. In fact, is Romney the man you put in for during the primary? Or isn't it just anybody but B. Hussein O.?
>> ^quantumushroom:
Romney: successful businessman, family man, upstanding citizen, square.
The irony here is that you, the liberal, have all the facts the libmedia could dig up on Romney, with a huge side dish of bias, of course.
Obama hasn't been vetted to this day, huge gaps remain in his personal history.
What we have now, however, is a 4-year record meriting his firing.
>> ^MrFisk:
Based on Romney's imperformance, he doesn't merit a first term.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Based on BHO's performance, he doesn't deserve a second term.

Careful now, I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent. You should try it sometime.

I don't put much merit on any of the attributes you've given Romney. Inheriting money isn't successful -- creating it is; knocking up a your wife isn't noble, it's natural; using laws as a barometer for morality is repulsive; and squares are just fearful of everything everybody but themselves do.

The fact is, Obama has been vetted. And if you want to talk trash, call him out for: not closing Guantanamo; for not using his position to limit Wall Street's power and corruption; for allowing indefinite detention; for allowing citizen executions without a trial; for extending unwarranted wiretapping; for catering to the pharmaceutical industries during negotiations for the Affordable Care Act; etc.

But I know the foam at your mouth hinders any reasoning in your brain. In fact, is Romney the man you put in for during the primary? Or isn't it just anybody but B. Hussein O.?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Romney: successful businessman, family man, upstanding citizen, square.
The irony here is that you, the liberal, have all the facts the libmedia could dig up on Romney, with a huge side dish of bias, of course.
Obama hasn't been vetted to this day, huge gaps remain in his personal history.
What we have now, however, is a 4-year record meriting his firing.
>> ^MrFisk:
Based on Romney's imperformance, he doesn't merit a first term.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Based on BHO's performance, he doesn't deserve a second term.

Romney: successful businessman, family man, upstanding citizen, square.

The irony here is that you, the liberal, have all the facts the libmedia could dig up on Romney, with a huge side dish of bias, of course.

Obama hasn't been vetted to this day, huge gaps remain in his personal history.

What we have now, however, is a 4-year record meriting his firing.

>> ^MrFisk:

Based on Romney's imperformance, he doesn't merit a first term.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Based on BHO's performance, he doesn't deserve a second term.

If you're in the private sector and support Obama then you need to wake up. When the economy is in the toilet, do you support the liberal lawyer or the successful businessman?

I think it may be partial nonsense, luck always plays a role in everything, that said I do believe he was a skilled leader and a shrewd businessman, but some people act as if Christ just died again.
It's funny how someone could be an abject failure and also be a pompous gasbag and at the end people will remember you as a pompous gasbag, but if you're successful it's as if people will forget all the gasbaggery and you just become someone who was successful. For me, personally, I don't care if they made dollar or a bajillion dollars during their lives, at the end they were still a pompous gasbag.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^00Scud00:
What is that supposed to mean exactly? When I hear that he was really good at what he did I'm not sure just what it is that I'm supposed to be getting from that statement, am I supposed to respect him for that? Charles Manson was really good at getting other people to commit murder for him, should he get my respect too? After hearing more about Edison I think that it's a pretty good comparison, they both hired a lot of smart people to work for them and then they both took all the credit for themselves, although it's probably partially our own fault as well, as a society we do love putting people on pedestals.

My only point is that all the arguments that amount to him being in the right place at the right time, as if he had nothing to do with his or Apple's success and just stumbled into a pile of talent and went along for the ride, are nonsense.
Watch something like Triumph of the Nerds and you'll see those supposedly exploited Apple employees praising him for bringing out their best. Was he a pompous gasbag? Yes. Did he have a way of inspiring and driving people to new heights? You bet your fucking ass, he did.
You don't have to respect him but to pretend that being a leader like Jobs isn't a skill... well, if it's not, why aren't you surrounded by geniuses who make you rich?

>> ^messenger:

Jobs was a businessman and a marketer. He wasn't all that good with computers, relatively. Steve Wozniak was the scientific genius, but had no interest in business or the limelight.


He's also scientifically obese. I love nerds but for the sake of your health take a walk or something.