The Truth About Entrepreneurs

Posted on January 8, 2015 by Robert Ringer


As America’s experiment with socialism continues to crumble (notwithstanding the lies that are fed to us daily by the media), more and more people are coming to realize that entrepreneurship was the driving force behind America’s widespread prosperity — prosperity that few people could have imagined as recent as the mid-20th century.

Entrepreneurship embodies the spirit of the American Dream. After all, many of the Founding Fathers were entrepreneurs, and perhaps the two most famous in that regard are George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

They also are good examples of just how far apart the results of individual entrepreneurs can be. Though they were both farmers, Washington was one of the richest men in America, while Jefferson struggled financially throughout his life and died broke.

Jefferson’s financial difficulties are a reminder that there are no guarantees for the entrepreneur, who labors away without the luxury of a safety net. In fact, perhaps the single greatest attribute of an entrepreneur is his willingness to take risks — including the risk of losing everythingif he fails.

By everything, I’m not just referring to savings, stocks, bonds, and collectibles. I’m talking about his house, his furniture, his cars — everything he owns — not to mention his credit and self-esteem.

In this vein, last week I enjoyed watching a rerun of a special that Barbara Walters did a few years back on self-made billionaires. The slant of the show belied the rhetoric of politicians who pander to voters by implying that being rich, of and by itself, is evil.

They would have people believe that rich people somehow prevent others from getting ahead financially. The truth, of course, is that most wealthy people achieved their success by creating products and services that others want.

Barbara Walters’ first guest was Guy Laliberte, founder of Cirque du Soleil. Laliberte, an unapologetic billionaire, struggled early in his career as a street performer in Montreal before venturing out as an entrepreneur. Today, his multibillion-dollar business showcases in two hundred seventy–one cities worldwide and employs tens of thousands of people in the process.

When Walters asked Laliberte if he still takes risks, he quickly responded, “Every day.” Wall Street Journal Wealth Reporter Robert Frank, who added his insights throughout the show, then explained, “Part of the risk-taking personality is the ability to overcome failure. … One of the things that makes billionaires successful is their reaction to failure.”

Unfortunately, those who spew out class-warfare rhetoric are clueless about the risks the entrepreneur takes in his quest for mega-success. Or about the self-evident principle: The greater the risk, the greater the potential reward.

As a result, politicians have an annoying habit of stepping in and trying to curb the natural rewards of the marketplace, insisting that “it’s unfair” for the super rich to make so much more than the average working person. That’s right, no other explanation other than “it’s unfair.”

It goes without saying that from a moral point of view, their position is indefensible. If people are truly free, they should be free to become as wealthy as their talent, creativity, and hard work can take them, so long as they do not use force or fraud against anyone else. Freedom is about opportunity, not guarantees.

From an economic standpoint, of course, it’s a no-brainer. Contrary to what socialist would like us to believe, it’s impossible for anyone to become rich without creating jobs. Wealthy folks start and expand businesses and, in the process, employ others — not just by hiring people, but through the jobs that are created indirectly by those who furnish the raw materials, parts, transportation, etc. that their businesses require.

But what about someone who spends hundreds of millions of dollars indulging himself in such luxuries as mansions, private jets, and yachts? It doesn’t take a Ludwig von Mises to figure out that workers are needed to build those mansions, private jets, and yachts, not to mention to produce the materials and thousands of parts and accessories that go into them. Then, once built, it takes people to operate and service those mansions, private jets, and yachts — which means long-term employment.

In addition, great wealth concentrated in the hands of a minority not only does not prevent anyone from becoming successful, it actually gives others the tools to become wealthy themselves. Think computers, hand-held electronic devices, and cell phones, to name but a few of the more obvious of such tools, all of which are easily available to even the most financially challenged among us.

Thus, economic reality makes it clear that the entrepreneur is not the villain some politicians make him out to be. On the contrary, he is a bona fide hero who creates jobs and wealth for everyone who is willing to work, thus giving them a leg up in achieving financial success.

As such, entrepreneurs who accumulate great fortunes should be admired rather than scorned. To vilify someone for having “too much” is the height of asininity and arrogance. The American Dream is not about envy. It’s about getting what you want in life by creating products and services that are valued in the marketplace.

As angry redistribution-of-wealth advocates continue to hammer away at lame abstracts such as “social justice” and “fairness,” those of us who know the truth about the American Dream should take every opportunity to spread the word. We need to explain to those who are not yet comatose that the individual who aspires to great wealth by creating products and services that people want is not the cause of America’s problems, but, rather, the solution to its problems.

When someone focuses on hard work, resourcefulness, and wealth creation — and is willing to take risks — it puts him in a position to achieve the same American Dream that millions of wealthy people have experienced through their own efforts. And, regardless of whose socialist feathers are ruffled, that’s the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Robert Ringer

Robert Ringer is an American icon whose unique insights into life have helped millions of readers worldwide. He is also the author of two New York Times #1 bestselling books, both of which have been listed by The New York Times among the 15 best-selling motivational books of all time.

52 responses to “The Truth About Entrepreneurs”

  1. Nick says:

    There's nothing inherently wrong with earning great wealth by providing great value. The fairness issue comes into play in my mind when great wealth is used to 'game' the system to unfair advantage. Say the tax code, or atificial barriers to competition. Great wealth grants access to political power beyond the one man one vote ideal, irrespective of political persuasion. We do all belong to and benefit from the collective Commons, the court system, rule of law, clean air and water to name a few. It is our fundamental right and responsibility to engage as a society in how we support these. Can you envision a positive role for government that is not paternalistic, but encourages individual responsibility while providing for the commons not served directly by the marketplace?

    • James Parker says:

      While I agree the problem is with the gaming of the system/"crony capitalism", the problem rests far more with government having the power to permit this than it does with those who end up doing the gaming. It is extremely difficult to compete against others who game the system, and many entrepreneurs end up participating in the gaming not out of an explicit goal to do so, but rather get seduced into crossing the line from simply trying to find a level playing field to compete on to actually using it for their own explicit benefit.

      The solution is to remove the power of government as much as possible; "common goods" should be privatized (and done so without providing anyone an initial monopoly), and fiat regulation prohibited.

      • Greggsan says:

        When you put out the cheese, you get rats. Why is anybody surprised?

        The solution, of course, is to starve the rats, not put out more cheese.

        (Somebody stop me before I metaphor again. :-)

      • vnzppr says:

        Good response James. A smaller and less intrusive government is always going to benefit us all, rich or poor. Problems always arise from governmental overreach, when politicians take it upon themselves to choose life's winners and losers. Our politicians are a necessary evil. We listen to them bloviating constantly about their toughness of character and willingness to stand up for "the little guy"
        (their idea of little guy is only the one who votes for them), but unless that politician comes from entrepreneurial roots he's just another taker in this world.

  2. Serge says:

    Trying to deal with the angry redistribution-of-wealth advocates is another challenge a successful entrepreneur has to deal with. How does he deal with higher than normal contractor estimates on his expensive home or remain safe in his nicer than average car? Then there are lawsuits that target the deeper pockets. I know of several successful entrepreneurs who have to now keep a low profile. Do the redistribution advocates need to take a sensitivity class that entrepreneurs are helpful?


  3. Paul Anthony says:

    Government is only needed to provide those things individuals or groups of individuals working together cannot provide for themselves.
    Notice I said "cannot", not "will not". When government attempts to provide equal benefit to those who do not make equal effort on their own, government has overstepped its usefulness and infringed upon the rights of those it taxes.

    • Jim Hallett says:

      Government has NO usefulness! There is absolutely nothing that cannot be done better by the private market and all transactions in said market are voluntary. It is only the parasites of "Progressivism" that have seized control of the schools, media, and political process, so people can't think anymore. If entrepreneurism was taught in schools and people really understood free market capitalism, we would be in MUCH better shape. The justice system, too must be OUT of the hands of govt. (the BIGGEST criminal of all!), so that when a few attempt to scam others, they are dealt with and must pay restitution to those wronged. When clowns like Obama, Pelosi, John McCain and other parasites rule the day, you know the nation is headed for a big fall, and IT IS!

  4. blh557 says:

    "Fair" – where you go to sell your pig… now, that's real entrepreneurship!

    Often I disassemble the wanton socialist who wanders into the trap of "fairness". What is fair? What's "fair" for you means I lose out. Is that "fair"? No, it is not. If I buy your house for 25% less than you want, is that "fair"? Not for you? It is for me! That's not fair!

    How about using the term "equitable"? Equitable means there is an exchange that is beneficial to all. I make a million bucks, produce fifteen jobs and you get a commission. Sounds good to me. Is it fair… I don't really care as long as it's equitable.

    Vetoing the XL Pipeline isn't "fair". It "ONLY" produces a few hundred permanent jobs and a couple thousand temporary (well-paying) jobs. A lot of people depend on those temporary jobs… tell them it's "fair" to veto it because there won't be enough permanent jobs produced.

    "But, it's bad for the environment", you say. Say it again when you have no heat, gas to power your vehicle or electricity when the greenies get their way. BTW, which country has the most stringent pollution regulations in the world? China or the US? Does anyone seriously think the Chinese will tighten up their regulations if they get that tar sands? Nope… but that's not "fair", either.


    "Fair" is where you go to sell your pig.

  5. Stephan F says:

    "it’s impossible for anyone to become rich without creating jobs."

    Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!! I was hoping, praying, that I'd get through this piece without hearing it. Hearing that term that drives me right up–the–wall. That god-awful, nonsensical term called (warning: last chance to plug your ears) "job creation". No, no, Robert just had to step right into the pothole and into that perverted trap set by liberals, morons, Keynesians, & socialists. Shame on you Robert, of all people.

    For those that have heard this before, please move on to the next comment, I don't want to bore you.

    Now, understand this: neither government nor the private sector creates jobs. That's right — in a free country the "Market" creates jobs. And contrary to modern-day Keynesian b.s. the act of hiring someone does not quality you as a so-called "job creator". Employing people is simply a means to an end and a way of satisfying your desire and the market’s demand for more labor. Jobs readily come into existence if there is demand for them by those who need them. So, as a result of Adam Smith's "invisible hand", jobs come into existence. If I desire to hire my neighbors kid to mow my lawn, I do not deserve a pat on the back for creating a job. I'm simply fulfilling my need. And there are no heroics about it.

    Remember this: entrepreneurs and business owners are “business creators” and wealth producers”, not job creators. Saying that business owners “create jobs” is as ridiculous as saying that business owners “destroy jobs”, which is akin to saying the following: “the reason we have unemployment in this country is because businesses have fired too many people (or they failed to hire more people), and, therefore, they are the ones to blame for every single unemployed person!” Sorry, but using that kind of logic is irrational & ignorant. Yet this is the kind of thing economic illiterates believe in. I call this belief mechanism “kindergarten economics”, because only a 6-year-old with ADHD would believe it.

    Ok, now it's time to crawl back into my cave (to avoid all those rocks coming my way)

    • Charles says:

      Nicely put.

    • Frank R says:

      I'm a solopreneur business owner who uses contractors, both US and offshore. I DO NOT create jobs for the following reasons:

      – Obamacare
      – Payroll taxes
      – Legal liability
      – Inability to fire a minority without lawsuits and government harassment

      … I could go on and on but you get the point.

  6. Paul says:

    I'm in the middle of reading "Thou Shall Prosper" by Rabbi Daniel Lapin. The entire first chapter is summed up in this post. Thank you for driving the point home.

  7. Terence says:

    Its because society needs a common code and its enforcement that there arises a need for govt. It takes all sorts to make society…some of whom are entrepreneurs, and some who play politics…also called the 'art of the possible'…and just another game, right? Politicians play to win their game and so necessarily must appear to be all things to all people. Thats the genesis of all societal problems really.

  8. Bill says:

    If it were not for the entrepreneural freedom given to Americans by the founders, Americans would never have enjoyed the willingness or ability to survive WWI or WWII~ just for starters.

  9. Wynand Meyering says:

    I love entrepreneurs. I think in any recession, they bounce back the first. Those that wait, struggle. Self-reliance.__But Mr Ringer writes" who labors away without the luxury of a safety net." That is not right and can be hugely disruptive to lives. That is a weak component in capitalism.

    • writingbykendra says:

      Losing your job that someone else gave you is disruptive, regardless if it's due to your own poor performance, or downsizing to save the business. Watching a business fail, and close its doors, is disruptive. Would your "safety net" include a law that forbids firing a worker in order not to disrupt the wage-farmer's life? I should hope not!

      Your comment sounds like the beginnings of an apologia for socialism. Opinions are allowed here, however, I would re-think what Capitalism means to you, warts and shortcomings and all. From what I read, you're against it.

      • Wynand Meyering says:

        I want to see stock markets for small and medium sized businesses, focused and far greater government support programs for business development, even if it's just creating "incubators". They can connect those to solar panels, sell the electricity for money, use that to help small businesses develop. By nature most people want to be consumers, when actually everyone should try to become producers, governments can help with timely interventions, pushing forward the widespread adoption of new technology. Selectively choosing technologies.

        • writingbykendra says:

          American English may be the words we're using, but we're not speaking the same language.

          Whose money will pay for the initial incubators? How long would it be before the government says, "We'll support this kind of small business, but not that kind"? Timely interference… er, intervention according to whose timeline? How long would it be before the ruling party starts demanding – with the money they're taking from our pockets in illegal taxes – that only certain things or selected technologies be produced?

          Is an artist's work less valuable than a tinier motherboard? Do you really want the government deciding what's valuable and what isn't? You know as well as I that the government would declare the motherboard important, and the art an unnecessary luxury. But, is it? According to whom? I find creating art and creativity of that kind extremely important to my well-being. Do you really believe that the government would take my value of art into consideration – especially for an incubator situation?

          No, Mr. Meyering, the government would say that producing the tinier motherboard is important, and the art isn't. That's the kind of government you'd get with what you're espousing. They decide who does what, and when, and how, while denying those outside their parameters.

          American English but different languages.

          • Wynand Meyering says:

            We are talking about diverting small amounts of the national budget to fund and assist the development of small and medium sized businesses and projects. I predict some countries will overtake the US in future in some business sectors, because they are focused. Industrial, commercial and technological policies are smart, intelligent decision making, subsidies can make up 2% of the national budget, so what, what is 2%!? No focus means an automatic boost of only the interests and ideas of the wealthy: through spending and investment primarily via ( the NYSE and Nasdaq ).

          • writingbykendra says:

            You're missing the point:
            As an independent entrepreneur you're making your own decisions about your business. If you make good decisions, even in the poorest downturns, you'll (usually) survive. If you don't, you close your doors. And, try again.

            You're not asking others to pay for your business with their taxes – which is where a subsidy gets its funding. You're not standing there with your hand out. You're working to create TRUE value on your own terms, not putting out something the government wants you to create. If you let the government give you money, your dreams now become worthless because the government now owns you.

            Don't believe me? Ask any business that's subsidized by the government. They have onerous rules to follow (usually at odds with their real needs to do their business). If they don't do what Uncle Sam demands, they lose their funding.

            So, no. Not even a point of 1%.

            As for "only the interests and ideas of the wealthy" comment, it isn't the wealthy who are doing the smaller, day-to-day businesses that keep our country rolling. In a comment further down, I list a few businesses that the wealthy themselves have no interest in doing – but they depend on those entrepreneurs who do them.

          • Wynand Meyering says:

            How can the government own your idea if you are selling 5%, 10% of an idea? If it does work, then you take your idea out of the incubator … and I said: the solar energy is renewable energy, the electricity is sold and can repay the taxpayers all the money they invested, renewable energy: solar energy, so unlimited funding, for high risk businesses.

            You will see it invested in welfare and all the low risk activities. So not even 1%? That's how you see the situation. I see it differently: boost the entrepreneurs by investing in incubators powered by renewable solar energy. Taxpayers get their money back after the renewable solar energy has been sold, entrepreneurs and high risk projects have an UNLIMITED source of investment and funding.

  10. Gordon Foreman says:

    I have no problem with the wealth of entrepreneurs. However, there are a LOT of the wealthy in the USA who got that way, not by providing products people need, but by leveraging political influence. When Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase can call up dozens of congressmen to get a special provision added to an omnibus bill, that has the potential to transfer billions of JPM losses to the taxpayers, while leaving them with all the profits if their bets play out as they hope, I object to his bonuses (and the provisions he lobbies for). And there are thousands of others of his ilk who are gaming the system in various ways to get their riches.

    But because they provide lots of campaign donations to politicians of both parties, they will continue to be protected from the consequences of their failures, while we all take the hit. Please don't lump all the wealthy into the "entrepreneur" slot. Too many of them don't fit.

    • Jim Hallett says:

      Parasites like Jamie Dimon are NOT entrepreneurs. They are crony parasites, who have given capitalism a bad name. They do not want to compete or provide ANYTHING, but rather just to line their own pockets, eliminate all worthy competitors and enslave others with their power. This is why they give $$Millions to the political morons. The article is about the genius, risk and realities of entrepreneurs, not simply about wealthy people. Unfortunately, some like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates start out as entrepreneurs and create much good, but then degenerate into crony capitalists looking to rig the system for their own benefit, even while proclaiming their real goal is just to give it all away.

    • RealitySeeker says:

      "leveraging political influence"

      You are somebody who gets it…..

  11. Paul L. Fruend says:

    As always, another very good article by Robert Ringer. Paul Anthony's comment was also no the mark. Nobody is gaming the system more then our ever growing entitlement group we have in our Country today… Our Government needs to be replace with people that qualify for the job. They should have to know how Capitslism works and why socialisn won't. They should know our Rule of Law and why we have it. If you are going to become the Commander in Chief of our armed forces, military experience should be required before they can send my son to war. They should understand why they are braking our Constitution when they let non-citizens join and possible take over out military. They should know War is only the least resort, and if we do go to war, we do what ever it takes to win and get our boys back as soon as possible.They should know our United States Constitution before they put their hand up and swear they will defend it. (and be impeached when they don't.) They need to know why we are a "Republic," and not just a Democracy. They should know something about economics, and how it make our system of job creation work, so they won't make stupid statements like "You did not build it," implying it's all about Government. They need to know that raising taxes on corporations and raising the minimum wage is not always the best answer. ( Corporations need to figure that into the cost of doing business and pass it on to the consumer, making it even harder for the poor to get by.) and that it is also devaluing our dollar. They should understand the value of our "Three seperate branches of our Government," and keep them seperate, because doing anything else will end in dictatorship. They should stop the Supreme Court make up laws or be puppets of the Executive branch. (Laws mean nothing without an enforcement authority. (Which is obviously being proved by the Executive branch already today.) To avoid the News Media corruption ( Over 3 billion spent on mid tern elections this year.) and lobbyist corrption, where we turn the members of our Government's attention away from doing their job, to spending their time just trying to get re-elected. They should serve their term and go home. ( Sorry,I will stop her.)

  12. george says:

    Great!! Thanks Robert,

  13. John Abbott says:

    I am one, and I LOVE Entrepreneurs! But I agree with Gordon Foremans comment. Not ALL wealthy people are entrepreneurs. Also, Robert stated:" Contrary to what socialist would like us to believe, it’s impossible for anyone to become rich without creating jobs." Depending on what you mean by "rich" I think the people in the MEDIA that make MILLIONS of dollars a year, are NOT creating jobs, but are leeches! So, wealthy entrepreneur is a GOOD thing. Selfish, self centered news anchors are probably NOT an asset! Big difference, in my opinion!

  14. Wonderful defense of the America Way!

  15. Stephan F says:

    Apparently Robert is a member of that category of people who own a business, hire people, and expect to be patted on the back & honored for doing a good deed. The telltale sign of this is when they constantly use the term “job creator”, a term which today is pure bunk. Employers don’t create jobs, Robert, they simply hire people in order to fulfill their desire for more labor. Neither government nor private industry “creates jobs”. That's right — in a free country the "Market" creates jobs. It is simply a result of Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” at work, with no need to praise (or vilify) anyone. Entrepreneurs and business owners are “business creators” and wealth producers”, not job creators. Saying that business owners “create jobs” is as ridiculous as saying that business owners “destroy jobs”.

    • Robert Ringer RJR says:

      Technically speaking, I agree with you. Note that I said, "the jobs that are created indirectly." I have repeatedly written that jobs are a by-product of the pursuit of wealth by individuals.

      • Stephan F says:

        Your absolutely right Robert. Here I believe you're alluding to the fact that in one's endeavors to enrich oneself, it is true that as a natural consequence jobs will naturally come into existence. I suppose my reaction was just a bit knee-jerk. It's just that the term is just so mind-numbingly used over & over by just about everyone (especially by certain business owners) that whenever I hear this term I go off the deep end. Thank you for the clarification.

        One last favor: May I recommend that instead of stating that "jobs are created…" you instead say jobs come into existence; or jobs will be in demand; or jobs will be required, in lieu of. Saying that "jobs are created" implies some benevolence on the part of some human(s) somewhere, and this is simply a false paradigm. I hope you'll agree.

        • Stephan F says:

          My apologies, "You're" is the proper spelling for the abbreviation of "you are". Sorry (must have been thinking about a reply to ole Mr. Banter)

    • Robert Bonter says:

      When fantasy world people are in denial of reality and the truth, as to the foundational fabric which developed this nation, we still have to suffer them, it seems. Stephan F. you take the cake, at least around here. Isn't a better venue for your obvious hatred for those who, in many cases, sacrificed everything to chase the American Dream?

      People like Stephan F. have NO GUTS, NO VISION, NO CHARACTER, and NO SELF-RELIANCE, beyond going the extra mile to denigrate those who aspire to a life of personal responsibility and the rewards which accompany that, and are comfortable with making a positive difference in the life of everyone their enterprising spirit touches.

      I am ashamed of you and for you, Mr. F., – you are selling an intellectual black hole abyss I refuse to fall into.

      • Stephan F says:

        Ahem, Mr. Bonter:

        I see that you're a very recent graduate from the Kindergarten school of reality & human nature. To help you along in your search for knowledge may I recommend some reading material that might help. Hmmm, lemme see…oh yes. Seems to me a good start would be "Restoring the American Dream". It's was written by an author you're probably not familiar with, but I assure you it's worth the time & effort (actually, anything written by this author is worth the effort). Anyway, I wish you good luck in your efforts to get to a double digit IQ.

        Best Regards

  16. Robert Bonter says:

    Stop trolling, trying to elicit some kind of "hate speech," response. And I have seen evidence of this tactic here, before. I know your agenda. Mr. Ringer please kick us both out of here. Thank you.

  17. Tony says:

    Scum bag bankers who destroyed our economic system with creating crap credit default swaps should be in prison. They are greedy pigs and should be put down.

  18. Mitch says:

    Truly an old world viewpoint. This article and perspective is meaningless in this day in age. Most of the super wealthy today are wealthy because they inherited their fortune. Most entrepreneurs are struggling to make ends meet. I am very unsurprised that the author is a very old white man, stuck in the notion that all anyone needs to do today is work hard to succeed. Maybe that works for a few and maybe that worked in the past, but in the age of Walmarts and Bank of Americas, the little guy, the entrepreneur, doesn't stand a chance the majority of the time. This article is truly a laughing stock to literally anyone with one eye open that isn't completely diluted.

    • Wynand Meyering says:

      100% Mitch. Study the things the European Trade Commission is uncovering. 100% amazing. What is the % business taxes some companies paying? 1% for some global companies.

  19. Robert Bonter says:

    "Mitch" either has not read "Winning Through Intimidation," or, if he has, has chosen to gloss over Mr. Ringer's directly addressing the futility of the "working the grindstone" mentally. This wonderful site has been infiltrated by some of the most disgusting, radical/activist parasitic scum to come along in quite some time.

  20. writingbykendra says:

    Mitch, entrepreneurs often fail a couple of times before they get their feet under them. But, then, if they keep getting up, they learn how to sell the shovels for gold coins instead of panning for the gold flakes. In other words, they find out what the big, boxy stores aren't doing, and then go do that.

    Walmart doesn't do dry cleaning, car repair, daycare, dog walking, house-sitting, janitorial work in offices, screen repair, plumbing, funerals, and so on. Those – and hundreds of other entrepreneurial jobs – aren't done by Wal-Mart.

    Some entrepreneurs will always struggle. That's the hazard of working for yourself. So. What. The little guy or gal has a better chance now than they did even just thirty years ago. It's hard work to build a business, but it's still do-able – in spite of Walmart and big banks.

    • Wynand Meyering says:

      Study economics, the wealth created by those big businesses often fell into certain areas in the timeline of economic activity, for example some businesses grew when productivity and revenues were increasing rapidly, while salaries and costs remained under control. The current period sees the world with a lot of debt, low growth, oil prices are high, to generalise and to say, just focus on niche markets entrepreneurs and you must succeed as ( as well as ) in all other periods of US history, is simply generalisation.

      • writingbykendra says:

        It's the "niche" markets that keep things rolling on a day-to-day basis.

        • Wynand Meyering says:

          The issue is the realisation of a competitive edge. Yes the fastest growing businesses are often in niche markets, but governments can intelligently direct research. You are using the Internet. You don't think that particular idea was worth it to boost it in the 1970, 1980s? Would you rather see the bulk of the money go into luxury car imports ( often for the rich )? … help the Japanese manufacturing sector instead of this project called "the Internet"?

        • Wynand Meyering says:

          I'm just saying Japanese manufacturing sector, but it could be any luxury car manufacturing sector, German, Italian, Swedish, Austrian, French, UK etc. it's just an example.

  21. writingbykendra says:

    For the most part, the government cannot – and does not – do anything intelligently. It's basically run by a committee of 535+ people, few of whom agree on anything for more than a few months. If that's the intelligence you want running your business, you're welcome to it.

    If you listen to the hysteria of the media, yes, the wealthy only buy luxury at the expense of the rest of the population. Economically, the bulk of the money, overall, goes to everyday people, everyday things, and everyday niches. The wealthy make up only a few percent of the total population. The rest of us command the rest of the money. It might not seem like it, but we do. If you want to believe the media hype otherwise, go ahead.

    In both scenarios, leave me out. I'd rather take up a service that will always be used, and make my own decisions (right or wrong), than have the government tell me how to run my business, or when, or where. Their laws are already an albatross to an entrepreneur. I won't put myself in their hands. I won't insist that others pay for me to stay in business via their taxes (can you say subsidies? I knew you could!). If others want my business, they can pay me directly as my buyer. I'll deliver the goods as they and I discuss through that open and honest transaction.

    (As for the Internet, I don't know enough about it to comment on the direction you're going. I use the 'net like I use a car: does it work when I turn it on? Yes? Good. Let's go. I don't know who did what with it, nor when or where or how, and so, I won't say anything more.)

    Further, we're not going to agree on this issue, so you can have the last word if you want it.

  22. Wynand Meyering says:

    The main issue that you refuse to look at the $ side of things.

    • writingbykendra says:

      Okay, I'll rise to it:
      What do you think I've been talking about? Of course I'm talking about the money aspect – as it pertains to value-producing, independent entrepreneurs. How much clearer do you need this said?

      Government is not a suitable fallback because subsidies are a drain on already over-taxed people, including businesses. Independence isn't found at the bottom of a governmental subsidy program.

      Businesses must rise or fall on their own merits. It's found in creating value without government interference or "help". That value is represented by money made or lost, on the choices and decisions of the entrepreneur.

      Sheesh, did you really think I wasn't talking about money? That's what this whole article and conversation has been about!

      Good night. I've a 2a.m. carrier business to run and it's already past my bedtime.

  23. Wynand Meyering says:

    The US has an Academy Awards for the best movies, so too can many business sectors have awards. If government doesn't fund it then the private sector should. That's my view. You want to see a natural progression, evolution of things, I prefer to see the boosting of the economy or a business or technology at the right time, even if it's via debt.

  24. Rivotril says:

    In fact speaking, I concur with you. Note that I said, "the employments that are made by implication." I have more than once composed that occupations are a by-result of the quest for riches by people.
    Rivotril Online