Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jay Murrell on March 8, 2009 at 9:27

for whom will they toil?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jay Murrell on March 8, 2009 at 11:23

Yes, they did work for themselves, growing there own food so that they wouldn't starve.

Is that where we're going?

Permalink Reply by Jay Murrell on March 8, 2009 at 9:42

KB:

I was being facetious with the "on-their back" comment. How did you come to miss the feeble attempt at humor?

I assure you that entrepreneurs don't consider themselves to be riding anybody's back. Fact is, they would view their enterprise to be the source of the place for the laborer to labor. They are glad to have good people and, if they are wise, strive to keep them, but if there's no enterprise, there's no job.

But you state that the laborer will always have a place to go, so my question is: Doing what?

There are, after all, a finite number of positions available in the public sector.

JM

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jay Murrell on March 8, 2009 at 11:27

Ah, yes. To return to those the days of before Henry Ford perfected the assembly line and most of us lived on the farm.

I wonder if this is our version of the Cultural Revolution?

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on March 8, 2009 at 11:31

Smelling mule farts ain't for me.

Permalink Reply by Jay Murrell on March 8, 2009 at 9:31

No, they wont bury it in the back yard. They will stop spending, instead they will pay-off debt, save (in debt-securities) with some and buy gold/silver with some, because inflation is going to be in hyper-drive in a couple of years due to defict spending and printing $ for that part of borrowing that the Chinese don't cover.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jay Murrell on March 8, 2009 at 0:17

Jim:

What wealth does the blackjack dealer create?

JM

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jay Murrell on March 9, 2009 at 12:14

So, Jim:

Economic success and achievement is just one big crapshoot?

JM

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jay Murrell on March 8, 2009 at 12:07

Jim:

I was actually being literal here. I don't see what wealth is created by the "gaming" business, I can't even call it an industry, because the connotes production of something. You must have had something else in mind. Did you?

JM

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on March 8, 2009 at 12:29

I would guess it's more an abstract product ... recreation. Much like the movie industry, pro-sports industry, theater industry. Not necessarily a concrete, tangible product. Isn't it labeled the "Recreation & Tourism Industry?" They do employ vast numbers of laborers.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jay Murrell on March 9, 2009 at 13:14

Jim:

Are success and achievement the result of chance, as you imply above?

Wondering.

JM

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jay Murrell on March 9, 2009 at 15:36

Actually Jim, it is completely in line with the blog subject inasmuch as it gets directly to the point of who creates wealth. It was an attempt to get your thoughts on how these people come to a place where they can accomplish this. You imply that it is by chance and happenstance. I merely wanted for you to confirm or deny my surmise. I believe that you have.

I assume that your pejorative reference to epistemological rhetoric means that you believe that reality is subjective and that unless one is a moral relativist he cannot engage you in debate. This fits conveniently with a worldview that is not defensible (or provable) in logic or reason.

That said, if you do believe that success and achievement are the result of one being a "winner in life's lottery" as Dick Gephart one said, then I can certianly understand that you would want to hide, as that notion flies in the face of provable fact.

JM

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page