The Bush model in Silicon Valley?

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: redfella

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

This is VENTURE CAPITAL, not necessarily extravagant personal wealth since the investor class in America is so wide and diverse in this day and age.

Isn't it "this day in age"?

Nope, SoG isn't right very often IMO, but it's definitely 'day and age'.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
It suggests to me that there are a lot of very wealthy people who have literally more money than they know what to do with. It says nothing about the financial status of the vast majority of Americans.

Wealthy people investing in businesses can only be good for the economy right? Businesses = jobs

Not necessarily, that's a much too simplistic view. A robust economy requires a balance between businesses and customers. If easy investment cash comes from an inbalanced distribution of wealth, we can have a saturated market where there is more money to grow businesses than there is demand for products and services. A surge in interest in unconventional investment vehicles suggests conventional business growth opportunities may be saturating, reinforcing other reports that the balance between the wealthy and average Americans has shifted (i.e., the rich get richer).

You cannot have a strong economy without a healthy middle class who can afford to buy the products and services of the wealthy business owners. That is the Achilles heel of totally unfettered capitalism. There has to be a good balance.

Did you pull that one out of your arse? Even Marx himself admited the best way to spur an economy is concentrated (not distributed) sums of startup capital. The only difference is he wanted all that money under govt control.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: redfella

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

This is VENTURE CAPITAL, not necessarily extravagant personal wealth since the investor class in America is so wide and diverse in this day and age.

Isn't it "this day in age"?

Nope, SoG isn't right very often IMO, but it's definitely 'day and age'.

LOL, how aboput "day 'n age"? We can't let SoG be right about something.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
It suggests to me that there are a lot of very wealthy people who have literally more money than they know what to do with. It says nothing about the financial status of the vast majority of Americans.

Wealthy people investing in businesses can only be good for the economy right? Businesses = jobs

Not necessarily, that's a much too simplistic view. A robust economy requires a balance between businesses and customers. If easy investment cash comes from an inbalanced distribution of wealth, we can have a saturated market where there is more money to grow businesses than there is demand for products and services. A surge in interest in unconventional investment vehicles suggests conventional business growth opportunities may be saturating, reinforcing other reports that the balance between the wealthy and average Americans has shifted (i.e., the rich get richer).

You cannot have a strong economy without a healthy middle class who can afford to buy the products and services of the wealthy business owners. That is the Achilles heel of totally unfettered capitalism. There has to be a good balance.

Did you pull that one out of your arse? Even Marx himself admited the best way to spur an economy is concentrated (not distributed) sums of startup capital. The only difference is he wanted all that money under govt control.

First, I wasn't aware you put so much stock in Marx. I certainly don't. Second, I didn't say a single word suggesting all concentration of wealth is bad. What I did say is that there needs to be a BALANCE. You may proudly join Sir SoG on the roster of reading-impaired people who are apparently incapable of addressing what someone actually said.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
:laugh: Anyone else see the irony of Bowfinger constantly using the "Never, ever" wrong accusation? :laugh:
Here's a clue Bowfinger, maybe, just maybe it could be you.

Nope, just you. I challenge you -- again -- to point to any example of you acknowledging a mistake on your part. I've acknowedged my own mistakes here many times. I might even do so this time if you were ever able to actually address and refute my points. You aren't, of course, so you attack and duhvert. That doesn't make you right. It just makes you an ass.

The problem here Bowfinger is that you pretty much ignored the OP and went off about the middle class yet here you now sit claiming it was somehow the actual topic? I stated this thread and the topic is pre-emtive VC. So if there is anyone who needs to "Try to stay on-topic." it is you.

No, I really didn't. What I did was disagree with your spin on the implications of the OP. You have never been able to handle disagreement, apparently because you are totally incompetent in refuting it. For example, you again avoided the points I actually raised ... as usual.

Disagree? Prove me wrong. Go back to the post where I explained my views (my second in this thread, IIRC), and respond to the specific, actual points I raise, Leave out all your inflammatory BS about "evil business" and "economy sucks" and all your other dishonest diversions, focus on what I actually said, and show us you are actually capable of forming a cogent argument. Show us you can do more than parrot talking points and attack anyone who disagrees with you.

Please note that you may want to help larry and Moe out, they seem to lack anything coherent to say, Curly.

Again, grow up.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ntdz
Wealthy people investing in businesses can only be good for the economy right? Businesses = jobs

Not necessarily, that's a much too simplistic view. A robust economy requires a balance between businesses and customers. If easy investment cash comes from an inbalanced distribution of wealth, we can have a saturated market where there is more money to grow businesses than there is demand for products and services. A surge in interest in unconventional investment vehicles suggests conventional business growth opportunities may be saturating, reinforcing other reports that the balance between the wealthy and average Americans has shifted (i.e., the rich get richer).

You cannot have a strong economy without a healthy middle class who can afford to buy the products and services of the wealthy business owners. That is the Achilles heel of totally unfettered capitalism. There has to be a good balance.

For the record, here's my comment that has Sir SoG in full froth.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
:laugh: Anyone else see the irony of Bowfinger constantly using the "Never, ever" wrong accusation? :laugh:
Here's a clue Bowfinger, maybe, just maybe it could be you.

Nope, just you. I challenge you -- again -- to point to any example of you acknowledging a mistake on your part. I've acknowedged my own mistakes here many times. I might even do so this time if you were ever able to actually address and refute my points. You aren't, of course, so you attack and duhvert. That doesn't make you right. It just makes you an ass.

The problem here Bowfinger is that you pretty much ignored the OP and went off about the middle class yet here you now sit claiming it was somehow the actual topic? I stated this thread and the topic is pre-emtive VC. So if there is anyone who needs to "Try to stay on-topic." it is you.

No, I really didn't. What I did was disagree with your spin on the implications of the OP. You have never been able to handle disagreement, apparently because you are totally incompetent in refuting it. For example, you again avoided the points I actually raised ... as usual.

Disagree? Prove me wrong. Go back to the post where I explained my views (my second in this thread, IIRC), and respond to the specific, actual points I raise, Leave out all your inflammatory BS about "evil business" and "economy sucks" and all your other dishonest diversions, focus on what I actually said, and show us you are actually capable of forming a cogent argument. Show us you can do more than parrot talking points and attack anyone who disagrees with you.

Please note that you may want to help larry and Moe out, they seem to lack anything coherent to say, Curly.

Again, grow up.

Yep, "never, ever, ever" :laugh:

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ntdz
Wealthy people investing in businesses can only be good for the economy right? Businesses = jobs

Not necessarily, that's a much too simplistic view. A robust economy requires a balance between businesses and customers. If easy investment cash comes from an inbalanced distribution of wealth, we can have a saturated market where there is more money to grow businesses than there is demand for products and services. A surge in interest in unconventional investment vehicles suggests conventional business growth opportunities may be saturating, reinforcing other reports that the balance between the wealthy and average Americans has shifted (i.e., the rich get richer).

You cannot have a strong economy without a healthy middle class who can afford to buy the products and services of the wealthy business owners. That is the Achilles heel of totally unfettered capitalism. There has to be a good balance.

For the record, here's my comment that has Sir SoG in full froth.

Wrong again. Try looking at your first post in this thread. You have constantly tried to change the subject to the middle class and how you think this doesn't help them or doesn't say anything about them - which is totally false as I've pointed out. The "investor class" includes many who are in the "middle class" as we have a very high percentage of people investing now days.

:laugh: "never, ever, ever" :laugh:

 

[Rainsford]

I'll agree that it's nice to see more VC money available for investing, as it tends to promote growth of the "better" type of business IMHO. Small business with good ideas are where a lot of the big growth is, but they are also some of the most sensitive to economic conditions.

That being said, people should really read the articles they post. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal, about as anti-liberal as you can get, is cautious as well. The article wonders whether or not VCs are making the same mistakes they made in the 90's that ultimatly led to the dot-com bust. SoG suggests such thinking is foolish, and they OBVIOUSLY learned from their mistakes, but I wonder. The problem isn't that the VC firms knew they were funding companies with no business plan or profit model, the problem was that VCs simply had no good way of judging the company. These days simply being an "internet company" isn't enough to bring in the flood of money, but make no mistake, there are plenty of buzzwords along those lines that almost guarantee investments. The question isn't whether VCs learned anything from the dot-com days, it's what lessons they might have learned. Did they simply learn that the internet wasn't a magic method of money generation? Or did they learn the broader lesson that they don't require enough business work from companies before investing in them. While it's hard to tell, this whole "pre-emptive" strategy makes me wonder.

Again, intestment money being more available is good news, but given the history these guys have with the economy, let's temper our wild enthusiasm a little bit, eh?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
:laugh: Anyone else see the irony of Bowfinger constantly using the "Never, ever" wrong accusation? :laugh:
Here's a clue Bowfinger, maybe, just maybe it could be you.

Nope, just you. I challenge you -- again -- to point to any example of you acknowledging a mistake on your part. I've acknowedged my own mistakes here many times. I might even do so this time if you were ever able to actually address and refute my points. You aren't, of course, so you attack and duhvert. That doesn't make you right. It just makes you an ass.

The problem here Bowfinger is that you pretty much ignored the OP and went off about the middle class yet here you now sit claiming it was somehow the actual topic? I stated this thread and the topic is pre-emtive VC. So if there is anyone who needs to "Try to stay on-topic." it is you.

No, I really didn't. What I did was disagree with your spin on the implications of the OP. You have never been able to handle disagreement, apparently because you are totally incompetent in refuting it. For example, you again avoided the points I actually raised ... as usual.

Disagree? Prove me wrong. Go back to the post where I explained my views (my second in this thread, IIRC), and respond to the specific, actual points I raise, Leave out all your inflammatory BS about "evil business" and "economy sucks" and all your other dishonest diversions, focus on what I actually said, and show us you are actually capable of forming a cogent argument. Show us you can do more than parrot talking points and attack anyone who disagrees with you.

Please note that you may want to help larry and Moe out, they seem to lack anything coherent to say, Curly.

Again, grow up.

Yep, "never, ever, ever" :laugh:

"I challenge you -- again -- to point to any example of you acknowledging a mistake on your part."

"Disagree? Prove me wrong. Go back to the post where I explained my views (my second in this thread, IIRC), and respond to the specific, actual points I raise, Leave out all your inflammatory BS about "evil business" and "economy sucks" and all your other dishonest diversions, focus on what I actually said, and show us you are actually capable of forming a cogent argument. Show us you can do more than parrot talking points and attack anyone who disagrees with you."

Exactly as expected. Run, SoGgy, run. It's all you're good at.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Wrong again. Try looking at your first post in this thread. You have constantly tried to change the subject to the middle class and how you think this doesn't help them or doesn't say anything about them - which is totally false as I've pointed out. The "investor class" includes many who are in the "middle class" as we have a very high percentage of people investing now days.

:laugh: "never, ever, ever" :laugh:

Still batting zero zero zero. First, that's not the comment you replied to. Second, I said nothing to suggest VC firms get funding exclusively from the wealthy. This is another of your dishonest straw men, tossed out because you are incapable of addressing what someone actually says.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
:laugh: Anyone else see the irony of Bowfinger constantly using the "Never, ever" wrong accusation? :laugh:
Here's a clue Bowfinger, maybe, just maybe it could be you.

Nope, just you. I challenge you -- again -- to point to any example of you acknowledging a mistake on your part. I've acknowedged my own mistakes here many times. I might even do so this time if you were ever able to actually address and refute my points. You aren't, of course, so you attack and duhvert. That doesn't make you right. It just makes you an ass.

The problem here Bowfinger is that you pretty much ignored the OP and went off about the middle class yet here you now sit claiming it was somehow the actual topic? I stated this thread and the topic is pre-emtive VC. So if there is anyone who needs to "Try to stay on-topic." it is you.

No, I really didn't. What I did was disagree with your spin on the implications of the OP. You have never been able to handle disagreement, apparently because you are totally incompetent in refuting it. For example, you again avoided the points I actually raised ... as usual.

Disagree? Prove me wrong. Go back to the post where I explained my views (my second in this thread, IIRC), and respond to the specific, actual points I raise, Leave out all your inflammatory BS about "evil business" and "economy sucks" and all your other dishonest diversions, focus on what I actually said, and show us you are actually capable of forming a cogent argument. Show us you can do more than parrot talking points and attack anyone who disagrees with you.

Please note that you may want to help larry and Moe out, they seem to lack anything coherent to say, Curly.

Again, grow up.

Yep, "never, ever, ever" :laugh:

"I challenge you -- again -- to point to any example of you acknowledging a mistake on your part."

"Disagree? Prove me wrong. Go back to the post where I explained my views (my second in this thread, IIRC), and respond to the specific, actual points I raise, Leave out all your inflammatory BS about "evil business" and "economy sucks" and all your other dishonest diversions, focus on what I actually said, and show us you are actually capable of forming a cogent argument. Show us you can do more than parrot talking points and attack anyone who disagrees with you."

Exactly as expected. Run, SoGgy, run. It's all you're good at.

I've already addressed where you have gone wrong. You started off wrong with your first post by trying to bring your misinformed views about the "vast majority of Americans" into this. You also missed the part where I said this was about VC, not about the "rich get richer" because as I've repeatedly noted, we have a big investor class, which includes the middle class.

"never, ever, ever" :laugh:

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Wrong again. Try looking at your first post in this thread. You have constantly tried to change the subject to the middle class and how you think this doesn't help them or doesn't say anything about them - which is totally false as I've pointed out. The "investor class" includes many who are in the "middle class" as we have a very high percentage of people investing now days.

:laugh: "never, ever, ever" :laugh:

Still batting zero zero zero. First, that's not the comment you replied to. Second, I said nothing to suggest VC firms get funding exclusively from the wealthy. This is another of your dishonest straw men, tossed out because you are incapable of addressing what someone actually says.

Actually it is, because ntdz replied to your first post which was off-track and then you responded to that with more of the same "rich get richer" whining.

"never, ever, ever" :laugh:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
:laugh: Anyone else see the irony of Bowfinger constantly using the "Never, ever" wrong accusation? :laugh:
Here's a clue Bowfinger, maybe, just maybe it could be you.

Nope, just you. I challenge you -- again -- to point to any example of you acknowledging a mistake on your part. I've acknowedged my own mistakes here many times. I might even do so this time if you were ever able to actually address and refute my points. You aren't, of course, so you attack and duhvert. That doesn't make you right. It just makes you an ass.

The problem here Bowfinger is that you pretty much ignored the OP and went off about the middle class yet here you now sit claiming it was somehow the actual topic? I stated this thread and the topic is pre-emtive VC. So if there is anyone who needs to "Try to stay on-topic." it is you.

No, I really didn't. What I did was disagree with your spin on the implications of the OP. You have never been able to handle disagreement, apparently because you are totally incompetent in refuting it. For example, you again avoided the points I actually raised ... as usual.

Disagree? Prove me wrong. Go back to the post where I explained my views (my second in this thread, IIRC), and respond to the specific, actual points I raise, Leave out all your inflammatory BS about "evil business" and "economy sucks" and all your other dishonest diversions, focus on what I actually said, and show us you are actually capable of forming a cogent argument. Show us you can do more than parrot talking points and attack anyone who disagrees with you.

Please note that you may want to help larry and Moe out, they seem to lack anything coherent to say, Curly.

Again, grow up.

Yep, "never, ever, ever" :laugh:

"I challenge you -- again -- to point to any example of you acknowledging a mistake on your part."

"Disagree? Prove me wrong. Go back to the post where I explained my views (my second in this thread, IIRC), and respond to the specific, actual points I raise, Leave out all your inflammatory BS about "evil business" and "economy sucks" and all your other dishonest diversions, focus on what I actually said, and show us you are actually capable of forming a cogent argument. Show us you can do more than parrot talking points and attack anyone who disagrees with you."

Exactly as expected. Run, SoGgy, run. It's all you're good at.

I've already addressed where you have gone wrong. You started off wrong with your first post by trying to bring your misinformed views about the "vast majority of Americans" into this. You also missed the part where I said this was about VC, not about the "rich get richer" because as I've repeatedly noted, we have a big investor class, which includes the middle class.

First, as I pointed out -- and you again evaded, surprise! -- your claim is a straw man. I never suggested VC funding comes exclusively from the wealthy. Second, re. my "misinformed" views about the vast majority of Americans, kindly offer any evidence that most Americans have any significant VC firm holdings. Third, I am addressing the issue of VC funding, specifically that the glut of VC funding suggests saturation in more conventional investments. Once again, you can't seem to understand that disagreeing with you does not make a person wrong or off-topic.

"never, ever, ever" :laugh:

If you're going to rip off my stuff, at least get it right. It's "Never, ever, ever ... about anything." On the bright side, at least you're parroting me now too, in addition to BushCo talking points. Perhaps when you grow up you'll be able to think for yourself and express you own ideas.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
:laugh: Anyone else see the irony of Bowfinger constantly using the "Never, ever" wrong accusation? :laugh:
Here's a clue Bowfinger, maybe, just maybe it could be you.

Nope, just you. I challenge you -- again -- to point to any example of you acknowledging a mistake on your part. I've acknowedged my own mistakes here many times. I might even do so this time if you were ever able to actually address and refute my points. You aren't, of course, so you attack and duhvert. That doesn't make you right. It just makes you an ass.

The problem here Bowfinger is that you pretty much ignored the OP and went off about the middle class yet here you now sit claiming it was somehow the actual topic? I stated this thread and the topic is pre-emtive VC. So if there is anyone who needs to "Try to stay on-topic." it is you.

No, I really didn't. What I did was disagree with your spin on the implications of the OP. You have never been able to handle disagreement, apparently because you are totally incompetent in refuting it. For example, you again avoided the points I actually raised ... as usual.

Disagree? Prove me wrong. Go back to the post where I explained my views (my second in this thread, IIRC), and respond to the specific, actual points I raise, Leave out all your inflammatory BS about "evil business" and "economy sucks" and all your other dishonest diversions, focus on what I actually said, and show us you are actually capable of forming a cogent argument. Show us you can do more than parrot talking points and attack anyone who disagrees with you.

Please note that you may want to help larry and Moe out, they seem to lack anything coherent to say, Curly.

Again, grow up.

Yep, "never, ever, ever" :laugh:

"I challenge you -- again -- to point to any example of you acknowledging a mistake on your part."

"Disagree? Prove me wrong. Go back to the post where I explained my views (my second in this thread, IIRC), and respond to the specific, actual points I raise, Leave out all your inflammatory BS about "evil business" and "economy sucks" and all your other dishonest diversions, focus on what I actually said, and show us you are actually capable of forming a cogent argument. Show us you can do more than parrot talking points and attack anyone who disagrees with you."

Exactly as expected. Run, SoGgy, run. It's all you're good at.

I've already addressed where you have gone wrong. You started off wrong with your first post by trying to bring your misinformed views about the "vast majority of Americans" into this. You also missed the part where I said this was about VC, not about the "rich get richer" because as I've repeatedly noted, we have a big investor class, which includes the middle class.

First, as I pointed out -- and you again evaded, surprise! -- your claim is a straw man. I never suggested VC funding comes exclusively from the wealthy. Second, re. my "misinformed" views about the vast majority of Americans, kindly offer any evidence that most Americans have any significant VC firm holdings. Third, I am addressing the issue of VC funding, specifically that the glut of VC funding suggests saturation in more conventional investments. Once again, you can't seem to understand that disagreeing with you does not make a person wrong or off-topic.

"never, ever, ever" :laugh:

If you're going to rip off my stuff, at least get it right. It's "Never, ever, ever ... about anything." On the bright side, at least you're parroting me now too, in addition to BushCo talking points. Perhaps when you grow up you'll be able to think for yourself and express you own ideas.

I never stated you were wrong because you disagreed with me, you are wrong in things you have stated. You were also off-topic because you went off on the ever typical slant against the "rich" because your mindframe was thinking about the "middle class". Maybe you should have stuck to thinking about VC if you wanted to stay on topic.

Like always, you and your types can attempt to shoot down any singular item but when faced with item after item, your arguments fall flat.

"attack anyone who disagrees with you." + "Perhaps when you grow up you'll be able to think for yourself and express you own ideas." :laugh: DAISNAID? :laugh: