This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

"Peak Dream" - The Death Of The Young American Entrepreneur

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Despite the anecdotal evidence plastered daily on financial media channels of a scruffy, young, upstart working from his parents' basement and creating the next great social, mobile, analytics, cloud app worth a cajillion dollars, from nothing but tween eyeballs, the sad reality is the 'American Dream' for young Americans is over. As The WSJ reports, the share of people under age 30 who own private businesses has reached a 24-year-low, according to new data reflecting a generation struggling to find a spot in the workforce. While there are numerous possible reasons, one professors worries about the systemic aspect as "the fear of failure is the measure we should be most concerned about."

 

 

Overall, the U.S. “startup rate”—new firms as a portion of all firms—fell by nearly half between 1978 and 2011, and as The Wall Street Journal reports, the share of people under age 30 who own private businesses has reached a 24-year-low, according to new data...

Roughly 3.6% of households headed by adults younger than 30 owned stakes in private companies, according to an analysis by The Wall Street Journal of recently released Federal Reserve data from 2013. That compares with 10.6% in 1989—when the central bank began collecting standard data on Americans’ incomes and net worth—and 6.1% in 2010.

 

The Journal’s findings run counter to the widely held stereotype of 20-somethings as entrepreneurial risk-takers.

 

...

 

The proportion of young adults who start a business each month dropped in 2013 to its lowest level in at least 17 years, according to the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, a Kansas City, Mo., nonprofit that focuses on entrepreneurship. People ages 20 to 34 accounted for 22.7% of new entrepreneurs in 2013, down from 26.4% in 2003, it found.

 

The plunge in business ownership captured in the Fed survey is an “interesting and worrisome finding,” said John Davis, faculty chair of the Families in Business Program at Harvard Business School. If the trend continues, he said, the U.S. economy could become less vibrant.

 

“We need startups not only for employment, but also for ideas,” Mr. Davis said. “It’s part of the vitality of this country to have people starting new businesses and trying new things.”

Costs are one part of it...

The costs of operating many types of small businesses have come down in the past decade, with the greater use of technologies that reduce labor costs. But young entrepreneurs face formidable financial hurdles.

 

The average net worth of households under 30 has fallen 48% since 2007 to $44,354. More than half of 18-to-29-year-olds reported one or more financial problems in the past year, a 2014 Pew Research Center survey found.

 

Their poorer financial condition hurts young graduates’ ability to tap their own savings, draw equity from a home or obtain bank loans to cover their startup or ongoing business costs, said Karen Mills, a senior fellow at Harvard Business School and a former head of the U.S. Small Business Administration, which sponsors programs to help small firms obtain financing.

But there is a bigger concern...

The decline in business ownership among young graduates also reflects a relatively low appetite for risk. Young people have less confidence, said Donna Kelley, a professor at Babson College. In an annual survey she oversees, more than 41% of 25-to-34-year-old Americans who saw an opportunity to start a business said fear of failure would keep them from doing so, up from 23.9% in 2001. “The fear of failure is the measure we should be most concerned about,” she said.

*  *  *

The core risk-taking backbone of America is being crushed under the weight of student debt, regulation, and short-memories of their parents suffering in the last 2 decades as 'wealth' has been eviscerated twice thanks to Federal reserve boom-bust cycles.

*  *  *

Why take risks? Why bother, when work is punished?

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 01/04/2015 - 01:34 | 5619969 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

"Corporations are creatures of the law."

Because the oligarchs write the law, or at least control the politicians who do.  It's really not complicated.  Citizens United sealed our fate.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 13:27 | 5620750 malek
malek's picture

It always puts a bad taste on my tongue when one writes about a certain piece of a whole system and criticizes strongly, while not putting down a written thought on the rest of the system.

The law is a system. The construct of a corporation is a part of that system.
Laws get changed, some use the euphemism "evolve."
Laws of other parts of the law system turned continuously shittier too since at least after the civil war.

Why is now suddenly the corporation the bogey man IYO?

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 21:08 | 5621978 thistooshallpass
thistooshallpass's picture

Law is a systematic loophole. And messy and hard to read. Who gets it, much less can fight it successfully? Primarily those with money and connections. See "Tax Code". 

 

Corporations need to stay the "F" out of politics. If there be a vote, let each person vote for only themself. I'm tired of private interests hiding behind corporations. Instead of pulling back the curtain, let's get rid of the opportunity for them. If you can't back up where you put your assets/interests, then please don't even bother.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 03:05 | 5620092 livefreediefree
livefreediefree's picture

Fuck all of you who are anti-corporation. Before the radical Progressive left (ie, Bush and Obama) transformed the USA into a country that redistributes but does not create wealth, corporations were capitalism. If you are anti-corporation, you are anti-capitalism and pro-redistribution of wealth. iow, a fuck radical leftist.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 03:38 | 5620113 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Ah, no, you are wrong. Corporations lack accountability. A business should have owners who are directly, financially and legally responsible for its actions. Incorporation has been sold forever as principally a means to AVOID responsibility. A shelter. A functional society requires transparency and accountability to survive. Corporations, like government, are not inherently evil, they just provide a well fertilized ground for it to grow in.

As a small business owner for many years I have worked for and around some of the largest corporations in the world. They are lumbering behemoths that trample everything in their path and survive and prosper not on their innovation or even efficiency of scale but on their pure mass and market dominance. They own the market and own the government which regulates those markets. Their only excuse for existence is that we need to maintain our corporations to compete with the rest of the world's corporations.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 11:00 | 5620401 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

While you might scoff this off as semantics, I believe it is more substantive than superficial.  I own a corporation, my wife owns a corporation, and we're early 30s self employed americans.  Any tom, dick or harry can set up his own, single-shareholder corporation for a minimal fee to his secretary of state, some paper shuffling, and a yearly franchise tax.  The level of political pull we have and our impacts on society at large are no different than anyone who is a sole proprietor, partner, member, trustee, or, sadly, for anyone that is unemployed.  In short, you need to find a new word for the entities that you despise...  as "corporation" is overly broad.

At common law, limited liability didn't exist outright, but in a few choice areas through few legal mechanisms.  Now, the concept of liability is dramatically smaller and the only frontier yet to be conquered is tort immunity (at least since our last go round with the railroads in early american history).  Personally, I would be just fine reverting back to sole proprietorships, general partnerships, and limited partnerships...  If you want limited liability protection, then you don't get to participate in the business.  Fortunately or unfortunately, this is for states to decide, so there should be no federal solution. 

You're entirely right about corporations being a shield for stakeholders.  However, the notion that corporations are more fertile grounds for evil than a sole proprietorship with the same resources (e.g. robber barons) is preposterous.  The evil that lurks is inherent in man.  If corporations are merely shields or conduits, then don't you already acknowledge this much?  Isn't the only important thing the man standing behind the shield?  The man calling the shots?  If so, why do we need a crusade against shields?  Who cares?

The concept of consolidating power is a fundamental tenet of the competition fostered by capitalism.  You have to live and die by the sword.  If personal wealth is something to be desired and individuals shall be entitled to the spoil of our own labor, then amassing wealth should be no crime.  The argument to the contrary is really just an argument that one has been too successful at the game.  This is really just an argument from jealousy.      

 

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 13:54 | 5620832 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

The shield is the device used to avoid accountability for actions. Few sole proprietorships enjoy such protections. Further, the size and market domination, be it legitimately earned or derived through government crony channels, is the evil that is to be avoided and what our laws were designed to prevent. Yes, evil is in all our hearts, but it best expressed trough unbridled power, and at its most destructive. There are ways other than corporations for this domination and power to exist, they are simply the most numerous and dominant. And no, not all corporations are evil as most are not. It is simply a tool that can easily be used destructively and at the very least should be acknowledged as such.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 13:28 | 5620748 livefreediefree
livefreediefree's picture

Oldwood,

So, you're against corporations because they're better at business than you?

At least before wealth redistributionists and big gov't lovers Bush and Obama, corporations grew large because they provided a product or service that consumers buy.

(Now, of course, corporations prosper because they buy politicians. The solution to this crony capitalism is not to eliminate corporations but to downsize gov't.)

When I started in business, I incorporated. Me, one guy. Why? To protect my personal property. I didn't want my kids to be sold into slavery because I lost a court case. Thus, corporations are good. Yes, they are good.

Now, let's step back, and examine what you're actually saying. It appears you want limits on the size of businesses. You said:

They are lumbering behemoths (who) survive and prosper ... on their pure mass

Their 'mass' is the problem. OK, NP. What limit (ie, annual sales; net worth; whatever else you decide as your metric) would you impose on the size of businesses?

Here's a problem with imposing a limit. Let's assume your limit was 100 million. How in the fuck, then, could a company like Boeing get the 10-billion-dollar investment it took to create the 787?

If you're complaining about the size of corporations, then I suppose you have also consistently and fervently complained about the size of gov't. If the problem is size, then your mission, if you decide to accept it, is to write a 750-word essay on the inherent problems with big organizations, in both the public and private sector.

I find the animus towards corporations to be puerile.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 14:09 | 5620873 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

My puerile response;

I do not want to limit the size of anything. I want people, living breathing individuals, to be responsible. Everything is interconnected. Your fear of lawsuits providing the incentive for incorporating is driven largely by a legal industry also corporate in nature seeking returns for its clients. A predatory world we live in. Corporations operating with few restraints and virtually no accountability other than government or other entities simply demanding a cut of the take though legal actions that ultimately drive up everyone's costs. Nothing is isolated from the other.

My answer for corporations is that management should hold a principle stake in the stocks of their companies, so what hurts the corporations also hurts them personally. Also, to be a principle in this corporation they must sign a personal guarantee of financial and legal responsibility. As a small business I operate as a limited liability partnership, but I am still asked by most creditors and clients to make personal responsibility commitments, as given my size, even if I did not, I could never afford the legal protection to fight off the large corporations if they decided to pursue me.

The problem with seeking shelter from liability, be it through incorporating or simply purchasing insurance, is to alter the nature of our behavior, creating incentives to take risks we would otherwise not take. I think this mentality is principle in bringing us to the place we are today. I am a conservative. I believe in only taking those risks I know I can afford without relying substantially on insurance or other legal structures that can be changed at a moments notice. Just my puerile take on things.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 20:51 | 5621934 livefreediefree
livefreediefree's picture

I don't know where to begin. At the beginning, I suppose.

Corporations operating with few restraints and virtually no accountability other than government

There are probably millions of laws on the books that impose accountability on corporations. The free market also imposes accountability: (1) Other corporations and (2) consumers impose accountability.

though legal actions that ultimately drive up everyone's costs

Yes, we need tort reform. We agree here. However, we were founded to be a nation of laws, not of men. If we are a nation of laws, we need professionals to orchestrate these laws.

My answer for corporations is that management should hold a principle stake in the stocks of their companies, so what hurts the corporations also hurts them personally.

But they do. You can't get on the board unless you own large amounts of stock in the corporation. Management normally also holds large amounts of stocks.

Also, to be a principle in this corporation they must sign a personal guarantee of financial and legal responsibility.

What does that mean? That, if the corporation goes belly-up, they lose their house, car, life savings, insurance policies, all the furniture in their house?

Corporations already assume financial and legal responsibiliy. To incorporate, one must adhere to the laws of the state, say, in which one incorporates. Those laws impose financial and legal responsibility.

As a small business I operate as a limited liability partnership

What does "limited liability" mean? That, if you go belly up, you won't lose your house, car, life savings, insurances policies, and the furniture in your house, etc?

From a Google search on "Limited liability partnerships", the definition below being given as essentially the 1st hit:

"A limited liability partnership (LLP) is a partnership in which some or all partners (depending on the jurisdiction) have limited liabilities. It therefore exhibits elements of partnerships and corporations. In an LLP, one partner is not responsible or liable for another partner's misconduct or negligence."

From Legal Zoom

"A limited liability partnership, or LLP, is a relatively new creation. It operates much like a limited partnership, but gives each member of the LLP protection from personal liability, except to the extent of their investment in the LLP."

You want to deny corporations the same protections you gain in forming an LLP. In my world, that's hypocrisy.

but I am still asked by most creditors and clients to make personal responsibility commitments,

Corporations do not make committments when they seek loans? That, if the corporation goes belly-up, the board and management won't suffer financially?

The problem with seeking shelter from liability, be it through incorporating or simply purchasing insurance, is to alter the nature of our behavior, creating incentives to take risks we would otherwise not take

Risk taking is the fucking heart of capitalism. If you deplore risk, you reject capitalism.

I find your argument confusing. Just my non-puerile take on things.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 06:59 | 5620234 dreadnaught
dreadnaught's picture

i dont follow your Alzheimers logic.....

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 08:17 | 5620274 ThirdWheel
ThirdWheel's picture

The meaning of "corporate" has institutionally changed to no longer mean the same thing as it did when the most firmly established theories of economics, and thus the very vocabulary, were conceived. This is an essential part of the control system.

You have been hoodwinked if you think
otherwise. Try to get past whatever ageist bias
or communist paranoia you may have and read with
the possibility of learning. It's called critical thinking.
It may not save your life, but it certainly makes the
game more entertaining.

Sat, 01/03/2015 - 23:44 | 5619791 Magnum
Magnum's picture

I think a lot of people who would otherwise start their own company opt to work for a big corporation because there is a choice to pay big$$ for healthcare, or get it free by working for a big corp.  

Also, a lot of younger people "millenials" don't want to own a household but this WSJ article refers to head of household figures.  So there can be small businesses but owners are not "head of household" because they like renting and mobility (not necesarily bad traits).

Sat, 01/03/2015 - 23:47 | 5619801 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

The easier path always has its costs, usually something to do with freedom.

Sat, 01/03/2015 - 23:48 | 5619795 You Lie
You Lie's picture

Microsoft essentially started out of a garage,   Apple started out of a garage.   Now once a company gets that 50th employee Obamacare moves in to crush it.   No more Microsofts no more Apples ever again.  

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 00:29 | 5619888 BlindMonkey
BlindMonkey's picture

Not in the states anyway.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 00:53 | 5619909 Hubbs
Hubbs's picture

I would like to see a scholarly  treatise about the potential for emergence of the next disruptive technology. At dawn of civilization it was farming, allowing people to congregate in towns and divert specialize skills towards manufacturing or other endeavors rather than hunting and gathering food.  Then the development of the gun, then the discovery of oil and the industrial age, and most recently the internet and the spin offs from it like Facebook (although I seriously question whether that has made a "contribution" to society to the extent oil and farming have).

 

Anyway, what I am leading to is the fact that those people who are the leading edge of the disruptive (meaning it changes the traditional human living experience dramatically)techology become fabuloulsly wealthy as the field is wide open, no competition etc. Once the new technolgy matures, it gets more difficult to make a big hit.  In other words, if Gates were starting in Harvard today , he would probably wind up just a normal Harvard grad and even living in his parents' basement for a few years, not making comuters out of  a garage.  Michael Dell and Mark Cuban  and Zuckerman were late comers to the party but still got good licks in before the window of opportunity from the current disruptive technology closed.

Now that we are in the more advanced stages of the internet, are there going to be more Fords,  Carneiges, or Gates  (even Gates just used  IBM's OS to launch Microsoft and arguably has done nothing but perfect the art of the monopoly.?) Or are the next gazillionaires going to achieve their wealth through essentially non productive measures from non productive venues like money changing/banking? Gross, Druckenmiller, Buffet, Soros, etc

 

What will be the next disruptive technology?  Fusion? Thorium, Graphene? 

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 00:55 | 5619924 NoPension
NoPension's picture

I hope it is a society without Government. Of any size. Local, state or federal.
In my opinion, the destroyer of dreams and progress. Of peace and freedom. Of privacy and true security. Of generational wealth.
The ultimate parasite.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 01:26 | 5619961 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Could not agree more.

It is a plague on all things human.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 01:20 | 5619947 Bear
Bear's picture

I disagree, I believe that the technology field will produce many, many more start up billionaires

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 01:35 | 5619970 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Truly disruptive?

Machine intelligence

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 09:38 | 5620331 spinone
spinone's picture

Right. Computers that are smarter than the people who build them. Then EVERYONE is out of a job.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 14:52 | 5620952 scrappy
scrappy's picture

My thoughts on what's next...best guess mind you.

Distributed Peer to Peer Computing Applications, but we need DATA RIGHTS.

http://www.ingenesist.com/general-info/fueling-the-decentralization-move...

https://koinify.com/blog/top-10-resources-for-understanding-decentralize...

http://www.coda.co/

Early Examples:

http://maidsafe.net/

http://www.ethereum.org

On the "other" end of the spectrum - Innovative DIY and things like 3D Printing, and the black market.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 02:19 | 5620034 NihilistZero
NihilistZero's picture

"Now once a company gets that 50th employee Obamacare moves in to crush it."

Not a fan of Obamacare, but that's bullshit. If you're a funded start up, getting a healthcare package for your 50 employees is the least of your worries. Regulations and the patent office are another story...

There's a lot wrong with the system right now. But these FOX NEWS talking points are REALLY dumbing down the discourse at ZH.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 02:30 | 5620057 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Do you have a business? Employees? If not, stop dumbing down the conversation with your statist talking point...fox news....

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 04:45 | 5620155 NihilistZero
NihilistZero's picture

Actually I do have a business, and as an independent IT contractor I work with many businesses large and small.  Who I don't work for are Microsoft and Apple type mega corps who feed at the teet of .gov.  To say that Obamacare is going to destroy start-ups that could grow into mega corps is just silly in light of the ocean of liquidity chasing returns.  Now if the poster were talking about main street businesses with over 50 employees, of which there aren't that many relative to small businesses under 50, that's a different story.

So since you got all huffy, please share with me your wealth of small business management experience :-)

And by the way, when you call someone a statist who supports anracho-capitalisim throughout these forums and just anarchy and freedom in genral, you truly do sound like a reactionary FOX News dumbfuck...

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 10:21 | 5620348 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

While I'm sure that Obamacare is a great boon to all small employers everywhere, especially those of us who are trying to provide their employees insurance while witnessing increases of 20% in 2013, 25% in 2014 and now 45% in 2015 while also watching our deductibles climb to $6000, my principle reason for my response IS your reference to Fox news, a response that have become the standard bearer for every fucking leftist on the planet. While I will freely admit that Fox news is yet another shill for big government, they have done more to bring to light many of the tragedies that have been perpetrated in recent years than any other MSM. To focus your derision on those of us who resist ALL of the statist efforts to force us into a dependency submission as somehow false or flawed simply because we are saying some of the things stated on Fox news is just plain stupid. By your perspective I can only assume that anyone who does not agree with Bush policies is a MSNBC shill. Wake the fuck up. Truth is mixed with lies by all of the mouthpieces, which gives them strength.

And while you may see yourself as some blend of anarchist, you disparage people who are demanding an elimination of corruption and are not your enemy, and to make them such refutes any agenda you may claim to possess. Your voice is exactly what the statist want, to silence all other voices as reactionary or extreme. They have done everything to silence Fox news, refusing to even participate in debates they have chaired. If you have specific point, make it, and stop throwing entire groups of people (given Fox News has a greater following than the others combined) under the bus.

I have had employees for over thirty years as a small employer, and while I'm no fucking genius, I think i can still smell shit when I find it.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 20:29 | 5621869 NihilistZero
NihilistZero's picture

And while you may see yourself as some blend of anarchist, you disparage people who are demanding an elimination of corruption and are not your enemy, and to make them such refutes any agenda you may claim to possess. Your voice is exactly what the statist want, to silence all other voices as reactionary or extreme.

I disparaged you because you came off as a dick when I pointed out the obvious, that Obamacare was not going to destroy tech startups or any other business that succles at the Wall Street/Gubment teet.  You took a simple statement and turned it into a judgement of me as a lefty.  Then you've got the balls to complain about being sterotyped?  Please...

Wake up?  To what?  That real boots on the ground businesses (presumably like yours) suffer under Obamacare?  I never denied that.  The reason I used the Fox News slur is you are doing E X A C T L Y as they do in turning nuanced debate into a conflagration of scoreched earth politics talking points.  N othing in my original post warranted a dick response, yet you gave one.  Just as Bill O'Riley would :-)

Sat, 01/03/2015 - 23:46 | 5619796 yogibear
yogibear's picture

"Why bother with starting a business when you can get on welfare and collect food stamps"

Exactly. Now oriented for the large caps. JPM makes a lot off it. So does Wal-Mart.  

Sat, 01/03/2015 - 23:50 | 5619797 Never One Roach
Never One Roach's picture

The young entrepeneurs are people like the Pakis, Indians, etc who set up tiny booths in the aisles of malls and sell discounted stuff on a [mostly] cash basis or the Pakis who own 50% of the convenice stores or the Indians who are going to own 70-80% of the hotels in America within 5 years [accordinhg to some Indian expert on NPR].

Do you notice all these businesses are mainly cash [not reporting the cash income] businesses? Is this the 'grey market' some zh'ers talked about awhile back?

The other merikan entrepeneural Yutes may be considered to be the flood of drug dealers we get from across the border [and armed by Eric "F&F" Holder] and those from the Caribbean. They have a solid fighting spirit, you might say, and ususlaly make a killing int heir business.

 

So I don't think small business grote has dropped; it's just morphed ... modernized ... kept up with the times.

 

Sat, 01/03/2015 - 23:48 | 5619798 Seasmoke
Seasmoke's picture

Absofuckinglutely !!! I've been an entrepreneur since my 20s. I could never become one nowadays. It's a fucking disgrace. And yet the public takers do not understand why I think they are parasites. They never took a financial risk in their fucking lives. 

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 04:52 | 5620163 NihilistZero
NihilistZero's picture

What's with all the pussy whining???  There are tons of entrepreneurs today that beat the rules and the system just like they did 30, 50 and 100 years ago.  There have always been government, unions, etc that want control of the racket.  And don't gimme some bullshit that you always "played by the rules" and now the rules are to hard.  Pay people under the table, barter, skirt permits.  This has been going on forever and the hustling entrepreneurs realize higher profits by staying out of "the system" as much as possible and their customers get services at a lower cost and often better quality by the buy trying to go legit.  As a bonus you get to starve .gov :-)

Everyone wants .gov to protect their properties and interests, and then gets surprised when it becomes powerful and turns on their interests.   All you faggot "conservatives" who vote to put people in jail for drug use or fine someone for weaing a hoodie (see Oklahoma legislation) are getting EXACTLY the "powerful enough to take shit away from you" .gov you asked for.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 09:57 | 5620356 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

And your anecdotal observations support the data of the article how? Or it just us faggot conservatives that can read? But I do agree with your one contention. It is those who skirt the rules, the law, any scruples who get ahead. Please refer to the banks who have avoided ALL prosecution under the oversight of a "progressive" government.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 20:32 | 5621878 NihilistZero
NihilistZero's picture

It is those who skirt the rules, the law, any scruples who get ahead. Please refer to the banks who have avoided ALL prosecution under the oversight of a "progressive" government.

Exactly.  So join them and play to win!  To think this system has ever been, is, or will be truly equitable is beyond naive.

"Everybody says the Raiders cheat...OK, we cheat. So, what are you going to do about it?" - John Madden

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 13:23 | 5620735 Harry Balzak
Harry Balzak's picture

"What's with all the pussy whining???"  Because taking it up the ass like a good little govt-loving bitch doesn't change anything, you fucking retard.  

When a system becomes so onerous that skirting it becomes necessary to increase the liklihood of success, those that succeed become the bitches of the system's leaders.   The system's rulers know they can find some violation to get you and they use this power to blackmail.  

Essentially, the system's rulers use fear as a management approach, and their objectives are arbitrary and whimsical.  At the very least it creates an environment that's uncertain, destablilizing, and fraught with unquantifiable risks. 

But it's often much worse than this.  Not only are there unquantifiable and erratic political risks, but there are lies and deceits perpetrated by the leaders that must be accommodated, or even revered, with a religious level of commitment.  Failure to worship the leaders and you will be personally and financially destroyed, evicerated in public to provide political fodder for the battling oligarchs.  

A good example of this is Hobby Lobby.  I don't give a shit if you love them or hate them, but I do know that any voluntary contracts they choose to enter with service providers are none of your fucking business, nor are they the business of any predatory sociopathic politicians or MSM-types.  But TPTB have established a system where nobody even questions how the terms of HL's health insurance contract become national news for multiple weeks.  Instead, everyone passes judgement of the business (owners and management) and vilifies them--for reasons totally unassociated with the original point!  The argument morphed into one of hating women, not health care terms.  The intent of those that manufactured the issue was to impose severe pain on HL for questioning the oligarchs' political intent--the intent was to politically purge dissidents.  

Who the fuck wants to be in a situation like that?  Nobody with any sense.  Because the sensible response is to shoot the oppressive fuckers that are violating your rights.  Well, that will end your life.  Over fucking terms in a health care policy your giving to employees.  It's fucking insanity.  

This leads to a separation of the elites from the proles.  The elites distance themselves by being stupid fucking narcissitic assholes, but they have power to make themselves feared (which they misconstrue as respect).  They become pretentious (which they miscontrue as presigious).  They think they are worthy aristocrats, but they are just bullying tyrants.  

When the system is so corrupted that voting to remove these micro-managing douchebags is no longer effective, and one's rights to protect their volutary contractual agreements are eliminated,  it becomes my principled obligation to stop feeding the beast with the fruits of my intellect and productivity.  I see it as my duty to starve them, and pursue liberty on terms that are not within their control.  

Unfortunately, Obamacare sets the precendent that legitimizes government meddling at the individual level, in any way the government sees fit.  The intent is to politicize medical services based on data analysis.  They'll dole out health care services to those that comply with the religion of government worship, and withold it from those that don't.  It gives govt an endless supply of contentious issues to keep us fighting amongst ourselves and begging for their intervention.  Sort of the way you blow the racist dog whistle with the hoodie reference; you're one of govt's brainwashed bitches.  

You're right it's been going on for hundreds of years--until it doesn't.  This is how empires decline.  People that 'whine' about it are attempting to stop it.  Unlike elitist little you.  

I don't want or ask for government protection of my shit; I'll do it myself with either sound relationships or force.  Just keep your smug government-humping self out of my fucking way.  

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 20:36 | 5621888 NihilistZero
NihilistZero's picture

You're right it's been going on for hundreds of years--until it doesn't.  This is how empires decline.  People that 'whine' about it are attempting to stop it.  Unlike elitist little you.  Since when did it become elitest to accept the obvious and plan accordingly?  News flash, you ain't stopping shit or changing the direction of this chaos one iota.  Solipsistic thinking at it's worst.

I don't want or ask for government protection of my shit; I'll do it myself with either sound relationships or force.  Just keep your smug government-humping self out of my fucking way. I dare you to walk into your district tax office and tell them the same thing keyboard commando.  Like I said, fucking pussy.

Sat, 01/03/2015 - 23:49 | 5619799 joego1
joego1's picture

This trend is the saddest of them all.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 00:05 | 5619839 Arius
Arius's picture

the saddest?  wait, we have not starting yet .... i remember a couple of christmas ago, ABC had a nightline thing with some young kids saying they had to work part time jobs so to buy some gifts ... they were sure to remember this experience all their life ... wait until it starts ... i guess we are almost there by now, greece will be first to officially go ...

Sat, 01/03/2015 - 23:52 | 5619806 roddy6667
roddy6667's picture

How many of today's businesses created by today's young people is a social media or game or phone app that create nothing of lasting value? They are just faddish toys that temporarily transfer money from one person to another. 

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 10:41 | 5620416 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

If memories or enjoyment have no value, then we seem to chase them for no reason.

People create what they can...  A kid today, up to his eyeballs in debt with parents likewise (co-signers on the loans), cannot begin to amass the capital needed to create much of anything...  [and I'm not saying they would even if they could].  However, if creating a "productive" business in the classical economic sense was a requirement for any of us, then 90%+ of our economy wouldn't exist.  We could go back to rain dances, flint tools, and hairy beavers.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 14:58 | 5620971 scrappy
scrappy's picture

Hairy Beavers LOL, Big Bush Afro Style, Helicopter Pad, or landing strip?

Sat, 01/03/2015 - 23:55 | 5619814 lamont cranston
lamont cranston's picture

Let's not focus on newbies. What matters is the 2-5 yr old companies that say WTF I'm selling out or just quitting.  

Sat, 01/03/2015 - 23:58 | 5619823 denverdolomte
denverdolomte's picture

I'm 31, have owned my own business and was cut out by larger companies in my industry. It honestly took me hitting the lowest of lows and facing my biggest failures to find success. I am lucky I think to not have any family because I could never blame fear, because fear was not an option when you are faced with survival. It took all that for me to find my greatest success to this day, which I am grateful. 

 

To note I am always planning and strategizing my next moves and how to become self sufficient again. Many on here are right, it's just overwhelmingly not possible in the US of A anymore for the younger generations to upstart things, to much against every aspect of success. Another reason I've pointed my focuses outside of this nation into developing areas. 

 

Best of luck. 

 

Also is 2015 the year of the popcorn or the year of the sheep? 

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 02:01 | 5619992 JuliaS
JuliaS's picture

Business running requires full commitment and high risk tolerance - something I could deal with prior to starting a family, but can no longer do. Taxes, regulations and the overall economy don't help either. One might think that because of delayed family formation, there should be more risk takers out there - more entrepreneurs, but that's not the case. People actually have to get out of their parents' basement and taste life in order to mature mentally. Instead, at best, they're graduating out of parent dependency into government dependency - and government likes their brains one way: nice and soft.

Education no longer educates. Parents have no skills to transfer or no time to do so. I was taught electrical engineering by my father even before starting high school. I was hauling around an oscilloscope half my body weight to fix people's stereos and televisions. Oh, I could've started many companies in my lifetime. Instead I preferred doing contract work for cash. Didn't want to be controlled and regulated. The small business model is what "they" want me to do. The bank wants me to borrow. The government wants to tax. Obama wants his healthcare program to get financed, well, screw all of them!

My idea of a small business does not match their idea of a small business. I'll do what I want, and if they prohibit me, I'd rather do nothing, than feed the fucking parasites.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 02:36 | 5620065 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

The best small businesses are invisible. While I do have employees I would prefer none, working by myself, for myself. Personally I think we should all be independent contractors working as free agents. Wouldn't be grand if the government had to chase down each of us for our taxes rather than holding a gun to the head of a relatively few employers?

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 10:43 | 5620419 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

This is what will happen to all professionals in the new economy; we're all going to be independent contractors...  it's already well on the way.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 12:39 | 5620614 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

Bamster will squash that with one executive fiat order.. You will be controlled for your and the greater good.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 03:27 | 5620107 TeethVillage88s
TeethVillage88s's picture

Well lets look at business culture.

- Multiple levels of government, city, county, state, multiple federal
- Multiple Federal Agencies Regulate your Business
- Finance, Taxes, Environmental, Waste, Financial Partners or Donators, Political Interest Groups, Community Accusations ... all bring you under additional scrutiny & Direct Regulation

Question: What would a USA Look LIKE if we Simplified and Standardized... Regulations ... in order to protect from Civil Court Lawsuits from Citizens, from Government Lawsuits, and from being Blindsided by another government agency invoking it's rights on your self OR your business?????!!!!!

- Standardize
- Simplify
- Streamline
- Benchmark Court Rulings for Individual Rights, Business Practices, Recognize Small Businesses don't have the resources of Wealthy Opposition... and ARE THE CORE of US Economy.

But maybe I'm just a blow hard. S/

Sat, 01/03/2015 - 23:59 | 5619826 roddy6667
roddy6667's picture

The unfortunate thing about being an entrepreneur is that 4 out of 5 new businesses fail in 5 years. Of those that survive, 4 out of 5 of these also fail in the next 5 years. Of those that "survive", many owners are working very long hours for low pay, just to be able to say " I own my own business". They pay their own health insurance 100%. They get no 401K donation from their employer. In addition to doing the work, they have to find new customers or soon be unemployed.  At some point your wife packs up the kids and leaves. This is not a healthy or secure emvironment to raise children.
A small percentage make it and do well. They are like the guys at the casino who just won the slot machine. Lots of bells and whistles. You don't see the thousands who slink home broke.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 00:18 | 5619863 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

So, is your contention that this is the normal state of self employment or that this is what it has become? The history of humanity has not been based on an employer, especially in America. People came to this country, not for a job but for an opportunity. Corporations are a creation of government who in their infinite wisdom saw everyone with a "job" as progress. Government has pushed employers to offer more and more security. Unemployment insurance (which is not available to the self employed) was another step to dependency. The only thing to fear is NOT fear itself but the temptation of a security not within your own control. Depend on someone else to feed and defend you and what are you?

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 06:10 | 5620003 JuliaS
JuliaS's picture

Indeed, it wasn't always like that. Small business used to mean "family business" as in, your whole family was there with you helping out. Businesses used to make families stonger, but not anymore. Today one has to choose whether to be legally married or married to a career. Sure there are exceptions, but that's a general rule.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 03:38 | 5620110 TeethVillage88s
TeethVillage88s's picture

Just Like Stalin, Mao, and the UK 200 years ago...

- US citizens are Only Statistics to US Federal Royalty
- They Sell their Cousins and Descendents for Lobby Money
- It is Sickening to Examine the US Jobs Being outsources and have Borders Open to Bribery

Screw Wall Street & Money Trust & Washington DC Monopolies... but lets include Federal Reserve Monopoly as Corrupt and Racketeering as well.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 08:03 | 5620263 roddy6667
roddy6667's picture

I don't know the facts about then vs. now. I wouldn't advise anybody who wants to have a marriage and a stable family life to go into business for themself.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 10:07 | 5620371 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

And how much of that is due to the conditioning, the expectations implanted into the people regarding "security"?

When our country was largely agrarian, people dug their lives from the ground, living precariously between the whims of weather, luck and the markets, all while staying married and having five to ten children, all raised to work and expecting no handouts from anyone and suspect of those who offered.

See where I'm coming from here?

We have been "sold" the concept of safety. Not safety derived from living a conservative preparatory lifestyle, but of placing all of our faith in the government's power to protect us from physical and financial harm, for the small pittance of our freedoms and the surrender of a significant portion of our labors. Surprisingly, given our history, its been a pretty easy sell.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 10:59 | 5620449 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

The unfortunate thing about being an entrepreneur is that 4 out of 5 new businesses fail in 5 years. Of those that survive, 4 out of 5 of these also fail in the next 5 years. Of those that "survive", many owners are working very long hours for low pay, just to be able to say " I own my own business". They pay their own health insurance 100%. They get no 401K donation from their employer. In addition to doing the work, they have to find new customers or soon be unemployed.  At some point your wife packs up the kids and leaves. This is not a healthy or secure emvironment to raise children.  A small percentage make it and do well. They are like the guys at the casino who just won the slot machine. Lots of bells and whistles. You don't see the thousands who slink home broke.

This brings up an incredibly important point about entrepreneurship that is conveniently overlooked, if it really does just boil down to risk taking behavior (aka gambling), then why should it be so valued?  Why do we, as a society, choose to set up a situation where the people who recklessly throw capital away are eventually lottery winners?  I can't tell you the number of higher net worth (or highly indebteded) folks who I've consulted (or, alternatively, heard about and/or studied) who made their money from this cycle: open business that should have never been opened because it was destined to fail -> file bk/burn creditors -> find new creditor (often times a different side of the family - sometimes they only burn their own capital the first go round, so they can find creditors more easily the second) -> rinse, wash, repeat...  until -> finally chance into a business that hits big.

An entrepreneur can often very easily be confused with a degenerate gambler.  In our society, the risk and reward incentives are skewed heavily in favor of risk.  Even the worst entrepreneur often times pulls an incredibly healthy living out of the business (granted, it's creditors' money and this is why the business fails, but who's counting).  My understanding is in line with your figures regarding business failure.  This is not because the business environment is impossible, rather it is because certain people have figured out the risk:reward is skewed in their favor...  whether it hits or it doesn't, they'll probably be back trying soon enough.  The more lottery tickets you're able to purchase, the better chance you have of hitting the lottery...  live high on the hog in the meantime. 

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 23:04 | 5622292 roddy6667
roddy6667's picture

In capitalism, it is necessary for risk-takers to try new enterprises. Most will fail completely, a few will succeed in a limited fashion, and damn few will be successful. What is good for a capitalistic society is not good for the individuals starting the businesses, just for society in general. Sounds a lot like socialsim, doesn't it?

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 12:29 | 5620598 RabbitOne
RabbitOne's picture

What you must take into account is that many entrepreneurs’ often have multiple tries in business before they have a winner. One tool and die shop owner I sold a large order of computers told me that that business was his sixth go around. The first time it was poor capitalization, then came the divorce with the first wife, then there was the bust in the auto industry he supported, then he took on too big an order that got cancelled and killed the business and then came the divorce of his second wife. During each succeeding business failure he told me “ …I started socking the big profits after taxes away in my rainy day fund that was not part of the business… that was my restart fund… It worked!…” 

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 00:08 | 5619844 Zero Point
Zero Point's picture

Go East young man.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 00:22 | 5619876 Hubbs
Hubbs's picture

Fertile ground for the resurgence of socialism/communism.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 00:22 | 5619879 teslaberry
teslaberry's picture

most small business government loans go to big business like fortune 500 style that apply for them and get them either by subterfuge, connections, playing the game, or otherwise. 

 

that is how government and central planning do. 

 

and don't you asshole libertarians think that just because you want all that to stop, shoudl it come to pass, that suddenly small business will recover. 

 

systemic change , as for alchoholics seeking recovery to become abstinent, requires a period of painful transition for everyone. 

and as usual the people on the bottom get hurt the worst, and the unprepared even more so. 

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 00:29 | 5619887 WTF_247
WTF_247's picture

I do not think the problem is in "not wanting to fail," the issue is that there is nothing to fall back on if one does fail.

If someone has a steady job at a good company, why would they leave to try it on their own?  20 years ago, 30 years ago, failure was no big deal - you could either try again OR simply go back into the job market and get another job.

The problem today is the get another job aspect.  You used to work in marketing. You quit and cannot get your old job back, cannot get hired elsewhere (they see a "12 month hole" in your employment, not interested, also see that you failed on your own and that weighs negatively big time on your prospects).  

Since you quit your other job you do not qualify for unemployment, if you paid yourself anything in your venture you MIGHT qualify for the bare minimum unemployment in some states.  You are now homeless for trying to be an entrepreneur.

There is no easy way to dig yourself out of the hole to try again.  Most successful entrepreneurs try multiple times before they are successful.  But in order to do so you need some sort of security that you can go back into the workforce to save money to try your hand again or at least that it can be recovered from.  When that is gone, so are the opportunities.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 00:41 | 5619903 Fuku Ben
Fuku Ben's picture

As I understand it garages and basements of the 80's are out in America. But prison pin stripes are the all-in accoutrement of the 2000's

Its much easier for the black robed servants of Saturn to control the masses when 1/3 of the population has a criminal record. You can pretty much get just about anyone to rat out the information you need whenever you want it

Stealth start-ups finding employees that will fear a NDA over going back to prison must be a bitch

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 00:43 | 5619904 besnook
besnook's picture

this is the way things used to be. after i got kicked out of the corporate economy in the stagflation 70s i had a swimming pool maintenance and repair business started with zero dollars becaue the guy i bought it from was getting out of the business and allowed me to pay on time 7x revenues. i left that business becaue it was a 365 day/year job with no vacation time. it is still my favorite business, however. no stress, decent money and half naked chicks sun bathing plus a few horny housewives. i wanted to get into contracting the plumbing part of pool construction and figured i neede a good six months worth of money cushion to get started. i was in south florida and cab drivers were making 100 cash everyday during the tourist season. that was a lot of money back then when new college grads could expect a starting salary of 13-15000. getting into that business cost me 1000 dollars for a car and 150 bucks for paint. the permit, insurance and dispatch was paid by the week and maintenance on the car was simple back then. i also employed a few guys to drive other cars i owned. all cash!

from there i got together with a buddy and started a messenger business using contract drivers. we supported a decent living for 6 drivers and us on a 500000 gross revenue. that cost a car, warehouse rental and a phone to start up.

when the ex blew up i trashed the business so she couldn't get anything in the divorce and because of the wage garnish thing for child support i entered the shadow economy buying and selling anything from cars to realestate until i started trading online with datek in '97(?) until now. trading was a godsend to me. i could still do what i wanted(since i started driving a cab i would tell people the difference between me and them was i didn't have to go to work in the morning if i didn't want to or the fishing was good).

i would never start a business today. it is way too much trouble especially if you have employees but all the regulations that a big company can hire someone to take care of are a real pain in the ass to a small guy. that is the real problem. it is ironic that big business complains about regulations stifling business but they will never complain about the laws that create barriers to entry to their business which they wanted passed. those barriers stifle a lot of small money startups because of the initial capital requirements.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 05:40 | 5620194 OhNo
OhNo's picture

I really liked what you had to say.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 06:48 | 5620231 dreadnaught
dreadnaught's picture

so are you saying you gypped your children out of child support?

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 15:44 | 5621077 besnook
besnook's picture

considering she never let me see my daughter and i spent 50 grand trying to enforce my rights to no avail. fuck her!

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 00:36 | 5619905 TeethVillage88s
TeethVillage88s's picture

Was it CIA or NSA Op?

- New Operation honeymoon in Florida, with Prince Andrew
- Jeffery Epstein, financier, Island Home, Fitted with Secret Cameras, Underage Girls, Prostitutes
- Age of Consent in Florida 17 Years old
- Under age Girls Images found in Epstein Home in 2006
- Epstein Guilty in 2008

"They add that Virginia Roberts’ claims that she was forced to tell Epstein all about her sexual encounters so he could use the information to “blackmail” the royal."

"There is no suggestion that Prince Andrew knew Virginia Roberts was being held as a sex slave by the tycoon and she claims she first met the royal when the financier took her to Europe and North Africa in 2001."

"Prince Andrew – who was photographed with Virginia Roberts during a party in New York – was holed up in a luxury ski chalet in Switzerland on Saturday."

"Prince Andrew holidayed with Epstein in Thailand in 2001 and was snapped surrounded by topless women on a yacht."

- Globally the Age of Consent tends to be around 15 years of Age, but the case has so much other organization in Criminal Behavior... with documentation which could Blackmail the Royals & other important People not just from the USA or UK...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-andrew-been-secretly-filmed-...

- "The financier, who was jailed for 18 months in 2008 after pleading guilty to solicitation for prostitution, kept a sickening stash of images on a computer seized at his Palm Beach mansion in 2006."

- “On the Day of his arrest, police found two hidden cameras and photographs of ­underage girls on a computer in the defendant’s home.

- “[He] may have taken lewd ­photographs of Jane Doe 102 with his hidden cameras and transported [them] to his other residences and elsewhere.”

- "Jane Doe’s claims against the Prince come after she joined three women in a lawsuit against prosecutors, claiming they broke the law by failing to consult them before signing a plea deal for the tycoon."

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 00:44 | 5619913 besnook
besnook's picture

the best part of that story is they snared douche bag dershowitz the ethnic cleanser.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 01:03 | 5619933 TeethVillage88s
TeethVillage88s's picture

I didn't even know Andrew. I feel like a dup. I'm still too Naive.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 08:02 | 5620262 roddy6667
roddy6667's picture

You mean Dershowitz who beat his first wife so bad she had to be hospitalized? She was later found underneath a bridge in NYC, dead in the water. Suicide, he said. She died from a blow to the head from a "log in the water" that was never found. Many cops these days say that if it happened today, it would be determined that she was dead when she hit the water and that Dershowitz murdered his wife.

Now he is a Harvard professor and the choice of lawyers for anybody who is charged with murdering their wife. Remember OJ?

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 09:49 | 5620345 Miss Expectations
Miss Expectations's picture

Should we charge him with solicitation for prostitution or for running a sex slave ring with young teenage girls?

Answer:  The former president and the queen's son are ok with the solicitation charge as long as all the photographic evidence gets permanently misplaced.

Wait for the unfortunate news that all the photographic evidence was somehow destroyed by a low-level guy at some Florida evidence warehouse.  Maybe a flood or a fire or a catastrophic accident (fire ball) of a transport truck?  

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 17:29 | 5621347 TeethVillage88s
TeethVillage88s's picture

Exactly what I was thinking when I posted the above.

The Set-up looks like racketeering. And since he is a wealthy financier, and the Royal Family was already involved, everyone wanted to bury it. Plus we don't know all the other Elites and Wealthy people involved with the Defendant. That is another reason to try to make it go away.

- It is DOJ & FBI Job to fully prosecute and investigate anything that looks like Racketeering
- Looks like the State of Justice has fallen along with the Democracy as it was
- Interpol?? MI-6, MI-5??

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 00:38 | 5619906 holdbuysell
holdbuysell's picture

A twofer:

You didn't found that.

We disenfranchised some folks.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 00:45 | 5619915 besnook
besnook's picture

fear of failure is what drives a real entrepeneur.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 00:51 | 5619919 williambanzai7
williambanzai7's picture

Fear of failure?

Fear of regulations is more like it.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 13:29 | 5620756 malek
malek's picture

Whew. At least one person here got it!

Thanks, WB7

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 01:15 | 5619945 DaveA
DaveA's picture

Why start a new business? If you fail, you'll be ruined. If you succeed, your "surplus wealth" will be voted away from you by the now-permanent majority of bureaucrats, pensioners, and welfare parasites, and whatever they miss will go to your ex-wife.

Regulation + taxation + disloyal women = men not giving a fuck. Women insisted on taking our jobs, let them also create those jobs and pay the taxes they voted for.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 02:36 | 5619968 besnook
besnook's picture

i used to tell feminists i didn't understand why they wanted to work for a living because it was such a pain in the ass. i told them i would love to stay home with the kids, piddle in the yard, take the kids to school and go golfing or fishing with my fellow house husbands after cleaning up the house. cooking is a hobby of mine so that was no problem and dishwashers are worth their weight in gold.

funny how none of them considered stay at home mommying with that perspective. they usually called me names and swore they would never support a man. lol

i also encouraged them to burn their bras since a natural pair of tits hidden only by a tshirt was hot.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 03:03 | 5620091 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Refer back to articles from yesterday about Bernays and how he manipulated young feminists to smoke cigarettes. They were duped, just as the rest of us were. Its a tough world but modernity has been especially mean for women. While we all can appreciate freedom, there is a certain liberty in just knowing what is expected of you. For women today they have no idea. They find themselves under pressure to be the mother/homemaker and also be the CEO of HP. The expectations are nearly impossible compared to fifty years ago. Of course men are confused as well trying to be the Man while also being in touch with our inner feelings. Ultimately we live in a time in which we are self absorbed in our own reflections, while finding ourselves in a world in which we have no idea what is expected of us and women have it the worst.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 12:16 | 5620567 WmMcK
WmMcK's picture

You've come a long way, baby.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 06:11 | 5620210 OhNo
OhNo's picture

Fuckin AAA+

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 01:20 | 5619948 Bill of Rights
Bill of Rights's picture

Obama ( Nail ) Care ( Coffin )

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 01:20 | 5619950 Catullus
Catullus's picture

Not worth it. The bullshit about it is the regs and taxes. The government takes no risks, gets paid their corporate income taxes, and you may make nothing. They pay themselves first. Then tell you how wonderful they are

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 02:06 | 5620019 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

I read a nice posting by a small business guy once that stuck with me. He said he and his partner started a fairly nice business and at the end of the year they split everything equally. One third for himself, one third for his partner and one third to the government.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 02:50 | 5620079 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

It used to be called paying for protection. Of course even then you were paying to not be "protected" by your protector, as it is now.

When our protector comes to our door we know we are in trouble.

Its odd. Its like a owner that constantly kicks his dog and then is irritated that the dog won't come to him willingly and not without his tail between it's legs. Of course the owner gets bit sometimes but they always put the dog down. After all, he is the "owner".

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 01:42 | 5619982 Haloween1
Haloween1's picture

It's no wonder they cannot compete.  Growing up they got gold medals for participation.  Everyone's a winner!  Yay!

 

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 01:45 | 5619991 WTFUD
WTFUD's picture

Doesn't take a college degree to establish WHO owns 90% of the commercial buildings/offices on any major high street. . . . and these landlords are the only fucks making any money in any calendar year.

Still have always shied away from bricks & mortar commerce as the astronomical fees and poncy .Gov certs and permits , even to take a crap in your disabled friendly shitehouse is laughable.

These largecorps selling 'tainted ' meat products get a slap on the wrist but the small cafe owner only requires one complaint to have a swat team surround his business, ha ha.

No beef to grind (pun ) but as a regular patron of fine and not so fine dining i feel sorry for the small businessman working long hours to break-even.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 16:36 | 5621180 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Freedom never comes cheaply. Many of us self employed do so not for riches but for a sense of independence, of freedom, in a very dependent world. Nothing is absolute about freedom, but the difference is the sense of possibility versus none...exactly what we see growing amongst us today. Our economy fails when we see no possibility of success.

Redistribution at high enough levels kills that sense of possibility, something progressives will never understand as they see anyone who would actually work for security, or God forbid get ahead, as someone mentally damaged, flawed, and as such both an inextinguishable source of productivity AND a symbol of everything wrong with the world. Simply livestock, of low intelligence such that will never have a meaningful spot in society, yet very tasty indeed, even if a bit smelly. Tolerated and subjugated but never respected or considered relevant beyond what they bring to the dinner table.

As one of the livestock it pisses me off considerably to listen to these fucks trying to explain how evil I am if I don't want to fill their plate.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 01:55 | 5620001 DipshitMiddleCl...
DipshitMiddleClassWhiteKid's picture

small businesses are being regulated out of existance

 

in nj a few months ago they passed some law that required resturant owners to make their waiters an extra 7k a year if they didnt meet the minimums in tips or something.

 

its pretty sad watching this country being gutted..the way it is now is either be lucky you have a corporate job or be on the fringes cuz theres nothing in between..be on top or be on bottom.

 

happy new year everyone!

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 02:06 | 5620020 cherry picker
cherry picker's picture

It is far more difficult today for a few other reasons.  What can a person develop that isn't already out there and being sold cheaper than what it would cost to prototype, get to market and so on?

One hundred years ago women washed clothes by hand for the most part.  Look at everything we have today we take for granted, from washers, dryers, automated fridges, freezers, micro waves, water purification, and so on.  Automobiles really don't need any servicing compared to what was common a few decades ago.  There are all kinds of tools available now that didn't exist a century ago.

People can take their own pictures or movies and they are processed immediately and sent off via email.  I used to have a printer a few years back.  Don't even need one anymore.

Same reason so many  are under employed today and why the agriculture community require so few workers as compared to the past is automation.  Being a wife, having ten babies and keeping a household a century ago was absolute slavery.  Now a woman with two children holds a job, has time to go on face book, watch television and have an affair.  A man works at a desk for 40 hours a week and considers that difficult.  A century ago he had to get the raw materials from the land to build his home with.

There was so much that was invented and sold in just one hundred years, the only thing a person is missing today is a robot slave that will work for him or her and have the wages deposited in the owners account, where another robot slave will shop and look after its human owners.  And that is being worked on today.

 

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 06:35 | 5620228 OhNo
OhNo's picture

Bullshit, We are missing for the last 100 yrs is free enegy. the rest is bullshit. Its called Problem -Reaction- Solution

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 07:19 | 5620241 darkpool2
darkpool2's picture

Sorry, but couldnt disagree more ! Yes, technology adoption has eliminated the laundry option, but look around you at home and work.....literally dozens of opportunites staring you in the face for providing technology application and implementation. If my current business ceased to exist tonight, my problem in the morning would be WHICH new business to start. ( and gee, dont whine about the tax rates......they only apply to the wage slaves......)

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 02:31 | 5620060 Villageidiot777
Villageidiot777's picture

You can find a lot of mobile and innovative young entrepreneurs in shady parts of the town. That is probably the best way to make money nowadays, risks are smaller than in normal small business where taxman gets the money you have in hand and also the future earnings.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 02:54 | 5620080 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

The only way to play to win is to write the rules or play outside of them. We dupes playing by other's rules are fools waiting our turn to fail.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 03:11 | 5620097 LetsGetPhysical
LetsGetPhysical's picture

Of course young people are worried about risk. You can't get a job at Home Depot without a background check and a 700 credit score.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 10:07 | 5620373 TeethVillage88s
TeethVillage88s's picture

Risk?? That is Police State & Big Brother.

- Fascism Writ Large

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 03:16 | 5620101 livefreediefree
livefreediefree's picture

Before I retired, I worked for myself for 15 years. Man, it was hard, but I earned my ZH avatar.

Wealth redistribution destroys capitalism. The radical left's lockgrip on the culture destroys capitalism. K-16 propaganda destroys capitalism.

The only solution to the lack of entrpreneurship in the USA is to pare gov't down to size. Ain't gonna happen. Conservatives and the Tea Party were wildly successul in the 2010 and 2014 elections, and we get Boehner and McConnell, establishment Republicans who love earmarks, said earmarks only possible when gov't gets bigger? Fuck. "Elections have consequences", Obama said. Well, they mighta used to have consequences.

None of the current group of potential Republican candidates is Reaganesque enough to slay the big gov't beast. My God, the country is just aching for someone to slay that beast. The only chance we got is that The Crash happens on Obama's watch.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 06:40 | 5620229 dreadnaught
dreadnaught's picture

again, every penny of food stamps, welfare, social security etc....ends up in the hands of the rich-it just takes time-the corporations that own this county WANT IT THAT WAY:FASCISM

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 03:16 | 5620103 123dobryden
123dobryden's picture

it would be intereting to see china's or russia's numbers

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 03:39 | 5620114 q99x2
q99x2's picture

Very true article. I don't see how to do it again unless it is through software and a one person "individual" operation. Anything big gets taken over upon notice; anything small has difficulty starting. I'm not discouraged yet but cautious of wasting money.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 05:51 | 5620116 are we there yet
are we there yet's picture

I am a 66-year-old entrepreneur that succeeded from the Bill Gates era. Looking around I get the impression that high IQ Young white guys with work ethic are getting rare. My gut feeling is that our countries demographics of the past produced our business innovations of the past, but that has declined now permanently.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 06:34 | 5620227 dreadnaught
dreadnaught's picture

dont refer to Gates as a hero- he stole every idea he got...and whacked a few kneecaps on the way up

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 06:48 | 5620230 OhNo
OhNo's picture

Really Gates is Cia fuckin aaa, everthing you know is a lie, You only have to look at that pussy,he's as smart as me not shiting my pants in the morning after a big night.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 12:23 | 5620590 EternalAnusocracy
EternalAnusocracy's picture

@ there yet
Your observation is correct. For some reason, almost every homeless bum that I see with a "homeless veteran" or "hungry, God bless" sign is white. I cannot remember ever seeing a Hispanic bum begging for food/beer money. Something has surely happened to the American white in the last few decades. I suspect that the destruction of the white family due to high divorce rate has something to do with so many whites being homeless bums in the usa. The contrast in bum rates is most significant between whites and Hispanics. While hispanics are poorer, their stronger family structures perhaps prevents them from becoming homeless bums with signs around their necks.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 06:18 | 5620139 guidoamm
guidoamm's picture

The arithmetic underpinning the monetary syestem, in time, can only lead to the monopolization of industry and business thus stifling new company creation.

By legally imposing the use of one arbitrary medium of exchange, the owner of the currency has a defacto asymmetrical purchasing power advantage THUS will progressively, but in a compound manner, arithmetically absorb all profits from the productive economy hence will assume ownership.

The key to understanding this asymmetry is as as follows:

- Individuals are obligated under penalty of law to make use of one arbitrary medum of exchange

- The owner of the medium of exchange has no reciprocal obligation to guarantee the exchange value of same

The owner of the currency thus merely lends to society the use of money at interest.

The arithmetical reality is therefore, that regardless the state of the economy or the persuasion of the incumbent government, the owner of the currency will always and everywhere expand the monetary base and credit.

In expanding the monetary base and credit, the owner of the currency erodes the purchasing power of the currency thus it raises the cost of living

As the cost of living rises, purchasing power is eroded and savings are depleted

As purchasing power and savings erode, electoral politics ensures the expansion of government by pandering to interest groups

As government expands and purchasing power is eroded further, taxation increases

As taxation increases, the regulatory environment becomes gradually more complex

As fiscality and regulation become more onerous, barriers to entry rise and government expands further

Rising barriers to entry lead to the monopolization of industry and business.

Monopolization of industry and business stifle the creation of new enterprise

Monopolization also drives the off-shoring dynamic

Off shoring and declining company formation make the population ever more unemployable just as government expands by leaps and bounds

Declining company formation, rising unemployment, and expanding government eventually put a dent into fiscal revenue

Declining sovereign fiscal revenue and purchasing power drive the hardening of foreign policy and, eventually, domestic policy

Thus the militarisation of civic institutions and aberrant and aggressive foreign policy

http://www.citylab.com/work/2014/05/rate-new-business-formation-has-fallen-almost-half-1978/9026/

Everything is driven by the monetary system. A system that is imposed unilaterally and arbitrarily. . True freedom, stems from maintaining possessions of one's skills and ideas. . When we exchange our skills and ideas for a medium of exchange that does not legally belong to us and that is depreciated deliberately and aggressively, eventually we are dispossessed of our property. . True freedom can only stem from maintaining possession of the fruit of our labor and ideas. . This monetary system precludes property a priori. The progression to divestment may be slow but it is ineluctable. . http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capital...

 

 

 

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 13:02 | 5620670 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

Guidoamm, that was beautiful, forwarded to those interested in true freedom

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 04:47 | 5620160 kanoli
kanoli's picture

In addition to the risk, the tax burden on a small business is unbelievably high.  Social security plus, FICA + state income tax starts at 40% and only goes up from there.  For a new business having to cough up 40% too much.  The 15% on Social Security is levied no matter how small your income is, even if it is say, $10,000 in a year.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 09:48 | 5620344 headhunt
headhunt's picture

plus mandatory healthcare 'tax'

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 05:06 | 5620172 Eurodollar
Eurodollar's picture

The socialists are winning :(

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 06:31 | 5620226 dreadnaught
dreadnaught's picture

yeah-the National Socialists -where Corporations run the state, and fund themselves from it; ie: the Bankers

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 05:23 | 5620178 Panic Mode
Panic Mode's picture

Young entrepreneur my ass, the stuff they create are part of fueling the credit bubbles.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 05:30 | 5620186 botegaveneta
botegaveneta's picture

Canada Goose Ausgang Sie schüttelte ihm
wollen" Deshalb, "sparsam. hey, wie begabt Sie so ungeduldig, zu beschlagnahmen, was wre es goss so viel Leidenschaft und sind nicht aufzuhalten Einkommen auch! ich bitte Sie ", sie schüttelte ihm die Hand und sagte:" Bitte , mich zurückzuhalten! Ihre Weisheit, Wissen, wird Ihr Talent ermglicht es Ihnen, alle Arten von Glück zu bekommen! auf eine würdige Mann, eine Frau kmpfen, um aufzugeben Anhang, um ihn neben ihr Mitgefühl für Sie, knnen Sie nicht über den Umfang zu treten. "- Er bekommt Zhne blitz finster anstarrte. - Sie schüttelte ihm die Hand. "Bitte denken Sie dar.Canada Goose Ausgang über gelassen, Victor!" Sie sagte: "Sie nicht denken, Sie tuschen sich, die bereit sind, sich selbst zu zerstren Warum muss mich lieben, Victor Warum Liebe mit mir passiert Ich habe eine andere Person Mann, das ist genau, warum ich liebe ich fürchte, ich fürchte, ich habe so viel Versuchung für Ihren Wunsch, nur weil du mich nicht bekommen kann. "- . Er zog seine Hnde von ihren Hand, whrend die Unzufriedenheit mit trüben Augen anstarrte. "Clever", rief er, "sehr klug vielleicht Günstige Canada Goose Jacken lehren d.Canada Goose parka iploma volle diplomatische !!" - "Wer wird sagen", antwortete sie, "Ist die Welt gbe es keine Ein Mdchen kann dich entschlossen, nach Ihren Wünschen, und ich schwre dir, finden Sie; dies, whrend Sie in dieser kleinen Welt der Not zu frnen, so würde ich für Sie, für Wir besorgt. entschlossen, reisen, werden Reise sicherlich Sie meine Sorgen in ertrinken! Sie finden es, werden Sie ein anderes Objekt zu machen, die Sie lieben zu finden, wenn Sie zurückkommen, lassen Sie uns gemeinsam die reale Die Wrme der Freundschaft.Canada Goose Deutschland . ""Worte knnen wieder gedruckt werden soll, wird empfohlen, alle Familien der Lehrer," spottete er: "Lieber Canada Goose Deutschland Bitte lassen Sie mich ein wenig für eine Weile still, alles wird gut !!" - "Nur eins Vor Canada Goose, Weihnachts Sie nicht kommen! "- er zu beantworten war, als Günstige Canada Goose Jacken kam ins Zimmer. Sie kalt einander ein "Gute Nacht", Kinder Schulter Pacing im Ra , Sie wissen, ist die Vergangenheit, wie gro Ihr Krper! Heute ist, dass die einzige merken Sie sich Ihre vie.Canada Goose Jacken kaufen r bemoosten Grabsteine, ein Baum im Wind Heulen und einer Prise Gras verdorrte Laub sagen Jger, hier ist majesttisch Morales Grab. Keine Mutter weinen für Sie, liebe nicht das Mdchen weinen für Sie, die Sie Ihren Schülern, die starben, die Moge Lan Yu Hong Verbrauch Tochter schon Meteoriten zu erziehen.Zhu kam einem Stock Person, die ist Wer ist es, der alte weihaarige alte Mann, seine Augen waren rot vom Weinen Oh, Morales, er ist dein Vater, er ist nur eine Person, die Sie nur S.Canada Goose Damen ohn. Er hatte gehrt, dass Wal-Mart die Sie auf dem Schlachtfeld, er gehrt hatte, dass der Feind Sie vernichtend geschlagen, floh in Panik, er hatte Morales Herrlichkeit gehrt! Oh, wei nicht, wie er verwundet wurde Kuba, Vater Morales, weinen! Aber Ihr Sohn Ihr Rufzeichen zu hren. Kopfstütze ein verstorbener Sphenomorphus Staub, schlafen tief und schwer. Er wird nie hren anruft, werden Sie nie in der Lage, ihn zu wecken ist. Wake up: Oh, das Grab, wenn der Morgendmmerung einen guten Schlaf wurden bestellt! Leb wohl, e. Canada Goose www.cagoose-outlet.com delste Mann, der grte Held auf dem Schlachtfeld! Aber sehen Sie nie auf dem Schlachtfeld heroisch, Sie Huaguang blendend Schwert, das nie leuchten düsteren Wald. Sie müssen nicht, um meinen Sohn zu verlassen, aber Ihr Name wird gesungen Lied, lassen die künftigen Generationen von Ihnen zu hren, hren Morales starb nach Ruhm des Landes. - Heroes alle Trauer, Weinen Trnen, wird der Ton am lautesten Amin Durchdringendes Heulen. Er erinnerte sich an den Tod seines Sohnes, starb sein Sohn, als positive Jugend. Ausgezeichneten Ruf Gamal Kamal Knig wurde neben dem alten Helden sitzen. "Amin, warum so traurig" Er sagte: "Warum in dieser Schrei Hren Sie sich diese melodischen Gesang, nicht machen süe reiz Singen als Rouman Nebel steigt aus dem See, da das Tal gefüllt, nhrende Blüte Blumen, wenn die Sonne wieder warf seine Macht, den Nebel auf alle zerstreut, warum so traurig, Amin, die Sie durch das Me
kanadische gans Parka

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 08:20 | 5620277 Manipuflation
Manipuflation's picture

That was a long ways go to say you lost to Canada in Hockey.                 

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 10:05 | 5620370 TeethVillage88s
TeethVillage88s's picture

Looks like creative writing. I first thought it was a poem about a Canadian Goose, but didn't translate it.

Anything that long is either Satire or an endorsement of something.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 15:21 | 5621013 scrappy
scrappy's picture

They are really SEEKONKS, not Canadian Geese.

Canada stole them and named the geese after themselves.

http://www.seekonk-ma.gov/pages/index

Right on the logo.

East Providence RI was also SEEKONK until 1852 or so. See Logo

http://www.eastprovidenceri.net/

Bastards.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 06:03 | 5620208 WTFUD
WTFUD's picture

' Gotta pick a pocket or two . . .'

Central Government strips you naked then local government bites at anything that's left.

Look on the bright side , 100/150 years ago in the UK you were one of 50+ servants of the landed gentry living and working 20 feet below the foundations of a palace earning 2 shillings and 6 pence a week and fed a bowl of dripping with left over crusts.

What did you ask for MOAR?

Gotta pick a pocket or two.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 07:10 | 5620238 Lookout Mountain
Lookout Mountain's picture

Krazifornia. Live here because for family reasons. I'd have to be krazy to start a business here.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 09:47 | 5620340 headhunt
headhunt's picture

Yes you would be an enemy of the state - except for the tax income, they like that.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 08:20 | 5620275 Batman11
Batman11's picture

The US is no longer the land of opportunity, the cake has been carved.

The land belongs to a few families and a new aristocracy is forming as wealth concentrates in fewer and fewer hands.

It is the history of Europe, centuries ago.

 

 

 

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 08:42 | 5620289 Batman11
Batman11's picture

In the US you still have the belief that wealth is earned.

 

In the UK the richest person is the Duke Of Westminster, a member of the old aristocracy.

Once he had navigated his way out of the birth canal, his lifes work was complete.

 

 

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 09:16 | 5620306 Batman11
Batman11's picture

Now the cake is carved and the new aristocracy in place it is time for the US empire to fade and hand over to a land where there is plenty of cake up for grabs, China.

The Fate Of empires:

http://www.rexresearch.com/glubb/glubb-empire.pdf

suggests this process takes ten generations.

China your clock is ticking, make the most of it before your aristocracy stiffle all dynamism.

 

 

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 09:18 | 5620310 Batman11
Batman11's picture

China, if you can do away with inherited wealth and power, this concentration will not occur and you will be immortal.

But the Chinese are human too, their fate is sealed.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 09:46 | 5620338 headhunt
headhunt's picture

"if you can do away with inherited wealth" - exactly what the commies in the US crave - 'you didn't build that' meme.

Fuck off to all the commies.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 11:50 | 5620517 cynicalskeptic
cynicalskeptic's picture

Without limits on inheritance wealth becomes more and more concentrated in a smaller and smaller rentier class that ends up owning EVERYTHING.  The rest pay rent for the whole of theior existence serving and working at the pleasure of the 'owners'.

Something is really screwed up when the 7 Walmart heirs are worht more than 40% of the rest of the US COMBINED.  Paying their workers a living wage - instead of having them collect food stamps (gov funded subsidies ) would benefit the country far more than building an art museum in Bentonville Arkansas.  

Hell..... the Walmart heirs don't even kick into the Walmart Foundation cheap bastards

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/06/03/report-walmarts-bill...

Inherited wealth stifles creativity and productivity - it's astounding how fast even those that actuially EARANED and WORKED FOR their money forget how hard it can be to get there. Right after 9/11 I was at the sedding of tghe daughter of a corporation CEO's daughter.  The guy had started as a regular worker but now - at the top - had just laid off 5000 workers and collected a tens of millions of dollars bonus (the workers later had to be rehired because necessary work could not be done without them).  He flew guests into NYC on private planes, must have spent $250,000 on flowers alone and gave his daughter and son-in-law an apartment on West End Ave as a wedding present.

I knew someone who made the Forbes 400 list - and their philanthropy list as well (not too common). Came from nothing, married well but made his fortune on his own after being thrown out of his fil's business.  Worked his ass off building a business.  Shared profits witjh employees - ALWAYS left money on the table in any transaction.  Believed you did better by letting others make money WITH you.

His kids were wealthy from thier grandfather - trust fund kids.  One works as a teacher - give her credit.  The others... one lives in hotels and travels the world.  One fancies himself a financial expert - Russian mail order bride.. bitches about not being left enough to also cover the taxes on his (substantial) inheritance. Hell he tried to oust his father from the business - he's lucky he got anything.   The one more distant relative still in the business has a nice mansion, 20 car garage and is on his 3rd wife.  Only job he ever had before was as a truck driver.  

Make allyou can - providing you do so without scheming and cheating and screwing others or manipulating the system.  REAL capitalism - better product at better price in an open competitive market.  BUT there should be a limit to what your family can inherit.  Carnergie and the Robber Barons ALSO left a legacy of funding good works - though you can argue they could have done better by sharing more of their profits with their workers.  Guys like the Koch Brothers do all they can to hold ont what they inherited - and get MORE - while buying their way into the upper echelons of 'society.'   They could care less about the people working for them.   Typical of the Rentier Class. 

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 13:04 | 5620680 SamuelMaverick
SamuelMaverick's picture

     " BUT there should be a limit to what your family can inherit." 

 

You are a true dumbass. Who do you suggest make that decision ? You ? Your neighbor ? Me?  Fuck off statist. Why not let them just inherit whatever they get.  I forget the percentage, but most inherited wealth usually gets ALL spent in one generation. 

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 16:50 | 5621229 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Why does it matter to you what the Waltons have? Is your lack of money because they hold it all? I thought we lived in a world where if money was short they simply printed more.

If you can convince me that any inherited wealth represents a threat to my existence, I would be willing to listen. The thing is that I perceive the problem of wealth is not how much anyone has but what they are allowed to do with it. With our constitution and laws, the deleterious effects of wealth can really only come in to play through the corruption of government, and this should be our area of focus.

Government has used corruption as an excuse to tax wealth when they should be more concerned about HOW that money was earned, and WHAT it is being used for. The exact role government is supposed to have. Instead we see billions of dollars being amassed by financial thieves and the best our government can do is fine, or tax them for a cut of the action. Perpetrating bank fraud is not the same as building a manufacturing business or world wide retail company. To treat all income the same is an insult to those who do work, and a green light for the fucking thieves that are directly and indirectly profiting form the corruption surrounding our government.

Capitalism in a free market is fully capable of sustainability, only requiring transparency, accountability, and laws to prevent fraud and monopolistic activities.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 09:50 | 5620346 TeethVillage88s
TeethVillage88s's picture

USA still has the Monroe Doctrine that States it will take military action for it's interests in South America, Central America, and the Caribbean.

- Amazon has lots of Firewood & resources
- Many Business Opportunities could be Viable with Cheap Oil/Shipping or a willingness to use Energy to ship from other parts of the Americas

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 09:14 | 5620307 ThisIsBob
ThisIsBob's picture

Problem is that these "studies" include the entire population.  If you exclude the economically worthless food eaters on EBT, conclusions might be a tad different.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 09:26 | 5620316 insect0man
insect0man's picture

Generation XBox is more interested in beating the Wolf of Wall Street's high score than it is in actually producing something of value.

Who taught them that?

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 09:30 | 5620319 dizzyfingers
dizzyfingers's picture

"Young people have less confidence..."

I think they have their eyes wide open and know the score. Theirs is the "other peoples' money" that's promised to the the free shit army.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 09:35 | 5620328 TeethVillage88s
TeethVillage88s's picture

Yes, Why start a business when you see so many losing so much on Health Care, Housing, Retirement, Pensions, and Education??

- Sure if you are leaking cash, starting a business can be an answer, but don't expect K-12, Teachers, or College to teach you what you need to know

- and Millions of Americans are still under water on basic housing they bought into
- and Millions lost homes and went into foreclosures on a simple thing that every American is trying to do

Who is responsible for this CON Game? And when will it END??

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 09:32 | 5620322 VAD
VAD's picture

Part of the problem is that the government-controlled school system teaches kids to be dependent thumb-suckers, not independent thinkers.  They are preparing kids to be "workers" in the jobs of the future, which, conveniently, will be replaced by robots soon.  We have an entire generation of lazy, hand-sanitizing, germophobic, video gamers who think that money comes from the government and food comes from McD's.  When the time comes that the only thing between them and starvation is digging a beet or carrot from the ground with their hands, they'll starve.  So you can forget about average kids starting businesses.  It's not even in their limited vocabularies.  A small cadre of well-connected Ivy Leaguers will be the only ones with the werewithal, and they'll just start hedge funds and not anything useful anyways.  

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 10:37 | 5620411 Element
Element's picture

 

 

We have an entire generation of lazy, hand-sanitizing, germophobic, video gamers who think that money comes from the government and food comes from McD's.

 

Thanks for that, as I was reading this article I was wondering did anyone consider the possibility that people weren't so much scared of failure, but merely very, very lazy, and unmotivated by seemingly unattainable incentives like desire for financial security, being your own boss, and always making your own job, and the job you want, instead of the one you can get?

Why no laziness index? Does anyone really believe it's not a factor? Not kewl to ask for the truth?

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 12:05 | 5620550 cynicalskeptic
cynicalskeptic's picture

A small cadre of well-connected Ivy Leaguers will be the only ones with the werewithal, and they'll just start hedge funds and not anything useful anyways.  

 

Pleeze.... this small cadre starts out with every advantage in life - including substantial amounts in the bank and NO debt - working for family or friends.  Those 'connections' made it possible for them to get through prep school, into the right colleges and find jobs on grtaduation - advantages that can't be imagined by those still believing in a meritocracy.  they are taught connections count - not skill, ability or intelligence.  A good number of them are dumb as rocks and would be hard presed to earn ANY living if on their own.  They sure don't work hard in the sense most know - drinking hitting strip clubs and staying out all night with 'clients' is NOT 'working hard'.

I was working graveyard one night at a gas station working my way through school.  some 20 year old ass in a Porsche came tearing in - drunk.  Overshot, backed up and took out a gas pump, starting a fire.  I got the extinguisher, put it out.  NO CHARGES of any kind - the car wasn't even properly registered or insured - he'd bought it a week before.  Daddy was a hedge fund guy in Greenwich.  Paid off enough to 'smoothe things out'.

Arrogant little shit.  Is probably worht a few hundred million at this point.

 

At a party a few decades back - mostly attorneys - high end top tier guys worht a fortune.  Talking about having work done on their houses.  One asshole said 'I have a way to deal with contractors - A third up front, a third half way through and don't pay the last - let 'em sue... I can outlast them'    so.. the peopel that do the work - real physical labor get screwed because this guy can play the system to his advantage... There's a reason so many people won't sell their house to lawyers.  They know they're likely to get screwed in one way or another.   ONe seller a while back turned down offers from 2 attorneys - sold to a 'connected' guy ('alleged' mobster) instead.  Quite happy  with the transaction - no Mickey Mouse BS - was treated well.  lol.....

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 09:39 | 5620332 headhunt
headhunt's picture

Communism at work.

'Multiculturalism' at work.

Fascism at work.

All according to the leftist wankers plan.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 09:52 | 5620347 T-NUTZ
T-NUTZ's picture

The essence of the entrepreneur is that big black brother in NYC that got ganked by the pigs for selling "loosies".  This is what happens when you try to start a business...

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 09:55 | 5620355 T-NUTZ
T-NUTZ's picture

Why should I start a business when I can go butt rape muppets and make millions in bonus on wall st?

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 11:24 | 5620486 Secede Or Die
Secede Or Die's picture

T-NUTZ....WRONG! This is not what happens when one starts a business...it is what happens when you live in a area where the State thinks they own you and use evil, oppressive tactics to control you. Don't confuse the two.

Mon, 01/05/2015 - 09:25 | 5623093 gcjohns1971
gcjohns1971's picture

Area where...?

You mean planet earth?

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 12:05 | 5620548 WmMcK
WmMcK's picture

Loose cigarettes will become the only change you can believe in once the nickle is stripped of Cu.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 09:53 | 5620353 lordbyroniv
lordbyroniv's picture

How can an entrepreneur  startup compete with venture capital and financing?  Fact is, the not necessarily best idea is financed by all this free money and competes with someone wanting to start up a business on the net.  So who is likely to win,...the guy who throws $50k into the better idea or the pool of money that can raise $60M in the blink of an eye?

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 09:59 | 5620358 Incubus
Incubus's picture

Work in a place dealing with the "underprivileged," and you quickly gain insight as to how they'll take whatever they can--same as your wall street types.

 

Predatory mentalities prevail and shape society.  People are products of the society they're from, and right now there's a whole lot of people are bad fruit. 

 

Change perspective and you change a person.  Kicking out bad men is only going after the symptoms.  The "society-fixers" need to be called in.  And I'm not talking about ivory tower fuck-wits.

 

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 10:02 | 5620367 Bill of Rights
Bill of Rights's picture

Fact, liberals destroy everything In Their path including achievement . Look around folks it's right in front of you.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 10:51 | 5620440 lex parsimoniae
lex parsimoniae's picture

"Graduates have less appetite for risk"

Perhaps graduates have been conditioned to eschew an entrepreneurial path because Marxism is being taught in our Universities.

 

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 10:08 | 5620374 Fix It Again Timmy
Fix It Again Timmy's picture

Oh yeah, government - any organization that relies on theft for 100% of its revenues is an abomination and can create nothing but chaos....

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 10:24 | 5620389 Brutlstrudl
Brutlstrudl's picture

My idea was to sell loose cigarettes on the street. Over regulation killed that one.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 10:32 | 5620404 NoWayJose
NoWayJose's picture

But isn't the MAIN purpose of QE supposed to be that the Fed gives cheap money to banks so that those banks will LEND it to young entrepreneurs at an affordable rate?

Or is this like mortgages, where the Fed-broken rates are so low that banks do not want to lend to any 'risky' loan requestors?

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 10:38 | 5620414 Imagery
Imagery's picture

The SOLE purpose of QE was to recapitalize the banks slowly by stealing from your savings, ie, financial repression.

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 10:36 | 5620407 Last of the Mid...
Last of the Middle Class's picture

It's not that TBTF have grabbed up every possible transaction and put it on their books while going to their legislature friends to protect it and ensure that no one else can do the same, it's that the young people have "a low appetite for risk".   Jeez does anybody seriously believe this shit?

Sun, 01/04/2015 - 10:49 | 5620429 Imagery
Imagery's picture

I'm 50.  Worked Corp 'Murica for 10 yrs out of college then after being laid off, hung my own shingle for last 20 years.  The ONE THING IMO that has destroyed Entreprenuership in USSA is the return to the "robber baron" days of old.  What i mean by that is that the Legislature and Judiciary has become so corrupt and willing to trade bribes for obstacles to entry that the entreprenuer can not overcome.  That has protected the big US COs.  That strategy has been expanding for last 30 years now.

Add to that the TBTF WS Banks, thru their subs, come into Hollywood, then Housing, and now my industry - US E&P, with their "Portfolio Cos controlled and wholly-owned by PE Cos" and the entreprenuer can not possibly compete with TBTF's Unlimited Access to Free Money at the Discount Window that can be charged off to the US Taxpayer on Losses while profits are kept private.

The US is the WORST EXAMPLE a person could use as a Free Market, Capitalistic structure where Entreprenuership thrives.

 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!