5 ms·

>If it were true that people are "ruined" because they were involved in a failed business, capitalism couldn't work. You must be very young or very naive. Peop

>If it were true that people are "ruined" because they were involved in a failed business, capitalism couldn't work. You must be very young or very naive. People are ruined by failed businesses all the time. The thing you're missing is that the people continuing the churn of business creation are not the same ones who were ruined by it. If you seriously think there is no human cost when businesses fail you're simply delusional.

true_religion 9y ago
I think you are reading the comment too literally. It's a generalism. If (everyone) were ruined by a failed business, capitalism wouldn't work (the way it currently does). Theoretically, if you fail at business, you are allowed to try again and again until you succeed. The consequence of repeated failure isn't so harsh that it's a once in a life-time shot.
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  Very theoretically. Typically a medium or small business owner is bankrupt forever. This is why people gamble with VC money.
racer-v 9y ago
If you seriously think there is no human cost when businesses fail you're simply delusional. There's a human cost, but your life isn't over because your business fails. I used to wonder how investors could throw themselves out of 10th floor windows after finding their shares had become worthless, whereas other folks who never owned any stock feel great. The delusion is attaching your sense of self-worth to your balance sheet. Also for future reference, your post is a rude ad-hominem attack defending a straw-man argument. If you have something to contribute, please don't mask it with hostility.
- Sangermaine 9y ago
  >There's a human cost, but your life isn't over because your business fails. It very well might be, because losing your business can mean losing everything you have, including your home and your ability to pay for food. For many small business owners their business represents everything they have. >I used to wonder how investors could throw themselves out of 10th floor windows after finding their shares had become worthless, whereas other folks who never owned any stock feel great. Because it's not about having or not having stock, it's that those people found they had nothing left, while someone who never owned stock still has their job and their home. Imagine waking up tomorrow and learning that over night you lost all of your money and assets and you might see why this could break someone. I'm guessing you're someone who's never had to face the real possibility of homelessness or going without food because you can't afford it, and on top of that knowing there's no clear way out of that situation.
  - racer-v 9y ago
    > someone who never owned stock still has their job and their home You've completely missed the point: people who have never owned a home or even had a real job still wake up every day and experience the joy of life. It's about not basing your happiness on things that can be taken from you. > I'm guessing you're someone who's never had to face the real possibility of homelessness or going without food because you can't afford it, and on top of that knowing there's no clear way out of that situation. Again you persist with ad-hominem attacks. You have absolutely no idea who I am or what I've been through, so please don't speculate idly.
    - Sangermaine 9y ago
      >No, you're wrong and you've completely missed my point. Nope, I got your point, you're just repeating a naive view of the world because you yourself have never faced hardship. This is the same kind of comment I see from well-off libertarians who wonder why the poor can't just move elsewhere. If you can't see why losing everything and having nothing left to survive can make people despondent, you're not capable of having a discussion about people.
      - racer-v 9y ago
        > you yourself have never faced hardship First, this is wild and irresponsible speculation on your part. Second, it doesn't address the plain, objective fact that a person can continue to be happy and have a meaningful life after going through an experience of losing everything. Are you categorically stating that after a person goes bankrupt, or hungry, that their life must be ruined? That there's no point in even living? > If you can't see why losing everything and having nothing left to survive can make people despondent, you're not capable of having a discussion about people. It's a fundamental truth that your reaction to an event determines how you feel, not the event in itself. You have the power to not let your feelings be determined by external events. This is not a lack of sympathy for the despondent - it's the essence of hope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If%E2%80%94#Text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If%E2%80%94#Text
darawk 9y ago
Of course there's a human cost. That's the price you pay for progress. People chose to take risks, some were rewarded, some weren't. That's life.

true_religion 9y ago

I think you are reading the comment too literally. It's a generalism. If (everyone) were ruined by a failed business, capitalism wouldn't work (the way it currently does). Theoretically, if you fail at business, you are allowed to try again and again until you succeed. The consequence of repeated failure isn't so harsh that it's a once in a life-time shot.

AstralStorm 9y ago
Very theoretically. Typically a medium or small business owner is bankrupt forever. This is why people gamble with VC money.

racer-v 9y ago

If you seriously think there is no human cost when businesses fail you're simply delusional. There's a human cost, but your life isn't over because your business fails. I used to wonder how investors could throw themselves out of 10th floor windows after finding their shares had become worthless, whereas other folks who never owned any stock feel great. The delusion is attaching your sense of self-worth to your balance sheet. Also for future reference, your post is a rude ad-hominem attack defending a straw-man argument. If you have something to contribute, please don't mask it with hostility.

Sangermaine 9y ago
>There's a human cost, but your life isn't over because your business fails. It very well might be, because losing your business can mean losing everything you have, including your home and your ability to pay for food. For many small business owners their business represents everything they have. >I used to wonder how investors could throw themselves out of 10th floor windows after finding their shares had become worthless, whereas other folks who never owned any stock feel great. Because it's not about having or not having stock, it's that those people found they had nothing left, while someone who never owned stock still has their job and their home. Imagine waking up tomorrow and learning that over night you lost all of your money and assets and you might see why this could break someone. I'm guessing you're someone who's never had to face the real possibility of homelessness or going without food because you can't afford it, and on top of that knowing there's no clear way out of that situation.
- racer-v 9y ago
  > someone who never owned stock still has their job and their home You've completely missed the point: people who have never owned a home or even had a real job still wake up every day and experience the joy of life. It's about not basing your happiness on things that can be taken from you. > I'm guessing you're someone who's never had to face the real possibility of homelessness or going without food because you can't afford it, and on top of that knowing there's no clear way out of that situation. Again you persist with ad-hominem attacks. You have absolutely no idea who I am or what I've been through, so please don't speculate idly.
  - Sangermaine 9y ago
    >No, you're wrong and you've completely missed my point. Nope, I got your point, you're just repeating a naive view of the world because you yourself have never faced hardship. This is the same kind of comment I see from well-off libertarians who wonder why the poor can't just move elsewhere. If you can't see why losing everything and having nothing left to survive can make people despondent, you're not capable of having a discussion about people.
    - racer-v 9y ago
      > you yourself have never faced hardship First, this is wild and irresponsible speculation on your part. Second, it doesn't address the plain, objective fact that a person can continue to be happy and have a meaningful life after going through an experience of losing everything. Are you categorically stating that after a person goes bankrupt, or hungry, that their life must be ruined? That there's no point in even living? > If you can't see why losing everything and having nothing left to survive can make people despondent, you're not capable of having a discussion about people. It's a fundamental truth that your reaction to an event determines how you feel, not the event in itself. You have the power to not let your feelings be determined by external events. This is not a lack of sympathy for the despondent - it's the essence of hope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If%E2%80%94#Text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If%E2%80%94#Text

darawk 9y ago

Of course there's a human cost. That's the price you pay for progress. People chose to take risks, some were rewarded, some weren't. That's life.