3 ms·

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 busine

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
      - jugad 9y ago
        > a person can continue to be happy and have a meaningful life after going through an experience of losing everything The life of a person who has lost everything is very different from a person who didn't have much in the first place. Whether it should be different or not can be discussed, but the reality for most people is that the 2 cases are very different. Regret and despair are very real and play a vital role in life after a big loss. I believe you and your parent commenter don't agree because you seem to be trivializing the issue a bit - in a way similar to how people who haven't been through big loss, or feel that because they got through it fine, so everyone else should also be able to do it as easily. It ignores the inherently different way in which people deal with such circumstances. > You have the power to not let your feelings be determined by external events. There are smart people who are unable to exert enough control over their feelings (even when they know the above idea). People are diverse and often biologically (or culturally or both) wired differently, and people who are a little lucky in the ability to handle such situations better often find it easy to wonder "how idiotic can the person be to commit suicide on losing everything" - just because they handle it better. ps: About people being wired differently, it is easy to see in certain aspects. Some people tend to panic more than others, and then there are those who have panic attacks under pressure. Then there are those who have an inherent bias towards one of either fight or flight.

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
    - jugad 9y ago
      > a person can continue to be happy and have a meaningful life after going through an experience of losing everything The life of a person who has lost everything is very different from a person who didn't have much in the first place. Whether it should be different or not can be discussed, but the reality for most people is that the 2 cases are very different. Regret and despair are very real and play a vital role in life after a big loss. I believe you and your parent commenter don't agree because you seem to be trivializing the issue a bit - in a way similar to how people who haven't been through big loss, or feel that because they got through it fine, so everyone else should also be able to do it as easily. It ignores the inherently different way in which people deal with such circumstances. > You have the power to not let your feelings be determined by external events. There are smart people who are unable to exert enough control over their feelings (even when they know the above idea). People are diverse and often biologically (or culturally or both) wired differently, and people who are a little lucky in the ability to handle such situations better often find it easy to wonder "how idiotic can the person be to commit suicide on losing everything" - just because they handle it better. ps: About people being wired differently, it is easy to see in certain aspects. Some people tend to panic more than others, and then there are those who have panic attacks under pressure. Then there are those who have an inherent bias towards one of either fight or flight.