Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[robp135]

Please.
Yes, there are some incredibly smart and imaginative people, but sorry, most of them are skilled in the art of fleecing the brilliant and the best of their ideas, and harvesting them into enormous wealth.
I'll tell you what though, I'd love the chance to test the hypothesis. I'll bet you great actionable ideas remain abundant...it will, always, be about who backs what horse and why (or simply about very wealthy entities and people 'taking' the intellectual properties)...

In a hypothetical world where all the billionaires are sent to an island, we would soon enough have new billionaires who would display the same level of greed that we have taken issue with. It is a universal human problem, not something confined to a particular type of person.

 

[thfcsteff]

In a hypothetical world where all the billionaires are sent to an island, we would soon enough have new billionaires who would display the same level of greed that we have taken issue with. It is a universal human problem, not something confined to a particular type of person.

This I sadly do wholly agree with.

 

[robp135]

what on earth makes you think i would limit wealth creation to billionaires? Absolutely barmy post.

I’m just adding to what you said mate.

 

[johnaliola]

Please.
Yes, there are some incredibly smart and imaginative people, but sorry, most of them are skilled in the art of fleecing the brilliant and the best of their ideas, and harvesting them into enormous wealth.
I'll tell you what though, I'd love the chance to test the hypothesis. I'll bet you great actionable ideas remain abundant...it will, always, be about who backs what horse and why (or simply about very wealthy entities and people 'taking' the intellectual properties)..

Steff how much value, economic value does a brilliant idea have if there is nobody who can turn that into a business success?

Where we differ is you dismiss these people because of the immense success they have- whereas that is the reason I value them- not because of the wealth per se. That is a worthy talent and it is creating value.

That gym shark case is very small beer and the sort of risk a business should be taking. Don’t confuse these people with say Russian Oligarchs with dead bodies piling up around them.

 

[Mikey10]

I have a suggestion. Let all the billionaires go to an island. Luxury of course. Let's call it billionaires island (catchy).

Didn’t this island idea already happen (although I think you got the name wrong)?

 

[Rorschach]

Didn’t this island idea already happen (although I think you got the name wrong)?

View attachment 23378

I think that one was called Kompromat island

 

[thfcsteff]

Steff how much value, economic value does a brilliant idea have if there is nobody who can turn that into a business success?

Where we differ is you dismiss these people because of the immense success they have- whereas that is the reason I value them- not because of the wealth per se. That is a worthy talent and it is creating value.

That gym shark case is very small beer and the sort of risk a business should be taking. Don’t confuse these people with say Russian Oligarchs with dead bodies piling up around them.

I think, mate, you have made a gross assumption as to why I dismiss these people.

The accumulation of wealth is occasionally a 'talent' and more often than not the product of embedded systems and mechanisms designed to keep certain bodies in place.

I understand how it all functions, what I lament is how often these people co-opt adopt the ideas and creativity of others without giving the originators ample reward or credit. The ones I have seen tend to present themselves as the geniuses behind whatever it is they're financing and helping grow.

WHEN it functions in sympatico - when the brilliant idea meets the financial angel who brings it both to fruition and huge levels of success - I think it's a great thing and BOTH parties should enjoy that success publicly. Sadly, more often than not, the entities paying for the idea tend to forget those who actually had it. Worse still, there are many occasions where they move in and crush a small business in order to take that idea and 'make it their own' (Microsoft received a reputation for allegedly doing that).

I do not dislike immense success whatsoever, in fact I celebrate it. Sadly, that success all too rarely comes to the people who actually had the idea/concept, and all too rarely gets recognized, instead becoming the bragging right of a corporation of HNI.

The Gymshark case? I see nothing of worthy success there, and I see little of genuine creative talent beyond knowing how to manipulate people via social media.

I would also add that your last line is somewhat confusing, as we are currently witnessing a union between that sort of individual and several billionaires, much to the danger of all of us.

 

[robp135]

I think, mate, you have made a gross assumption as to why I dismiss these people.

The accumulation of wealth is occasionally a 'talent' and more often than not the product of embedded systems and mechanisms designed to keep certain bodies in place.

I understand how it all functions, what I lament is how often these people co-opt adopt the ideas and creativity of others without giving the originators ample reward or credit. The ones I have seen tend to present themselves as the geniuses behind whatever it is they're financing and helping grow.

WHEN it functions in sympatico - when the brilliant idea meets the financial angel who brings it both to fruition and huge levels of success - I think it's a great thing and BOTH parties should enjoy that success publicly. Sadly, more often than not, the entities paying for the idea tend to forget those who actually had it. Worse still, there are many occasions where they move in and crush a small business in order to take that idea and 'make it their own' (Microsoft received a reputation for allegedly doing that).

I do not dislike immense success whatsoever, in fact I celebrate it. Sadly, that success all too rarely comes to the people who actually had the idea/concept, and all too rarely gets recognized, instead becoming the bragging right of a corporation of HNI.

The Gymshark case? I see nothing of worthy success there, and I see little of genuine creative talent beyond knowing how to manipulate people via social media.

I would also add that your last line is somewhat confusing, as we are currently witnessing a union between that sort of individual and several billionaires, much to the danger of all of us.

Feels like your taking what happened with Elon Musk and Tesla and applying it to most startups that go on to become successful companies. Sure there will be other examples but that is not typical at all.

Usually the founder remains the face of the company and invovled operating the business even after they have willingly accepted funding in exchange for equity and ultimate control.

But having a brilliant concept is not the same thing as creating a successful business. You have to hire the right people who understand regulations as well as building out distribution, marketing and sales networks.

They have to adapt and scale because the way you run a business that employs 5 people is different to how you run a business that employs 5000 and needs an entirely different style of leadership.

Thats why investors and private equity are not simply “paying for the idea.” They are also providing the knowledge of how to scale and make the business commercially viable.

They are also providing taking the financial risk. If that pays off, the founder will usually become extremely wealthy. The employees that helped build the company will have been paid well, may have equity themselves and can take that expirience forward in their careers.

Scaling to that level that would have not been possible without the investment of money, resources and knowledge which an individual founder is unlikely to have.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

Hotel tax idea works and about time we caught up with the world there.

Nominal amount that history shows has no impact on tourism numbers but helps to improve local tourism services and also goes back into a promotions pot which is used to gain more visitors or events.

Decent move IMO

 

[johnaliola]

I think, mate, you have made a gross assumption as to why I dismiss these people.

The accumulation of wealth is occasionally a 'talent' and more often than not the product of embedded systems and mechanisms designed to keep certain bodies in place.

I understand how it all functions, what I lament is how often these people co-opt adopt the ideas and creativity of others without giving the originators ample reward or credit. The ones I have seen tend to present themselves as the geniuses behind whatever it is they're financing and helping grow.

WHEN it functions in sympatico - when the brilliant idea meets the financial angel who brings it both to fruition and huge levels of success - I think it's a great thing and BOTH parties should enjoy that success publicly. Sadly, more often than not, the entities paying for the idea tend to forget those who actually had it. Worse still, there are many occasions where they move in and crush a small business in order to take that idea and 'make it their own' (Microsoft received a reputation for allegedly doing that).

I do not dislike immense success whatsoever, in fact I celebrate it. Sadly, that success all too rarely comes to the people who actually had the idea/concept, and all too rarely gets recognized, instead becoming the bragging right of a corporation of HNI.

The Gymshark case? I see nothing of worthy success there, and I see little of genuine creative talent beyond knowing how to manipulate people via social media.

I would also add that your last line is somewhat confusing, as we are currently witnessing a union between that sort of individual and several billionaires, much to the danger of all of us.

No assumptions I’m mostly focussed on what is lost when Rorschach’s Island comes to pass.

One recent example of what happens in one of these people’s absence is death. Mike Lynch is a good example and his death was a classic of the type - his ya hat sank as he celebrated his success in court against HP.

Well I don’t know that he was really the full Bond villain type megalomaniac, but I am completely sure he has contributed no wealth creation nor any enduring technology since he died and that is a loss.

On Rorschach’s Island you will be able to control how those people choose to waste their personal wealth, no contributions to politicians or their campaigns etc- yet there are other costs we should consider - we don’t get the full value of their wealth just by confiscating their stuff - this is the sole point I am trying to get across.

 

[thfcsteff]

Feels like your taking what happened with Elon Musk and Tesla and applying it to most startups that go on to become successful companies. Sure there will be other examples but that is not typical at

Usually the founder remains the face of the company and invovled operating the business even after they have willingly accepted funding in exchange for equity and ultimate control.

But having a brilliant concept is not the same thing as creating a successful business. You have to hire the right people who understand regulations as well as building out distribution, marketing and sales networks.

They have to adapt and scale because the way you run a business that employs 5 people is different to how you run a business that employs 5000 and needs an entirely different style of leadership.

Thats why investors and private equity are not simply “paying for the idea.” They are also providing the knowledge of how to scale and make the business commercially viable.
They are also providing taking the financial risk. If that pays off, the founder will usually become extremely wealthy. The employees that helped build the company will have been paid well, may have equit themselves and can take that expirience forward in their careers.

Scaling to that level that would have not been possible without the investment of money, resources and knowledge which an individual founder is unlikely to have.

Genuine question. Do you read my posts fully, or just take one area and use that as a springboard for replying?

I am aware of all the above Rob. I am, after all, a working adult.

You have totally missed both the point I am making and the situations I am describing.

Again, and repeating myself, to comprehend my point you should look under the hood of high-tech and then you'll perhaps get a better idea. Here - this sort of thing.

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-big-steal-9780197629529?cc=us&lang=en&

 

[thfcsteff]

No assumptions I’m mostly focussed on what is lost when Rorschach’s Island comes to pass.

One recent example of what happens in one of these people’s absence is death. Mike Lynch is a good example and his death was a classic of the type - his ya hat sank as he celebrated his success in court against HP.

Well I don’t know that he was really the full Bond villain type megalomaniac, but I am completely sure he has contributed no wealth creation nor any enduring technology since he died and that is a loss.

On Rorschach’s Island you will be able to control how those people choose to waste their personal wealth, no contributions to politicians or their campaigns etc- yet there are other costs we should consider - we don’t get the full value of their wealth just by confiscating their stuff - this is the sole point I am trying to get across.

It is a fair point of debate and discussion for sure.

 

[Rorschach]

No assumptions I’m mostly focussed on what is lost when Rorschach’s Island comes to pass.

One recent example of what happens in one of these people’s absence is death. Mike Lynch is a good example and his death was a classic of the type - his ya hat sank as he celebrated his success in court against HP.

Well I don’t know that he was really the full Bond villain type megalomaniac, but I am completely sure he has contributed no wealth creation nor any enduring technology since he died and that is a loss.

On Rorschach’s Island you will be able to control how those people choose to waste their personal wealth, no contributions to politicians or their campaigns etc- yet there are other costs we should consider - we don’t get the full value of their wealth just by confiscating their stuff - this is the sole point I am trying to get across.

It is not my island. But Billionaires Island will come to pass. In fact, it is progress already. These tacos think they can ride out the apocalypse in their bunkers. They are just building tombs for themselves.

My opinion is that wealth should be capped, and anything over a certain amount should be punitively taxed so that it becomes pointless to pursue. Billionaires are a mistake.