atlas shrugged...

http://youtu.be/P36x8rTb3jI

 

fi·nan·cier noun \ˌfi-nən-ˈsir; fə-ˌnan-, ˌfī-\
Definition of FINANCIER
: one who deals with finance and investment on a large scale

Providing capital to run a business, by yourself or with others (as in a hedge fund), is investing. Investing is speculation. That speculation is necessary for business development.

 

Right On!!!

 

I'd like to unplug from America as well, but it has less to do with taxation and more to do with how the rich run things here.

 

Apparently he was working after the Bush tax cuts. His retirement is not a response to them and so not a commentary on their ability to incentivize investment and production. I believe it's harsher demands on business like Obamacare and increased taxes that are incentivizing people like this to opt out of many U.S. based business ventures.

 

Obamacare hasn't put any demands because it hasn't kicked in in any significant way.

Obama hasn't raised taxes on business one dime. In fact, he's cut taxes by hundreds of billions.

I believe you just will blame Obama regardless of the facts.

 

I believe you'd apologize for PrezBO despite the facts.

 

The first new tax on business from Obamacare started in July 2010. Obamacare also includes a tax on pharmaceuticals, $2.5 bilion this year. It also includes a 2.3% excise tax on U.S. manufacturers of medical equipment like Boston Scientific.

The federal insurance regulations Obamacare imposed in 2010 that prohibited insurance companies for continuing certain policies and requiring them to include pre-existing conditions was predicted to raise insurance costs 47%. My companies medical insurance costs went up 46%. I believe other companies were effected also.

The Obamacare regulations that kicked in this year demanding medical loss ratios cap at 85% basically killed the mini-med plans that part time workers in the restaurant industry depended on. Major restaurant chains scrambled at the end of 2010 and about 30 were issued temporary waivers that will allow them more time to transition their people into government plans by 2014.

Boston Scientific announced last month it's laying off over 1,200 workers. Coincidentally, they are also investing $150 million and hiring 1,000 people in China.

*shrug*

 

Stragely enough.... I was talking to a friend not long ago, about what would I want to do if I had enough money to do anything. I thought long and hard about it.... and this is what I would really want....

I want to buy a private island. One that has fresh water, and enough land to grow crops on... and has game and fish to hunt as needed. And on that island I would construct an exremely sturdy house. Not a bunker, but a really nice home built to withstand almost anything. Something that would laugh at a stage 5 hurricane. Then I would store enough food there for a few years, and have enough solar, wind, tools, etc, that I could be energy independant for a long time if I needed to be.

I think just having such a place to go would give me such a sense of calm in my life. Even if I one day lost everything that I had.... I still have a place to go, and can not only survive... but be quite comfortable for long periods of time. The stock market could go down to zero, bird flu pandemic could break out, some strange war breaks out, and I really do not care. If at any time the world get a little strange... I have a place to go.... drink some high quality whisky (oh yes... there will be a collection of 30 year old Glenfiddich there ) and on my off the grid sattillite TV, watch CNN and see how it is going to shake out.

And if nothing should ever occur in my lifetime... well then... it makes a great summer vacation place. One that can be passed on to my children one day... and I could not think of a greater gift to give anyone... the gift of ultimate calm in their lives...

 

I like that.........with a couple of ARs,glocks and maybe a winchester 370 for (*)(*)(*)(*)s and giggles....

 

Something else to consider...while there are not a lot of folk out there who are behaving as the Op's premise, we can read every day in about every economic paper that companies are sitting on trillions in capitol and refuse to use it for growth.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/14/AR2010071405960.html

I contend this is 'going Galt' in a massive way. Businesses are acting to NOT do the things the political class demands until government stops screwing with those businesses. This is a demand for regulatory reform and predictability. In addition, it is a plea for government to return to the realm of legal activity. When they rewrote bankruptcy law on the fly to protect the unions, businesses and investors noted it. When the NLRB illegally stepped into the Boeing factory location issue, businesses noted it. They noted the printing press and the government picking winners and losers and are saying...LOUDLY...for anyone willing to listen...that they will not play until government gets out of their way.

 

Have you looked at the markets lately? Rich folks right now are investing in the market equivalents of a mattress. Not businesses, not jobs--they're just shoving their ill-gotten gains into stable assets and hoping for the best.

The lie that the rich somehow "invest" more than they steal is absurd. They're always net job destroyers, not job creators. We'd be better off without them.

Except it doesn't really work like libertarian fantasy ideal world does. In reality, the rich take the money we give them with tax credits and use that to buy more stable assets, or invest in more profitable offshore opportunities. Nothing here, nothing that creates jobs for Americans. The idea that tax cuts create jobs is a laughable and cruel joke, and it would only be true if we had a protectionist economy.

 

Like I said, you leaving means more room for me in the market; everyone who chooses to depart is less competition.

 

When people earn most of their income from privilege rather than hard work and effort, yes, I call them lazy. Sitting on their ass "taking risks" with other people's borrowed money is not hard work. Getting other people to do your work for you while you live it up in luxury is not hard work.

 

Fine, let them fail. If lazy galt-like individuals want to bow out of the economy, there will always be people like me willing to step in and start taking parts of the market they're conceding. There's nothing I'd love more than for the big players to get out of the way.

 

That's funny, I have the opposite opinion.

Working eight hours a day for someone else is very easy. Taking a steady job for a steady paycheck is easy. Taking no risks and simply doing a job for someone else is easy.

Risking everything you have is hard. Figuring out how and where to put your money, knowing that if you choose wrong you could lose everything is difficult. doing without luxuries - like new TVs and cars - so you will have money to invest is difficult.

Being a wage slave is the easy way out. Taking responsibility for your own income, development and future is difficult.

 

Who is "sitting on their ass"? What businessman sits on their ass? Do you know how many hours the average businessman (or woman) actually works? I guarantee you that my boss works more hours than me.

 

I've worked for others, and I've owned my own business (three of them, actually, at various times). By far the easier of the two was business ownership, because I had more to comfort myself with at the end of the day.

Spare me the dramatics. No one but personally-managed small business owners put themselves in that position. I wasn't even addressing them, since they earn their money from the aforementioned hard work and personal labor. I was talking about the people who collect on privilege, not the people who actually work for a living. Even if that small business owner earns a lot, he's not in the same category, unless he stops managing his business and starts earning most of his money from investments or ownership of rights.

When I'm talking about "taking risks with other people's borrowed money", I'm not talking about someone putting their own personal savings on the line to start their own self-managed business. Totally different groups of people.

No, it's not. Maybe I'm just addicted to being an entrepreneur, but I don't find it difficult at all. I have no problems giving up buying toys if I know I'm putting the investment into something else I own. The comparison is absurd, and if you really view investments you make into your own business as a personal sacrifice, you probably don't have the right mindset to be an entrepreneur. I sure as hell don't view the investments I've made in my businesses as "sacrifices", because they weren't losses.

 

I'm not generally talking about the people who are owner-managers of a business, or management who owns shares of the company. I'm talking about investors who have no hand in the day to day running of the business, but collect on the profits nonetheless. There's a difference between rich people who actually work and rich people who pretend to work. I don't begrudge the workers their wages, even if they are high, I begrudge the privilege-leeches their cut.

You will never see the people I'm talking about at the office.

 

If Atlas does shrug, it won't be the privleged investors who leave. John Galt was an engineer and inventor, not some kind of leech in the so called privileged investor class. Henry Rearden built his steel factory from the ground and personally created his new innovation "Rearden metal" so he doesn't quailfy either. Included among the individuals in Galt's Gulch were a Banker, judge, composer, artist, actress, heart surgeon and truck driver just to name a variety of professions. Did you picture a bunch of wall street investors all sitting around playing cards with their time after taking their dividends and interest and leaving us? No sir, that isn't even close to the scenario Ayn Rand portrayed.

 

John Galt's rationale for leaving was based entirely in his view that the government was interfering with his privilege.

His problem with the government was also the government's attempt to break his privilege.

What I envision for Galt's Gulch is a group of disgruntled lazy privilege-seekers who got mad that the government was breaking whatever privilege they had, no matter how small. Genuine businessmen aren't going to just give up and do nothing when the government threatens to take another 3%.

What doesn't make sense about Rand's book, and why I call Atlas Shrugged unrealistic, is that it ignores the compulsive entrepreneurs. It assumes that no person will run a business except to pursue privilege-seeking behavior and rent. Rand's portrayal of people ignores the fact that the absence of these businesspeople would just create incentive and opportunities for younger entrepreneurs, and there would always be more to replace the Gulchers.

Rand's portrayal was based on her objectivist fantasy ideal world, not reality. It was a book, with a rather contrived scenario, not an accurate reflection of reality. In practice, there would always be plenty of people like me who would react to gulchers not by complaining they're gone, but rather by cheering the departure of competition and all the new markets to enter.

 

If these people contribute so little to the management of these borrowed assets, one has to wonder why the people who own that money lend it to them. *shrug* Then again, the folks who do that loaning own their money, what they do with what they own is none of my business -- or yours.

 

What privilege? What are you even talking about?

 

You are not noting the obvious...Those companies are not failing..they are making money but salting it away. They have figured how to survive in Modern America...take no risks, gather cash, hire as few as possible and wait for the idiots who govern/regulate us to 'Get It'...

 

The left views money/wealth as governments. Galt's 'privilege' was his desire to keep the results of his own efforts while government wanted to use it for their own purpose...

To the left, getting ahead is only possible through government permission.