Yes. Forbes 500 isn't all it's cracked up to be. If you own and control a significant share of your business, that's better than owning a tiny fraction of a huge company. And maybe you will grow your company and keep much of the equity in your hands.

Hello khalling,
You know the funny thing is, (although I did fine on my own) my Father's objection was the rock & roll company and late hours I was keeping, but later in life I really grew to appreciate him in ways my youth prevented me from seeing. I still miss him everyday.
Best wishes,
O.A.

I didn't and I never would claim that "no one" is honestly successful, but the higher ranks of modern society are composed of crooks from everything I've seen and heard and experienced. I'd personally never dream of cheating a customer or client but, then again, small businesses like mine are not likely to ever appear on the Forbes 500.

I'd forgotten about the Colorado Springs fab honestly... we bought the fab from Rockwell expecting the strong market to continue, but that was in 2001 and the market tanked and this expansion as well as a couple others were nixed. Intel was not the only company to abandon plans for expansion during that era, and in fact were in better stead than other semiconductor companies during this time. To play devil's advocate a bit, if Intel hadn't bought the fab then Rockwell likely would have shut it down and the result would have been the same.

I am also a die-hard capitalist, and don't condone it if the company left debt behind as you suggest (I do not know the details of the shutdown). But large company or small company, we need to remember that jobs created means tax revenue for the city/county/state it operates within. I believe in a set of rules that applies to all regardless of their size. Just as I believe that we all ought to pay a fixed percentage of our income in the form of taxes (no exemptions) and abolish the IRS.

they did it in Colorado Springs, 2003-04. This is well known. Their justification was they were so important, they did not have to play by everyone else's rules. Do not get me wrong. I am a die hard capitalist. I loathe cronies

I work at Intel, and in Hillsboro, OR we just made a multi-billion dollar fab expansion (typical fab is $5B these days) for limited production (made in USA) and next-generation process development, and hired a few hundred people to run it all.

I could be mistaken, but I don't recall Intel leaving town without paying bills.

ah, and here we go. anarchists in our midst. Without enforcement of property rights, each individual would spend the majority of his productive time protecting what he builds. Physically and intellectually. there is a moral argument to be made for a Constitutionally limited governmet to keep us from fiefdoms and city states which is highly inefficient and slows the advancement of technology, which is the main determiner in wealth increase for a nation. Objectivism refutes anarchy on a moral basis. This is a site promoting Ayn Rand's ideas

excellent analogy, OA.

I agree, one should not develop dishonest practices. But that is what a over-regulatory, crony environment creates.

many of those models fail. The fortune 500 trolls for best business breaks, takes advantage, hires-then lays-off, pulls up stakes and leaves town. Often the startup-who gets no tax break, fuels the local economy and does not lay-off-UNLESS hit by regulations, major financial event-oh-like their patents were just revoked due to a Supreme Court ruling that was onsensical. Look at HP and its expansions into communities, its subsequent lay-offs, and leaving town without paying its bills. Intel, etc. it's a grifter mentality

there is bribery for privately contracted systems. You of course would be violating peoples' rights if you denied them their property rights

I agree the gov't has huge problems, BUT it's wrong to say NO ONE is out there building wealth honestly by serving their customers and creating value for them. Many people are out here doing a good honest job for clients in spite of the gov't. The gov't doesn't make you cheat on taxes or hire illegals. They don't make things easy, but I reject it when people say they simply cannot succeed b/c of the gov't or they must adopt dishonest practices b/c of the gov't.

I agree, it's next to impossible for a business or individual to achieve big success today without "playing the game," which amounts to fraud. I think the only real solution is anarchy (getting rid of government). Getting rid of the free market wouldn't work, and the U.S. was an experiment in minarchism which shows where that route leads. I can't see how trying the same strategy again (a "constitutionally limited government") would lead to any different result. What could be changed to make a better outcome more likely?

That goes with economies of scale, which is consistent with (most of) the principles espoused here. If I'm a larger business, I can lose money in one portion of my P & L and overall still be profitable.

And as for favoritism, I have heard the same complaint about the company I work with getting "unfair tax breaks". Those who make the argument seem to forget that those deals usually occur during a planned expansion where businesses are making the best decision for the shareholders on where to locate the expansion. They also forget that those expansions generally mean more workers being hired, which contributes to the tax base. Something the statists require more of by the moment. So on one hand they complain about "unfair tax breaks" while very quietly enjoying the benefits of the expansions those tax breaks bring.

True, but the strength and scope of their influence depends in part on the legal and cultural mechanisms that are in place. For example, outright bribery of public officials is already outlawed, as it should be. Other legal safeguards, such as increased transparency, could also be implemented in a manner that does not violate anyone's rights.

Hello RGrimes1987,
My Father used to say "as long as you live under my roof..." So I moved out when I was seventeen. I am independent and therefore emancipated. I need no one to lord over me. The Statists can ... well, I am to proper to say what I really want from them.
Respectfully,
O.A.

It would be really hard since most businesses have to take advantage of any incentives, tax breaks, even favors or breaking the law by hiring illegal help to make it in today's economy. Its ridiculous!

It would be interesting to truly have transparency in all things related to the government.

The only problem is you cannot really do anything about it. You will almost always have people trying to exert their influence over someone else no matter what kind of system you have in place.

That is what they want. If people depend on you, you can rule over them.

Walmart should Shrug - at least in NY

Liberalism is a mental disorder.


As if we needed any further proof.

Why are your pedanties in a wad?