Okay, "praise" is the wrong word...Robert Reich in Salon.com: Capitalism's Real Risk Takers Mitt Romney is casting the 2012 campaign as “free enterprise on trial” — defining free enterprise as achieving success through “hard work and risking-taking.” Tea Party favorite Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina says he’s supporting Romney because “we really need someone who understands how risk, taking risk… is the way we create jobs, create choices, expand freedom.” Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donahue, defending Romney, explains “this economy is about risk. If you don’t take risk, you can’t have success.” Wait a minute. Who do they think are bearing the risks? Their blather about free enterprise risk-taking has it upside down. The higher you go in the economy, the easier it is to make money without taking any personal financial risk at all. The lower you go, the bigger the risks. Wall Street has become the center of riskless free enterprise. Bankers risk other peoples’ money. If deals turn bad, they collect their fees in any event. The entire hedge-fund industry is designed to hedge bets so big investors can make money whether the price of assets they bet on rises or falls. And if the worst happens, the biggest bankers and investors now know they’ll be bailed out by taxpayers because they’re too big to fail. But the worst examples of riskless free enteprise are the CEOs who rake in millions after they screw up royally. It's Reich, who I can take in only small doses, but he's pretty much on the money (sorry) here. This should be really easy for the Democrats to hit out of the park over the next few months... except, it isn't, since they're in the same bed as the Republicans on this score. But as economic risk-taking has declined at the top, it’s been increasing at the middle and below. More than 20 percent of the American workforce is now “contingent” — temporary workers, contractors, independent consultants — with no security at all. Even full-time workers who have put in decades with a company can now find themselves without a job overnight — with no parachute, no help finding another job, and no health insurance. Meanwhile the proportion of large and medium-sized companies (200 or more workers) offering full health care coverage continues to drop – from 74 percent in 1980 to under 10 percent today. Twenty-five years ago, two-thirds of large and medium-sized employers also provided health insurance to their retirees. Now, fewer than 15 percent do. The risk of getting old with no pension is also rising. In 1980, more than 80 percent of large and medium-sized firms gave their workers “defined-benefit” pensions that guaranteed a fixed amount of money every month after they retired. Now it’s down to under 10 percent. Instead, they offer “defined contribution” plans where the risk is on the workers. When the stock market tanks, as it did in 2008, the 401(k) plan tanks along with it. Today, a third of all workers with defined-benefit plans contribute nothing, which means their employers don’t either. And the risk of losing earnings continues to grow... .
Risk takers, job creators, yada yada yada. My ex-boss who inherited a company that had 20 people, and in 20 years grew it to a company that had 20 people, is a risk taker and job creator because he is effing rich. So we should lower his tax rates so that he will continue to employ the 20 positions that he inherited, but now he can buy a 3rd home and a 2nd boat. Dog whistles for people who have trouble outthinking dogs. Don't even bring that junk near me, I ain't that stupid.
I don't know anything about the company you're talking about, and you make it sound like it doesn't take much risk to keep it going. But my experience is that being able to maintain 20 people or less employed very often involves a lot of personal risk for an employer. Of course we try to minimize the risks, but it did involve some legitimate personal risks for me, and also for other small business owners I've known.
I could (and will if you accept this challenge) kick your sorry New York ass up and down the board at that game.
I call Japan. Any other takers? How would we do this online? And you would take Russia. How free-market to mass buy the cheap unit.
I know you meant to say what balls to take the country that has the least advantage and gets the shit kicked out of it in every game. At least you didn't take the USA. Most boring nation in the game.
In the big 1940 global version, the US doesn't even get to play for four rounds. I like Japan because I get to wipe out Asia before anybody gets strong enough to fight back.