Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord
Of course it's not a black and white view, you idiot, nor is it a conspiracy of the rich, but the level of money needed to build money-making system (aka a business) grows with the level of economic development as competitors grow, fail, spread, and monopolize. It's new economic frontiers that allow for those who can't afford to break into the pre-existing markets to have a chance to develop their own foothold but the more developed the markets in general the more SEED MONEY is required even for developing in new economic frontiers.
Bill Gates got funds from his family but still used non-copyrighted software made by enthusiasts to develop his computers and operating system because computers were largely an untapped frontier.
Bezos was shut out of that frontier by the 90s because Microsoft was already a mega company but he could exploit the internet as a way to sell people ****, but that required so much startup capital that Amazon wasn't even profitable for years.
And now that computers as a general concept is a tapped market and using computers to do useful things is also kind of tappe you now see galaxy brained tech bros desperately trying to find the next computer frontier and inventing crypto and NFTs because the obvious avenues of monetizing computers are already taken and even though there isn't really a use case for any of that **** the energy use of all those servers doing crypto **** is as much as a country. If an actual use case that people latch onto is found then how many new servers will you need?
|
Uh you can say no obviously it's not black and white and by that I presume you mean you agree with me that said general store could indeed grow into a retail empire. So I don't know what use it was going to be for you to try to do more research on Walmart to disprove that particular notion. You call me the idiot but you originally tried to correct what I said which was that the main distinction between the large business owner and a small business owner is their level of success. You said its actually how rich their parents are. Which is just a vacuous anti capitalist virtue signal that even you realize isn't the actual distinction. You were just tone policing because the way I framed it almost made it sound meritocratic but my actual point was they are essentially (albeit very uneven) competitors driving at the same goal. So I don't see any particular moral high ground in being the loser in that race, even if you did start with a handicap.
But yeah I've seen pirates of silicon valley and none of that **** changes my point either bro. I'm not saying they don't cut throats to get ahead either.