[nandan]

Assumptions the article makes: 1. People are stupid, they cant and dont adapt. 2. The market system is rigid and exploitative.

Can we expect the three people who were hired instead of John Ulviden to make the same "mistake" he made? Probably not. If they were people looking out for their own self-interests, they would factor in the "mistake" John made and make sure they dont step over the "acceptable" amount of sales. What sort of an effect does this have for Adidias? They reach a high-point in sales due to the energy and creativity of John, but then because of what they did to him, their sales are no longer going up. They have just lost the opportunity to have John take their sales to the next level.

And what sort of an opportunity does this present to a competitor like Nike for example? They would probably want John for more than one reason: For his abilities and also for the relationships he has with the customers he won over for Adidas.

Heck, why ramble when there is such eloquent exposition at hand:

"In addition to these endless pleadings of self-interest, there is a second main factor that spawns new economic fallacies every day. This is the persistent tendency of men to see only the immediate effects of a given policy, or its effects only on a special group, and to neglect to inquire what the long-run effects of that policy will be not only on that special group but on all groups. It is the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences." - Henry Hazlitt in "Economics in One Lesson"

http://jim.com/econ/contents.html

[NSX2]

But most people either are stupid and/or can't change because the system is setup to maintain the status quo. If you had any clue how money is introduced into the system, you'd be outraged that banks had the nerve to try to pull such a scam at the expense of the general population. Yet it's been going on since the Medicis and nothing much has changed, even to this modern day.

Meanwhile we've created unprecedented wealth over the last 50 years, and yet while being obsessed with money, every person and company, big or small owes the banking establishment tons of money which we either must pay off by assuming more debt - or by handing over the stuff of our production - as is happening now with the housing industry and foreclosures.

[chaostheory]

what's a better system then - more socialism and government control? imho that too will lead to maintaining a status quo.

The only things that change are the people at the top (gov officials and their families), a lot of resources will be wasted (compared to a more capitalist system), and that it's much much harder for people at the bottom to move up (not to mention less incentive). O yeah, since we're talking about government controlling most of the resources and distribution, you can probably kiss your rights goodbye too. It's not like this hasn't been done before with disasterous results... there's a reason China changed economic systems...

"most people either are stupid and/or can't change"

doesn't it make sense then for the system not to reward them for their behavior; and instead to reward people that can change and work both hard and smart?

[NSX2]

I don't think you understand how the hidden side of "capitalism" works - as long as a few people continuously control how much money is in the money supply via banks, whether you realize/like it or not, the whole world is socialist in that respect.

>doesn't it make sense then for the system not to reward them for their behavior; and instead to reward people that can change and work both hard and smart?

I think you're a bit too optimistic about the nature of the system and the people who run it; it's not setup to "reward" anybody but the people who set it up to reap wealth at other's expense.

Do you think if you "do the right thing" and "work hard" and be really smart the bankers and billionaire's are secretly getting together going, "That guy's doing the right thing - let's reward him"

Please. First they'll see you as a threat and try to figure out how to get rid of you or control you. Last thing they want is to "reward" you for "smart behavior"

[chaostheory]

"as long as a few people continuously control how much money is in the money supply via banks, whether you realize/like it or not, the whole world is socialist in that respect."

I agree that is a problem with capitalism, specifically with fiat currency; but it can be corrected if we slowly move back to something akin to the gold standard. It's fixable. Not to mention this level of corruption pales in comparison to a non-capitalistic system. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it is the lesser evil.

"Do you think if you "do the right thing" and "work hard" [that you'll be rewarded]"

I live in silicon valley. I meet people all the time who have been rewarded for being clever (who come from lower class or middle class backgrounds). A lot of posts on YC have already disproven this point. You're ignoring a lot of data; not to mention you're just giving a lot of conjecture without hard facts.

No offense, but I can list a lot of examples: Paul Graham, Jerry Yang, Bill Gates, Sam Walton, the list goes on and I'm not even including foreign business men. Your argument is really weak.

Just look at China and the changes that occurred after they switched economic systems.

"First they'll see you as a threat and try to figure out how to get rid of you or control you. Last thing they want is to "reward" you for "smart behavior""

Yes, that called traditional communism, not capitalism. Again why do you think China switched? (even N. Korea is trying to switch) History has already disproven your argument.

O yeah if you actually believe in what you're writing WHY are you trying to do a startup?

[NSX2]

>> I agree that is a problem with capitalism, specifically with fiat currency; but it can be corrected if we slowly move back to something akin to the gold standard. It's fixable.

Funny you say it's fixable when all my research over the last 10 years of the writings of BOTH conspiracy cranks AND people who have held positions at federal reserve banks indicate that (1) it's not fixable (2) it's going to break big-time, sooner than we expect and (3) the most important thing smart people should be doing right now is dropping everything and figuring out a new money system because the "old guard" can't come up with an answer and we're going to need one soon. For example, here's some "data" for you: I'm sure you're aware that Bush jacked up national debt to close to 10 trillion (from about 2 when he got here). But did you know state and municipal debt far exceeds that, and private debt exceeds even that?

Here's a sobering thought: when you compile the total debt in this country, private and public, and the amount of money needed to service that debt, and the cost of life (which will go up as we start experiencing inflation as the dollar is falling apart), SOME TIME between 2011 and 2013, it will be impossible to both continuously service that debt AND pay for the needs of life on an individual/corporate/government basis.

That means either banks get paid and we starve or there will be a civil war or something to suspend life as we know it.

What is your easy fixing solution to that (please don't say "gold" or "silver")?

Or perhaps you've looked at recent events over the last 8 years and have noticed ramp up in militarization, war for resources, and a huge spike in private prison construction and militarization of police forces in this country - almost like the establishment is getting ready for a big change.

Actually, we need fiat currency - we just need it distributed differently. Right now it's issued as debt-creation collateral, so debt always outpaces wealth creation on an exponential growth curve. Eventually you run out of possibilities of taking on new debt; for example, current value of "mega-derivatives" (institution-to-institution) is roughly now at about 11x total WORLD GDP. If you think the housing bubble is bad, wait until somebody figures out it's technically impossible for all derivative writers to give anywhere near the coverage they promise in case a worse-case scenario comes along.

Having said that, gold is useless because (1) it fails to account for population growth (2) it fails to account for real wealth creation and (3) the same people who control our fiat-based system currently control most of the existing gold supply in the world and have investments / buy options on most new discoveries of gold. So even if we switch ... what then? Do you think the "establishment" is going to help us setup a system to overthrow them by sharing the gold they own? Do you own gold? A lot? I don't and most people don't. And don't believe that B.S. about "gold call options" because most gold investment houses currently sell at about 10x ability to physically deliver, so unless you have it in your hand it counts for squat ...

>> I live in silicon valley.

Hence, you live in a fantasy la-la land where everything works in ways it doesn't anywhere else on the planet, so keep in mind your perception is warped and inapplicable elsewhere

>> I meet people all the time who have been rewarded for being clever (who come from lower class or middle class backgrounds). A lot of posts on YC have already disproven this point. You're ignoring a lot of data; not to mention you're just giving a lot of conjecture without hard facts.

Try that now as the reality sets in that most of the last 10 years (dot-com, expected oil bonanza in Iraq, housing bubble, etc.) was just one distraction after another to keep our minds off the fact that the underlying system is coming to the end of the track with no solution.

>> No offense, but I can list a lot of examples: Paul Graham, Jerry Yang, Bill Gates, Sam Walton, the list goes on and I'm not even including foreign business men. Your argument is really weak.

Sigh. I envy the gleam in your eyes. No offense to Paul Graham, but I'd like to see his effort duplicated now ... same with Yang. Doubt it would even be possible.

Bill Gates. Um ... Bill Gates is about as establishment as they come ... let's see ... his first customer was IBM, which fronted him money for a then non-existent product. But as everyone who know Phil Greenspan's writing knows, the CEO of IBM was friends with Bill's mommy. Gee ... wonder if that had anything to do with how a 21 year old got a face-to-face with the CEO of the biggest tech company of that time ...

Sam walton? Sam walton succeeded because of a one-time massive systematic non-repeatable even (globalization). You think anything that massive is just around the corner for you to exploit - any day now?

Not too familiar with China, so I'll pass comment, but it wreaks a lot of South Korea when it was being pegged as the "New Japan" and then it turned out to be a massive fraud.

>> Yes, that called traditional communism,

Wow. Read up on how standard oil got set up. Or even microsoft. If you think the "big business" aspect of capitalism is any different from what you imagine communism to be ... you need to read a lot more.

>> Again why do you think China switched

I don't know what you mean by "china switched" ... last time I checked China was a carefully micro-managed mixed economy, similar to Japan after WWII.

> History has already disproven your argument.

Really? How so? Last time I turned on my t.v. every presidential candidate was telling me that we're currently borrowing money from semi-communist china to finance oil from Sharia-law-based-commerce Saudi Arabia to go around playing make-pretend capitalism and the situation can't go on much longer.

If anything, recent analysis from many perspectives tell me that history has proven the exact opposite - that much of what we call the "capitalist success" story is a well-managed prop piece.

Tell me, have you ever travelled much across this country?

I have. Aside from a few pockets of development, most of this country is just one big poverty-inflicted, systematically busted wasteland.

If you live in the Valley and think that just because people there drive lots of Ferraris, that = America is one big happy successful place, you need to get some perspective.

Silicon Valley, like Hollywood, is amagical, artificial dream world that represents reality about as much as a commercial for a luxury resort.

> actually believe in what you're writing WHY are you trying to do a startup?

Because my startup is based on this reality and trying to find a solution to it, not trying to make a lot of money so I can afford to delude myself by surrounding myself with the trinkets of success that money can buy in this country.

I'm specifically trying to start a startup in preperation for a change in perception of reality, not because I want to have a quick IPO, cash in and move to Orange County ...

[chaostheory]

not every country with a capitalistic leaning economy has the debt our country has - many are in the black...

"sigh. I envy the gleam in your eyes. No offense to Paul Graham, but I'd like to see his effort duplicated now ... same with Yang"

they weren't the first and they probably won't be the last - history will repeat itself. that's like saying everything that's been invented has already been invented.

"Sam walton succeeded because of a one-time massive systematic non-repeatable even (globalization). You think anything that massive is just around the corner for you to exploit"

change is the only thing that's constant. if I don't take advantage of it, someone else will and the guard changes again...

"last time I checked China was a carefully micro-managed mixed economy"

yes but it's a big change from am almost pure centralized socialist leaning economy. a lot of individuals have already benefited from the change. u can't tell me it's not a big change from what they had in say the 60's

"Tell me, have you ever travelled much across this country?"

I have, and I beg to differ especially when I can compare with a lot of 3rd world countries I've been to. can you do the same?

"Because my startup is based on this reality and trying to find a solution to it"

based on everything you just wrote, the logical option would be to move to some EU nation with a more socialist leaning economic system and just relax. lookin at your arguments it doesn't make sense to stay and start a capitalistic venture within a capitalistic leaning economy since the Microsofts and Exxons of the world will just smash it. If you're just preparing "for a change in perception of reality" and u don't care about "surrounding yourself with lots of trinkets", u don't need a startup; a non-profit will do just fine.

"Silicon Valley is amagical, artificial dream world that represents reality about as much as a commercial for a luxury resort."

that's a little strange to say considering in your past posts it seems like you lament not being in SV since "it's the startup hub". I guess you being here would do wonders for your startup "based on this reality"

[rms]

It might be 100 years, but in the long term I think the wealth transfer mechanism will be in delivered energy. Barrels of oil work well for now, maybe we'll switch to Joules eventually.