No it's not the Onion.

And that is why you will never succeed.

No, dipshit. It's why you'll never own a business.

Hypocrite, oh, yes you is.

Does that include the politicians and leaders that enable them to fuck us over?

It requires a capital investment to build the prototype, buy any computer equipment or any other infrastructure for the business, pay the legal fees and so forth for the patent.

...and a capital investment from a multi-millionaire.

After he's already built the first one.

Before or after they'd hired anybody?

It's still capital in the end.

How much money is involved is irrelevant.

You use money to get the things for your business you are capitalizing that business.

Now obviously the start-up costs for being a writer for example are much lower then starting up a mechanic shop but capital is still used in both cases.

All business needs capital to grow. You can not grow a business, or start one, without it. Either you get it from yourself, your company, or outside investors.

If you use your profit to do it then that's fine but that profit is being used to capitalize the business.

Profit = Capital

Notice how in your own answer you even say that?

"whatever capital is generated from the start up commitments should be re-invested into the company "

Substitute capital with profit.

The point is, he made it himself in his own garage. He did not need the kind of investment capital referred to in the OP.

After selling that first computer, he could have used that money to buy more materials and eventually hire people.

The point being discussed here is the kind of investment referred to in the OP.

The arguement is that one doesn't need that kind of investment in order to create jobs.

Look, that's just fantasy.

There's no way a company like Apple gets built up solely from the proceeds of hand-made-in-a-garage personal computer kits.

There is a quantum leap of complexity between an operation of THAT scale, and full mass production of professional computer systems. A quantum leap that cannot be breached without investment money from SOMEWHERE. Selling hand made computers does not net you that kind of scratch.

Well, whether they could have or not...they didn't...so your "point" kinda falls on it's face right out of the gate.

How about some real life examples?

....examples that prove your point this time.

Here's one off the top of my head ...

The medicinal plants were the capital.

Also, he already owned a pharmacy, so that's more capital right there.

I have a thousand more just like that in my database at work. hundreds of thousands of companies are born every day and many start up with what the owner has in his pocket at the time.

One of the requirements of my job is to ensure each vendor signs a business classification document - so that our company adheres to government regulations regarding small and minority owned business. Many of them, I check the website for further information - and right there in the history, it tells me exactly how the company started up.

It's not the kind of capital discussed in the OP. He didn't have "investors". He started the pharmacy right there in his own office and it grew from there.

You've shown proof of nothing.

The fact of the matter is that startups need capital. And the lion's share of those startups have investors of one kind or another, whether it be one or two people underwriting, or groups through some kind of public or private offering.

You're desperately trying to prove a situation as common which just does not happen in the real world of business.

Nobody has ever claimed that 'venture capital' starts every single business in the world, thereby creating 100% of the job growth in the world.

The claim has been that you need capital to create jobs. Either your own, from your friends or from a 'business'....otherwise known as venture capital. That claim is 100% correct.

Yep. Even Dr. Abbot had to pay for the bottles he put those little pills in.

No. The claim was:

And that claim is still not true.

Not sure I follow. Sean is saying that if he hadn't provided capital to start his business, his business wouldn't have created growth and as a result, jobs.

How is any of that incorrect?

Bull fucking shit.

You clearly have no clue about business.

Steve Jobs would have been unable to build Apple up without money out of his own pocket or investors. Since he didn't have the money at the time he had to get investors on board.

This is not a job like doing maid service or something. It's not even assembling a computer with pre-made parts. It's designing and building a computer and its software from the ground up.

Don't toss my post to the side. My post corrected your bullshit. My post also corrected the bullshit of the dumb mother fucker in the OP who says he doesn't create jobs.

Capital is needed to start any business.

And you don't need investors as I pointed out in my previous post that you ignored.

You can get capital from:

#1 Your bank account.

#2 Profits from your current business/investments.

#3 From other people a.k.a The Investors.

#4 From physical assets.

And he had to use capital to pay for his store, it's contents, and those plants.

Throughout the companies history it has turned to investors to acquire capital needed to expand.

So yes he used capital.

And before you say it again.....

The guy in the opening post is an idiot. His money is the very definition of capital. One version of it but still capital and still leading to the creation of jobs.

What the owner has in his pocket is called capital. It's no different then what the investor has in his pocket which is also called capital.

You can capitalize a business out of your pockets or someone else's pockets but it's all the same and it all leads to job creation (as the business is created and employees hired).

So the guy in the OP is wrong to say that the stuff in his "pocket at the time" doesn't create jobs.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

She's trying to tap dance her way out of the situation again by hair-splitting what was said.

She's trying to say Sean said that only "Venture Capital" could be used for a business start up so no other form of "Capital" can exist in Sean's world. She's trying to call him out on it by pointing out that you can use other forms of "Capital" to fund a business.

As usual she completely missed what Sean was saying.

Nick Hanauer is saying that even with his millions of dollars being invested in companies and in companies that he started that he is not a job creator. Sean's point is that is not true and that Nick Hanauer is a job creator. Sean isn't saying that Venture Capital is the only way to start/fund a business.

I actually thought she wasn't that fucking stupid.

Apparently I was wrong.

That's as perfect of a summation as I can imagine, and it's so easy to grasp!

I don't think so.

The OP is essentially saying that without an outside influx of cash, a business can still get started - and provide jobs.

Sean said that isn't true.

It is.

Yes! That's exactly the point. Dr. Abbott started out with his own resources, started a business without an outside influx of cash and eventually grew into a multi-billion dollar international corporation.

And that is such an idiotic idea that only Jenee would think of it.