No it's not the Onion.

God DAMN you people! Don't quote her! I've got her happily on ignore, but my IQ has dropped about 5 points just from the paragraph or two I skimmed.

(I was all set to make a snarky, sarcastic post about how she'd convinced me and I was going to get to work on painting and get rich as an artist, based on her expert advice but I decided her thought process was so painfully phenomenally stupid that it wasn't even worth that. )

So, wait. Are you saying that selling shares was not a big influx of cash to help him start his business, or are you not counting that as the start of his corporation because he laid the groundwork with his small-time granulated drug operation?

I don't think you can draw an arbitrary line like that just to disqualify the shares revenue. Without that, he would never have had that multi-billion dollar international corporation.

Sorry, allow me to finish my thought.

..Like it's a huge fucking pleasure reading your douchebaggy closet case trolling.

Jenee.

Is.

Stupid.

That is not at all what the OP is saying.

And I said no such thing.

I'm saying - as MAOHS quoted - that the business was a success before he started selling shares.

He started his business in 1880 something. 1887, I believe. So, at least 13 years went by before went public.

Then, please, explain to me what you think the OP is saying and what exactly you are disagreeing with.

Venture capital funds new jobs.

Though the idiot quoted in the OP says his VC didn't.

[Didn't even have to go back and check it's such a simple point.]

Venture capital is a fucking cheat, but they've rigged the game so you can't do without it, so...the whole mess is fucked.
Oh, well...

You're probably thinking of private equity. In fact, VC is a pretty risky proposition. Sure any losses sustained might be able to be used to reduce tax liabilities on any winners, but you gotta have winners for that to help, and it's really not much of a 'cheat' (the same as thinking you've lost out for not buying 3 copies of Time Cop for $18). PE, on the other hand generally knows how to wring the washcloth for just about every drop, and generally finds ways to craft win/win-a-little-bit-lesses.

You guys can't have it both ways. Either this country is capitalist - and that it doesn't matter how "low" your origins, you can grow up to be anything you want and make as much money as you can through hard work and perseverance, or you can only be rich if you are born rich or can get a loan from a really rich guy.

Do you think these people just give money away? You have to prove that your business will be a success. And to do that, you have to have had some success in your business before asking for money.

If you are able to secure venture capitalist money and skyrocket to the top, then you are one of the few. Most American businesses start small and when they are large enough and successful enough to secure venture capital, they would rather go those few extra yards themselves and keep all the profits, rather than give a large percentage of the profits to someone else.

"Successful" in that he was selling a lot of pills...presumably more than he could keep up with. Not that he was making tons of money and hiring lots of people. If that were the case, why did he need the capital investment in the first place? I'll guarantee you that the "job creation" part started in earnest after the capital investment.

This is a logical fallacy. Strawman, ad hominem--I'm not sure which, but the fact that some people are able to bootstrap companies doesn't mean that venture capital isn't used by companies to create jobs.

True.

Just more and more, not here.

US based companies created 50% more jobs overseas than they did in the US last year.

^With good reason. We've accumulated a lot of shit policies here in the US.

I moved from New York to Texas to build a business (just this year), a micro example of that same exact point. New York has shit policies (high tax, high regulation, high corruption, high cronyism) while Texas has superior policies (maybe just the last two, and maybe with smaller amounts than in NY) and a much much more business friendly environment.

New York seems actually antagonistic (not even neutral) toward business. It shows. Plus now I won't be around in NY when the bill for it's caligulalike-excesses comes due. So tomorrow's suckers will have to pay what used to be my share of NY overpayment for govt employees.

Want proof the gub'mint sucks balls?

$80,000 is the average price tag for legal fees on a startup in Silicon Valley.

http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/15/startup-legal-fee-stats/

It is interesting to see how much of the legal fees is directly related to handling the startup cash, aka capital, which no one really needs anyways.

Sounds like every post you make.

Is your name Glenn Beck?

Cause he's moving to Texas for the same thing. New York is nuts and hostile towards business.