Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

sangha · Oct 2, 2011

Goldenboy219 said:
You posted nothing of significance.

Says the poster who made up his own definition of "economic independence" :lamo

I

made up no definition. The fact remains, the U.S. is far less reliant on trade than any other nation in the world. If it were truly depenent, a greater portion of total output would come in the form of either imports, exports, or both.

Sure you did. That's why you can't link to any source that supports your mythical definition of economic independence

U.S.: Time To Cope With Co-Dependency
U.S. Import Dependence on China: Free Markets and National Defense
US/ASIA: State dependence on trade with Asia grows - The New York Times

Kushinator · Oct 2, 2011

sangha said:
Says the poster who made up his own definition of "economic independence"

I simply took the discussion into proper context. If we wanted to measure the independence of a particular economy, the first place we start is defining parameters (or limits). A nation that is completely independent would have ZERO reliance on foreign trade. Accordingly, we would then assume a nation that is completely dependent would import + export more than the entire economy is able to produce (in terms of GDP).

Completely Dependent = (imports + exports)/output ≥ 1

Completely Independent = (imports + exports)/output = 0

A problem arises with establishing independence or dependence. How do we determine it (or better yet, how do we quantify it?) ? The solution is to make it a zero-sum game in terms of relativity. The most independent economy has the lowest reliance on foreign trade where as the most dependent economy hast the highest reliance on foreign trade.

I can therefore state with great accuracy that the U.S. has an internally driven economy, or it is more independent than nearly every other economy.

Sure you did. That's why you can't link to any source that supports your mythical definition of economic independence

U.S.: Time To Cope With Co-Dependency
U.S. Import Dependence on China: Free Markets and National Defense
US/ASIA: State dependence on trade with Asia grows - The New York Times

How do these three articles support your argument?

Misterveritis · Oct 2, 2011

presluc said:
You speak of intelligence Icould not have posted more clearly.
QUOTE "Having the Vice President of the U.S. as a personal friend of the CEO of a company just "might" help get a "no bid contract, "MAYBE"? The word Haliburtian comes to mind.
. . .
I need no imagination I suppose this "may" have been the only thing the Democratic Congress and the Republican White House staff that agreed on the reason simple; money and power a little inside trading.
. . .
I do not know how much clearly I can write.
For if you do not understand that, you are either a hardline right wing member or???

Amazing. Simply amazing.

sangha · Oct 2, 2011

Goldenboy219 said:
I simply took the discussion into proper context. If we wanted to measure the independence of a particular economy, the first place we start is defining parameters (or limits). A nation that is completely independent would have ZERO reliance on foreign trade. Accordingly, we would then assume a nation that is completely dependent would import + export more than the entire economy is able to produce (in terms of GDP).

Completely Dependent = (imports + exports)/output ≥ 1

Completely Independent = (imports + exports)/output = 0

A problem arises with establishing independence or dependence. How do we determine it (or better yet, how do we quantify it?) ? The solution is to make it a zero-sum game in terms of relativity. The most independent economy has the lowest reliance on foreign trade where as the most dependent economy hast the highest reliance on foreign trade.

Your definition of independence is a fiction, made up to support your argument. It has no basis in economic theory, which is why you can't support your made-up definition with any links that show that is how economists measure economic independence

I, on the other hand, posted links from several sources, including the rightwing Heritage Foundation, which used other means to measure economic independence.

How do these three articles support your argument?

By reading them. They all mention our dependence on trade with other nations

Kushinator · Oct 2, 2011

sangha said:
Your definition of independence is a fiction, made up to support your argument.

Nope! The international trade ratio applied to a macro perspective is used by economists to determine a nations (relative) dependence on international trade. None the less,i have not stated anything that was invalid.

It has no basis in economic theory, which is why you can't support your made-up definition with any links that show that is how economists measure economic independence

I don't have to provide links, because we are not arguing whether or not the international trade ratio is used by economists to measure independence; that is simply your strawman.

I, on the other hand, posted links from several sources, including the rightwing Heritage Foundation, which used other means to measure economic independence.

You produced nothing of relevance. I bet you didn't even read the articles posted.

From the Heritage Foundation:

Despite the impressive volume of imports from China, the data show no dependence that would threaten national security in a crisis. A notable qualifier to this conclusion is low data quality. Available data are insufficiently specific and partly incompatible, which may perhaps obscure instances of American dependence. While these have drawn attention as a possible national security issue, Chinese goods imports are only one piece of a large puzzle. There currently is no U.S. dependence on flows of services, capital, people, and information from China, either, but the dimensions and magnitude of the bilateral economic relationship mean it bears watching. And there are certainly other economic partners now and in the future who might be deemed unreliable in a crisis.
While it is important to evaluate American dependence more systematically, any findings of dependence should still be treated carefully. Alternate supplies should be cultivated and the feasibility of stockpiling assessed. Direct government action to mitigate dependence and enhance military capability in a crisis should be a last resort. Such action will be costly, reduce incentives for innovation, and typically have unanticipated consequences that could rebound, harming national security. The principles in this paper serve to ensure that costly actions to reduce dependence only occur when absolutely necessary.

From businessweek:

[FONT=arial,helvetica,univers]AFTER ALL, the world's trade deficits and surpluses must all add up to zero. So if the U.S. reduces its gap, other countries must experience a shrinkage in their trade surpluses or a rise in their deficits. As Catherine L. Mann, a senior fellow at the Institute for International Economics, points out, foreign countries depend on U.S. imports both directly and indirectly for economic growth. This dependency is most apparent in Asia, but it is a trend around the world. And it argues that a shrinking dollar alone is inadequate to narrow the deficit.

In a speech last year, Mann laid out the mutual benefits and risks in what she calls "the global co-dependency" of the U.S. trade deficit. Overall, "countries have a vested interest in a large and chronic U.S. trade deficit. Their dependency on U.S. demand as a source of growth matches the U.S. dependency on foreign savings to finance domestic investment."[/FONT]

This article clearly states that other nations are dependent on the U.S. to purchase their goods and services.

The NY times article does not address the topic.

By reading them. They all mention our dependence on trade with other nations

You didn't even read them!

As stated, less than 25% of the entire U.S. economy depends on international trade. In comparison to Germany, Taiwan, South Korea, The Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Poland, Austria, Saudi Arabia, Norway, Mexico, Canada, Russia, Turkey, The U.K., Indonesia, France, Austria, Spain and Venezuela, we are not as dependent on international trade.

A country who depends heavily on global trade will have a higher international trade ratio. You may admit your error, there is no shame.

sangha · Oct 3, 2011

Goldenboy219 said:
Nope! The international trade ratio applied to a macro perspective is used by economists to determine a nations (relative) dependence on international trade. None the less,i have not stated anything that was invalid.

And yet, you can't link to anything that suggests that your made up definition is accurate

I don't have to provide links, because we are not arguing whether or not the international trade ratio is used by economists to measure independence; that is simply your strawman.

You don't understand what a straw man is then.

You produced nothing of relevance. I bet you didn't even read the articles posted.

From the Heritage Foundation:

From businessweek:

This article clearly states that other nations are dependent on the U.S. to purchase their goods and services.

The NY times article does not address the topic.

You didn't even read them!

You dont seem to understand what you read. That is if you read it.

As stated, less than 25% of the entire U.S. economy depends on international trade. In comparison to Germany, Taiwan, South Korea, The Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Poland, Austria, Saudi Arabia, Norway, Mexico, Canada, Russia, Turkey, The U.K., Indonesia, France, Austria, Spain and Venezuela, we are not as dependent on international trade.

A country who depends heavily on global trade will have a higher international trade ratio. You may admit your error, there is no shame.

Wrong. A country that ENGAGES heavily in global trade will have a higher intl trade ratio. This has nothing to do with whether its economy is dependent on that trade.

So I've made no error. All I have to do is point out that you haven't proven anything. All you've done is claim victory, which is not the same as having achieved it.

washunut · Oct 3, 2011

sangha said:
No, we wouldn't stop buying cars

We'd stop buying cars that were made by american corporations, and the profits would go overseas.

And the companies that supply parts for the american car corps would go under and be replaced with foreign companies that would supply the car manufacturers, so additional profits and jobs would go overseas.

As to whom would buy the companies you are free to guess.

hazlnut · Oct 3, 2011

j-mac said:
Obama seems to be talking compromise, and painting repubs as standing in the way of that supposed compromise, yet this one trick pony hasn't changed his class warfare message since the day he took office...

One interesting note, the AP notes this....

Makes one wonder if the disingenuous group that made the ad showing Paul Ryan pushing Grandma off the cliff will now revise it to show Obama doing the same....? Ofcourse not.

Also, it strikes me that everytime Obama needs to pay for something, he lays out the same plan, with the same targets to pay for it? How many times can we hear the same 'pass the bill' before it is even submitted as legislation, so therefore no one can read it, or score it, and how many times are we going to allow this empty suit to lie to our face?

Thoughts

j-mac

Wow the OP has the nerve to mix moronic fox news talking points with great rock music.

Jimmy called, he wants his music back.

Kushinator · Oct 3, 2011

sangha said:
And yet, you can't link to anything that suggests that your made up definition is accurate

So this is your argument; that my definition of trade dependence is inaccurate because i have not posted a link? :lol: Instead of being able to explain what is "wrong" with the definition, you question the accuracy based on....????

You don't understand what a straw man is then.

You are attacking the definition without displaying how it is invalid. The fact that you have not been exposed to international trade theory in no way invalidates the trade to gdp ratio.

You dont seem to understand what you read. That is if you read it.

Of course i do. Nothing you have posted negates anything i have stated.

Wrong. A country that ENGAGES heavily in global trade will have a higher intl trade ratio. This has nothing to do with whether its economy is dependent on that trade.

So let me get this straight. A nation engaging heavily in global trade has nothing to do with whether its economy is dependent on that trade? :lamoOh that's cute! In reality, the majority of the world is dependent upon the U.S. purchasing their goods.

So I've made no error. All I have to do is point out that you haven't proven anything. All you've done is claim victory, which is not the same as having achieved it.

In the future, it would be helpful to have a solid understanding of international trade before engaging in arguments regarding the subject. That way, you can spend more time making statements of relevance and less time "attempting" to save face.

drz-400 · Oct 3, 2011

Goldenboy, I largely agree with you. But in the spirit of debate I will say that the general measure you have used for dependency does not take into account what it is that a country actually imports. I think it is fair to say that the US importing a large amount of oil makes us more dependent than if we were importing the same amount of stuffed animals. A strictly income oriented perspective would miss this. The elasticity of demand for the products matters to. Shocks to the trade of certain commodities would have a larger effect than us not being able to import this years hot toy.

Kushinator · Oct 3, 2011

drz-400 said:
Goldenboy, I largely agree with you. But in the spirit of debate I will say that the general measure you have used for dependency does not take into account what it is that a country actually imports.

This is correct; it simply illustrates how sensitive a particular economy is to international trade in general.

I think it is fair to say that the US importing a large amount of oil makes us more dependent than if we were importing the same amount of stuffed animals.

Of course. But it would also be fair to say that a country which is highly dependent on international trade is likely to import a large amount of oil as well. The U.S. imports around 50% of its total consumption, far less than nations like Japan, Germany, UK, France, Luxembourg, Belgium, etc....

A strictly income oriented perspective would miss this.

Or, it would not be able to identify various resource dependency with 100% accuracy. There are a few outliers; to which further investigation would be needed.

The elasticity of demand for the products matters to. Shocks to the trade of certain commodities would have a larger effect than us not being able to import this years hot toy.

This is true.

I appreciate your quality response!

obvious Child · Oct 3, 2011

sangha said:
Your definition of independence is a fiction, made up to support your argument. It has no basis in economic theory

Wait. Seriously? Did you even look at his model?

A full autarky country should be zero as there is no imports and exports. 0 over anything is zero. A completely dependent would be greater than 1 as total activity exceeds output. His math at least is correct.

which is why you can't support your made-up definition with any links that show that is how economists measure economic independence

You know, if you can't even explain his model, that really isn't a good retort.

sangha · Oct 3, 2011

Goldenboy219 said:
So this is your argument; that my definition of trade dependence is inaccurate because i have not posted a link? :lol: Instead of being able to explain what is "wrong" with the definition, you question the accuracy based on....????

I have explained why it's wrong, and have posted links to support my argument

You haven't explained why it's right (ie you haven't shown how your magic ratio demonstrates independence) nor have you posted any links to support your position.

IOW, you've got nothing besides your nonsense claims supported by your whines about how you are right.

You are attacking the definition without displaying how it is invalid. The fact that you have not been exposed to international trade theory in no way invalidates the trade to gdp ratio.

I have explained why your definition makes no sense, and you have yet to explain why it does make sense. All you have done is claim that the ratio demonstrates economic (in)dependency. You have explained nothing. You have only claimed it.

So let me get this straight. A nation engaging heavily in global trade has nothing to do with whether its economy is dependent on that trade? :lamoOh that's cute! In reality, the majority of the world is dependent upon the U.S. purchasing their goods.

Not necesarily. Once again, you are merely claiming to be right without any explanation or support from economists. Your only argument here is "Oh, that's cute!"

In the future, it would be helpful to have a solid understanding of international trade before engaging in arguments regarding the subject. That way, you can spend more time making statements of relevance and less time "attempting" to save face.

Another person on the internet claiming to be an expert instead of posting evidence that they're right. Gee, I've never seen that before!! :lamo

sangha · Oct 3, 2011

Goldenboy219 said:
This is correct; it simply illustrates how sensitive a particular economy is to international trade in general.

NO, it doesn't. You have to look at WHAT is being imported. Even you agree with that.

If we import a lot of toys, that doesn't make us dependent. It makes a wealthy nation that can afford to spend a lot of money on toys.

IOW, your measure is woefully deficient to the purpose you have put it to. Economic dependency is complicated, and not subject to such a simple measure

Of course. But it would also be fair to say that a country which is highly dependent on international trade is likely to import a large amount of oil as well. The U.S. imports around 50% of its total consumption, far less than nations like Japan, Germany, UK, France, Luxembourg, Belgium, etc....

You are using circular logic here (ie "a dependent economy will import a large amount, therefor an economy that imports a large amount is dependent")

And we import more than many other nations (Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc)

Or, it would not be able to identify various resource dependency with 100% accuracy. There are a few outliers; to which further investigation would be needed.

Maybe not even 50% accuracy. IOW, it's produces results that are worse than random
This is true.

I appreciate your quality response!

He made the same argument I did, and even mentioned the same resource (ie oil)

sangha · Oct 3, 2011

obvious Child said:
Wait. Seriously? Did you even look at his model?

A full autarky country should be zero as there is no imports and exports. 0 over anything is zero. A completely dependent would be greater than 1 as total activity exceeds output. His math at least is correct.

You know, if you can't even explain his model, that really isn't a good retort.

I took no issue with his math. I didn't dispute his #'s wrt the ratios he cited, nor did I challenge the formula.

I challenged his claim that the formula produces a measure of "economic dependency". His formula does nothing more than show what portion of an economy is intl trade.

Kushinator · Oct 3, 2011

sangha said:
NO, it doesn't. You have to look at WHAT is being imported. Even you agree with that.

Looking only at what is being imported/exported gives you the ability to synthesize the dependency of that particular good. Notice, i never stated that the U.S. is not dependent on foreign oil. I did say that we are "less reliant on international trade"!

If we import a lot of toys, that doesn't make us dependent. It makes a wealthy nation that can afford to spend a lot of money on toys.

Nonsense. Importing "a lot of toys" makes us dependent on exporting nations to produce and sell us toys in the same light that they are dependent on us to purchase them!

IOW, your measure is woefully deficient to the purpose you have put it to. Economic dependency is complicated, and not subject to such a simple measure

First off, it is not "my measure". Secondly, the international trade ratio provides a quantitative value to which we can use in comparison to other nations.

By saying the U.S. is less reliant on trade than Germany; i am correct! If i was to say that we are less reliant on foreign oil than say Canada; that would be incorrect. It seems as though you cannot distinguish between the two statements, and therein lies your problem.

You are using circular logic here (ie "a dependent economy will import a large amount, therefor an economy that imports a large amount is dependent")

WTF are you even talking about? The statement made originally was that an economy whose GDP is more representative of international trade, will have a greater dependence on trade. Which is correct; if you have the ability to find fault in the comment, then by all means go for it.

And we import more than many other nations (Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc)

We also export more than many other nations (Saudi Arabia, Venezuela); the nominal sum of imports and exports in no way illustrates a specific economies trade dependence. You have to take into consideration a nation’s total output in order to provide a valid relative comparison.

Maybe not even 50% accuracy. IOW, it's produces results that are worse than random

Then prove it.

He made the same argument I did, and even mentioned the same resource (ie oil)

No. You made a piss poor argument that was supported by three articles in which you did not even read (otherwise you would not have presented them) that in no way validate your opinion. DRZ provided a quality argument that illustrated further observation would be required to produce "the most" accurate analysis. The international trade ratio is a quality method to determine relative trade dependence.

Not only did you fail in that regard, but you neglected to provide (let alone review) any data that displays exactly how much of our total consumption is imported or how much of our total production is exported. Opinionated drivel might cut it at the coffee shop, but not in discussions with people who have a greater exposure/understanding of this particular topic.

obvious Child · Oct 4, 2011

sangha said:
I took no issue with his math. I didn't dispute his #'s wrt the ratios he cited, nor did I challenge the formula.

I challenged his claim that the formula produces a measure of "economic dependency". His formula does nothing more than show what portion of an economy is intl trade.

Except that his models do measure economic dependency. A fully independent country has a economic dependency of zero as evident by the math. No imports and no exports creates a good baseline to compare dependent nations against. Furthermore, international trade is essentially economic dependence. The higher the trade, the more integrated the more dependent.

sangha · Oct 4, 2011

Goldenboy219 said:
Looking only at what is being imported/exported gives you the ability to synthesize the dependency of that particular good. Notice, i never stated that the U.S. is not dependent on foreign oil. I did say that we are "less reliant on international trade"!

You are being very misleading. You said that your formula measures economic dependency, and your formula failed to take into account what was being traded.

The fact is, without foreign trade, our economy grinds to a halt. That means we are highly dependent on intl trade

Nonsense. Importing "a lot of toys" makes us dependent on exporting nations to produce and sell us toys in the same light that they are dependent on us to purchase them!

We can stop buying a lot of toys and our economy won't grind to a halt. We can't stop importing oil,or computer chips, or number of other goods without wrecking our economy.

First off, it is not "my measure". Secondly, the international trade ratio provides a quantitative value to which we can use in comparison to other nations.

You haven't shown any evidence that anyone besides yourself uses it in the way you have.

By saying the U.S. is less reliant on trade than Germany; i am correct! If i was to say that we are less reliant on foreign oil than say Canada; that would be incorrect. It seems as though you cannot distinguish between the two statements, and therein lies your problem.

I never disputed anything you said about Germany so this is a straw man. I also never said we are the most dependent on intl trade either. I merely refuted your claim that your ratio is an accurate measure of independence on intl trade. Try to focus. You're grasping for an argument and your points are lacking coherence as a result

WTF are you even talking about? The statement made originally was that an economy whose GDP is more representative of international trade, will have a greater dependence on trade. Which is correct; if you have the ability to find fault in the comment, then by all means go for it.

And that statement has been proven wrong. It has been shown that one must look at what is being imported and exported, and the role those products play in the economy, in order to determine how dependent an economy is on intl trade. Even you agreed with this.

We also export more than many other nations (Saudi Arabia, Venezuela); the nominal sum of imports and exports in no way illustrates a specific economies trade dependence. You have to take into consideration a nation’s total output in order to provide a valid relative comparison.

I agree. There are many factors that have to be measured. That's MY point.

Then prove it.

You want me to prove a "maybe" statement? :lamo

No. You made a piss poor argument that was supported by three articles in which you did not even read (otherwise you would not have presented them) that in no way validate your opinion. DRZ provided a quality argument that illustrated further observation would be required to produce "the most" accurate analysis. The international trade ratio is a quality method to determine relative trade dependence.

DRZ said the same thing I did - that you have to look at what is being imported and how that product is used in the economy. He even mentioned the same product that we import...oil

Not only did you fail in that regard, but you neglected to provide (let alone review) any data that displays exactly how much of our total consumption is imported or how much of our total production is exported. Opinionated drivel might cut it at the coffee shop, but not in discussions with people who have a greater exposure/understanding of this particular topic.

I made the same argument that DRZ did.

sangha · Oct 4, 2011

obvious Child said:
Except that his models do measure economic dependency. A fully independent country has a economic dependency of zero as evident by the math. No imports and no exports creates a good baseline to compare dependent nations against. Furthermore, international trade is essentially economic dependence. The higher the trade, the more integrated the more dependent.

Not necesarily. It depends on what is being imported. Our economy is highly dependent on the importation of oil.

presluc · Oct 4, 2011

Goldenboy219 said:
Please show me exactly where i made the statement that "things are great in America"?

Strawman. I never said times are good.

I don't believe you understand how these discussion boards work. If you do not wish to respond to my argument, then there is no need to hit the reply button and attempt to discuss something that has absolutely nothing to do with my statement.

Economic stagnation at this point in time is given; attempting to use it as the premise of your argument makes absolutely ZERO sense.

"I would like to point out that the U.S. "by far" has one of the most independent economies in the world"
Your words right?
Yet the exports and imports of America tell a differant story.
Yet the parts made by foriegn cheap labor tell a differant story.
Name a product I will show the dependency to other countries.
Computers, T.V'S, Auto, Auto parts.ect
Is this an independent economy or a country depending on incoming cargo?

Strawmen???
I do not know where you live but 9+ unemployment, 43% of that haven't worked in 6+months might disagree with your veows.

If you are comfortable with economic stagnation being a given that is your opinion.
I can not speak for other Americans but to me economic stagnation in America is unacceptable, as long as it exist I will speak against it, as long as American workers go without work I will speak against it, as long as the American economy keeps building more debt with nothing to show for it I will speak against it.
Sir,If you want a debate," bring it"if you do not like my style of posting, step off.

eace

presluc · Oct 4, 2011

Misterveritis said:
Amazing. Simply amazing.

Hardline right wing party member right.

I find it odd because a hardline left wing party member would disagree with this to.

Hardline party members left or right need no reason to disagree with each other , other than the fact that one is right wing the other is left wing, they bicker and whine and play the blame game, point fingers , no matter what plan America is offered

Americans are getting tired of this bull****.

eace

presluc · Oct 4, 2011

sangha said:
You are being very misleading. You said that your formula measures economic dependency, and your formula failed to take into account what was being traded.

The fact is, without foreign trade, our economy grinds to a halt. That means we are highly dependent on intl trade

We can stop buying a lot of toys and our economy won't grind to a halt. We can't stop importing oil,or computer chips, or number of other goods without wrecking our economy.

You haven't shown any evidence that anyone besides yourself uses it in the way you have.

I never disputed anything you said about Germany so this is a straw man. I also never said we are the most dependent on intl trade either. I merely refuted your claim that your ratio is an accurate measure of independence on intl trade. Try to focus. You're grasping for an argument and your points are lacking coherence as a result

And that statement has been proven wrong. It has been shown that one must look at what is being imported and exported, and the role those products play in the economy, in order to determine how dependent an economy is on intl trade. Even you agreed with this.

I agree. There are many factors that have to be measured. That's MY point.

Then prove it.

You want me to prove a "maybe" statement? :lamo

DRZ said the same thing I did - that you have to look at what is being imported and how that product is used in the economy. He even mentioned the same product that we import...oil

I made the same argument that DRZ did.

Pardon me, sangha.

I have a question about international trade as well as the global market.

Should not these two factions be on a competitive basies?
Having competition of which country exports the most based on which country imports the most.

Correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't the country exporting the most have more capital and a better economy?

eace

sangha · Oct 4, 2011

presluc said:
Pardon me, sangha.

I have a question about international trade as well as the global market.

Should not these two factions be on a competitive basies?
Having competition of which country exports the most based on which country imports the most.

Correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't the country exporting the most have more capital and a better economy?eace

I'm not sure what your first question means, but the answer to your 2nd is "possibly but not necesarily"

There are many nations which export far more than they import. Many third world nations export raw materials but it hasn't resulted in wealth and prosperity except for a few dictators and their most loyal supporters

upsideguy · Oct 5, 2011

Misterveritis said:
I started a business in the mid-90s. It failed. I put in lots of my money and even more from other people with money. I love to hear about how successful people started their businesses.

I didn't say I was successful at it yet either.... It has taken a ton of my money and has been running at breakeven over the last two quarters. I have been at it for two years (open for 18 months). Hopefully it starts making real money over the next year.

sangha · Oct 5, 2011

Misterveritis said:
I started a business in the mid-90s. It failed. I put in lots of my money and even more from other people with money. I love to hear about how successful people started their businesses.

It depends on the business and the market. Some businesses will never succeed. Others require a lot of investment. Others do not.

My most successful businesses were mostly internet-based. I bought financial data, did some calculations that were then being done by hand, reformatted the data, and sold it to financial institutions who replaced the work done by those employees with my data. Since they no longer employ those people, they don't know how to calculate the info they need, so they can't develop their own software to do the work. All this took was some insight, some labor (to write the programs and built the website) and a little upfront money (to purchase the data and for the internet provider)

I'm also involved with importing a food product that is hard to find, limited in supply, and superior to other similar products on the market, which I sell to high-end restaurants. The markup is small, as is the market, but it is a steady source of income. It took a little money (to purchase the product initially) and some labor (to go around and sell the product)

Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

sangha

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

Misterveritis

sangha

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

sangha

washunut

hazlnut

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

drz-400

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

sangha

sangha

sangha

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

sangha

sangha

presluc

presluc

presluc

sangha

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist

sangha