03-16-2012, 11:17 PM
Originally Posted by Robert Fay
I read it, and I have some major issues with it from a practical, real life experience view point. I'm an entrepreneur, and a capitalist in the traditional sense. I also have another buddy who recently created a startup company. My younger brother is an entrepreneur with several successful franchises. And none of us went through that article's premise, which is in using "formal" capital raising mechanisms to start new businesses.
The premise of the article is that the Goldman Sach's outing is to "attack" the formal capital raising mechanisms for businesses in the USA. I couldn't help but LOL when I read that, because I lived through the tech boom. Remember that? Back in the late 1990's? Remember the term IPO? Do you remember how every, and I mean EVERY single IPO that was sponsored by Goldman Sach's turned out to be the biggest pump and dump scam/sham ever perpetrated on the business world? Let's keep that memory in mind, shall we? I'm about to school you in basic business and entrepreneurship.
To prove my point that "formal " capital raising mechanisms is the LEAST used method of raising capital, go to any business section of any public library of any town or city, and look up ANY book on entrepreneurship on how to start a business. In every single book, there's a section called "Friends and Family."
That's right. Raising capital for any business, pretty much EVERY book discusses talking and selling your business plan to who? Friends and Family. Not the banks, not Goldman Sach's, not Venture Capitalists (Who, where we come from, we call them VULTURE CAPITALISTS.), and not Angel Investors, hell, not even State and Federal grants. The FIRST resource every book discusses to tackle, is selling your idea to your Family and your friends. This is hardly what I would call formal capital. Most businesses in the US get started in this fashion, and especially when you talk to immigrant entrepreneurs. I know this from observing my own family and the numerous businesses that they've started up.
Formal capital raising, as in through Goldman Sach's, if you hang around startup entrepreneur circles like I do, is usually seen as a no go, a last ditch resort if you really want to lose your company, or as a bad gamble to maybe sell your company off, which means that the entrepreneur is not in it for the long haul, and that puts the startup in serious doubt as to quality and capability.
The only way the "elite" can eliminate an individual's ability to raise capital to start a business is to wipe out the entire population of the US, cause we all have Family and friends. I say, good luck to that! So on a practical approach, and even in its central thesis, the article is incredibly flawed. If you don't believe me, try this as an experiment. Talk to your family and friends, and ask them, if you have a good idea, with a good business plan, and you've got your market understood, did your homework, would they be willing to invest their savings in you depending on how you structure their return? If you get even one yes, you've already disproven the central thesis of the article. And if you got nothing but no's, then you've either got to broke family and friends, or you need to work on sales skills.
The second issue I have with that article, is whoever wrote it, like I said, doesn't have practical entrepreneurship experience. If they think that the only mode of raising capital is through Wall Street, which it most definitely is NOT, then they're actively ignoring 100% of American small businesses, which are still the backbone of our economy. Another way you can prove my point is go talk to ANY small business in your neighborhood, and ask them how they got their funding, and if they got a loan from a bank. I will bet you that 9 times out of 10, not a single business managed to get a bank loan, and that those 9 out of 10, again, got it through family and friends, or via bootstrapping.
Anyway, that's my take on that article. I think whoever wrote it, is either incredibly ignorant to entrepreneurship and basic business skills, dumb, or in a conspiratorial point of view, reactionist to the point of irrational paranoia.
All da Best,
Da Asian Brutha.
03-17-2012, 06:37 AM
New Video out (Mar 15\2012) per Imminent Mass Arrests ~ supposedly to be Televised
I checked to see if this was posted. I think you will be glad to see it ... and move it forward.
"Imminent Televised Event: Mass Arrests of 10,000 Global Cabal Members - 2012"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eKhTUU35X4 (Mar 15, 2012)
03-17-2012, 06:48 AM
Thanks for this graphic, Daven. This is the exact thing i have been wondering about since this all started.
I hope you won't mind me using your introduction, as written, on Facebook. I will put quotes on it, not your name, since at this point i don't have permission to identify the attribution ... and i want to get on with getting the link out there since it is so very telling and explanatory of the dept, range and the hugeness of the reality of what is spooling up.
Originally Posted by daven
03-17-2012, 10:36 AM
Just as long as you leave in the signature attribution to "Da Asian Brutha". That's all I ask.
Originally Posted by Robert Fay
03-17-2012, 11:57 AM
Okay, glad to do it. I didn't dare to without your permission, Devan. Will do so in the future.
03-17-2012, 01:35 PM
Folks, if you analyze the circumstances around Mr. Greg Smith's resignation from Goldman Sachs, as shown here from a discussion of it from RT,
At the 3:52 mark, comes the most pertinent remarks about this.
"We don't know the circumstances under which Greg Smith left. This is obviously extremely rare, I can't think of another instance in Goldman Sach's history where this has happened... usually they get people who leave the firm to sign nondisparagement agreements, or to sign confidentiality agreements... usually that's how they get people to stay under the fold, stay under the tent... that did not happen this time, we do not know why..."
And these are remarks coming from a former investment banker and author, who's an expert in this culture.
Let's put that together with the mass global resignations, and with the FACT that Greg Smith was in charge of THE DERIVATIVES DIVISION based out of London, means several things.
First, he has the full INSIDE view into the derivatives market, in particular in Europe.
Second, he bailed in an anomalous manner from Goldman Sachs.
Third, he bailed and did so by making a public statement, essentially covering his behind by using the jury of the public to disavow and distance himself from whatever may be happening RIGHT NOW.
Fourth, he's one of a massive number of resignations now occurring worldwide.
What are my conclusions from this? A mega financial cataclysm is happening in the derivatives world (not surprised there), and it is the type of event that will literally lead to public lynching probably even assassinations, without any due course of law, hence the massive number of resignations happening worldwide (most of them quietly), and Mr. Smith's desire to come out and distance himself from the criminal elements that lead to this event in a public and international forum. The way he did this, guarantees that he will be blacklisted globally from any kind of job in his field, and even more dangerous, he's probably in the cross-hairs of hired goons for Goldman Sachs. I have no doubt that he carefully considered all of the implications of what he was about to do. Which leads us to the scariest part of this.
A man who has nothing to lose, will do the most dangerous things. This man, had nothing to lose in the face of what's happening.
That says a lot right there.
This $h!t gets better and better! I don't know about you folks, but f--k me, this has been very entertaining! Buttah up the popcorn!
All da Best,
Da Asian Brutha
03-17-2012, 11:12 PM
Yup. _ _ _ _ _
Originally Posted by daven
03-19-2012, 03:34 PM
Thanx again Da Asian Brother.......you have a wealth of knowledge and understanding. Thank you for caring and sharing. Keep on keeping on brother! This is awesome stuff!
03-19-2012, 04:39 PM
Yeah, great stuff, bro!
Just read an interesting article in Rolling Stone Magazine, "Bank of America: Too Crooked to Fail". I haven't been too up on my understanding of the complexities of these issues but it struck me that at least on the surface of things, the article nicely illuminates some of the 'on the record' criminal activities of the Bank of America. Features an expose of some of the methods used to rob untold billions of bucks from your Aunt Sally and mine:
03-20-2012, 12:05 AM
And thank you David. I know you don't read this but anyway...I only caught on to your stuff around Christmas just gone but have been down this track over half my life, well lol, that's relative. I really feel you brother! I to am Pisces and feel great empathy for others feelings and in a world full of pain life is hard and tho I have lots of friends and family, it has been lonely! When I first read your interview with Ben Fulford I cried for the first time in years and couldn't stop for a good while! Thank you! I have ordered your book and hope to make it the last of its type that I purchase...everything I need now I already have! Io Mata Ngaro kia ora! (Thank you source).........re:synchronicities in March I celebrated my 33 birthday!
Tags for this Thread