Amongst all of the crises we have swirling around us, financial, security, national, or international, all affecting our lives very directly, a powerful trend our media is ignoring is the very acute decline in business startup rates during the past decade. This trend is a continuation of the general drift we have endured for over thirty years, as the boot of government bureaucracy has increasingly pressed down on small employers. Capable leadership, lighter taxes, and lighter fee burdens are urgently required — most of all, unfettered inspiration is an imperative.
Regardless our dreams and aspirations, we can all use positive encouragement and support — without restraints or expectations of quid pro quo. This becomes even more critical for those who dive headlong into the realm of entrepreneurial uncertainties and risks. However we consider the underlying factors influencing the negative trend on business startups, the reality is that it’s impact is palpable in every neighbourhood in America.
Through the years I advised entrepreneurs and managers to seek out individuals who could demonstrate confidence whenever they searched for employees or partners.
That counsel applies to most relationships unless they are single events, and even then, you never know if the insecurity of an individual you have struck a singular ‘deal’ with, might not come back to haunt you. The most damaging and sharpest knives which find their ways deep into our backs most often come from acquaintances we trusted – plunged in by insecure individuals we “let in” trustingly.
I define a true friend as being one who is capable of wishing others well, which means someone possessing enough security and confidence, to feel happy with someone else’s success, be it large or miniscule.
On Tuesday, Donald Trump received what is in my book the most powerful endorsement he can possibly receive from anyone. Dana White, President of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), addressing the RNC crowd said that after he had signed a network deal for UFC, “There was a big write-up about it in the New York Times, Donald took that paper and wrote on the front of it, ‘Congratulations, Dana! I always knew you would do it.’ And just for the record, Donald has nothing to do with my business. His interest in me and my business is personal. You can really tell a person’s true character when they are happy for somebody else’s success.”
It would be difficult to write a more positive statement about anyone.
To all those who throw the insult, “narcissist” at Trump – a narcissist is incapable of feeling happy for somebody else’s success. We have all had too long a long look at and become familiar with what narcissism looks like. This is not it. Quite the opposite.
White squarely, emotionally and effectively designated this attribute to Trump, and this bodes well for the potential entrepreneurs out there on the verge of leaping into business independence. This bodes well for America.
A constituent of the vast baby boomer generation with a career which has been fortunate to know the ponderous corporate worlds, as well as the intimately pressurized, and invigorating entrepreneurial domains of high tech and venture capital, I have harvested my share of mistakes meandering through corridors of enterprise from Silicon Valley, to London and endless, colourful, sometimes praetorian points in between. The voyage has provided an abundance of fodder for a pen yielding to an inquisitive keyboard, a foraging mind, and a passionate spirit.
Whether political or business or social or economic or personal, is it not all political? It is a privilege to write, and an even greater privilege to be read by anyone, and sometimes with the wind at my back the writing may occasionally be legible. I do not write to invite scorn, nor to invite respect, but if I get really lucky the writing can stimulate thinking. I also write for the very selfish purpose of animating my own processes, and engaging the best of what life offers. Above all, whether biting fire or swatting shadows, I am grateful to be gifted the freedom to write and publish whatever flows down to the keyboard. To all those who enabled this freedom, and to all those standing guard to preserve it, I am indebted.
Thought for the evening, after watching Donald Trump’s acceptance speech: The devil is in the details.
@John: #21
Quit projecting, John. Not everyone is a flawed as you. You’re special.
I was making a statement of fact. Those are the codes in my county. Neither my tenant nor I wasted time whining, but then we’re both conservative. He just figured out how to do what he wanted within the rules. It’s a conservative concept that you can’t understand.
After watching most of the speech I would say this–Trump is a populist not a Conservative–he’s going for the win by appealing to working class Dems. It could work– Loved the fact the music was solid rock and roll-no country music.
@John: #23
It’s my money, John. I’ll invest it where it will do me the most good. But for your information, I do have investments inside the USA. Several of them with robotics companies. And, yes, I pay taxes here. As for “moving profits overseas”, well, since profits are what I invest in businesses overseas, I suppose I am. But not because profits are higher, (there aren’t any for the first few years of any startup, dummy!) but because the risks of failure are lower.
Just off the top of my head, I have directly financed, in whole or in part, companies that employ over 1000 people here in the USA. Yet you want to stomp your widdle feet and call me names because I didn’t do it your way?
Just what is your way, anyway? To disparage those who produce, while contributing nothing yourself? Just how many jobs have you directly financed, risking your own money in the hope of a future payoff, here in the USA? Now go play while the adults talk.
@Richard Wheeler, #53:
He’s throwing a comprehensive populace, nationalist pitch to a crowd eager to empower a personality, and not the least bit worried about the details. His speech was one of the scariest moments in American politics that I’ve ever personally witnessed.
And what does the truth matter, when you’re working up the crowd?
Donald Told No Less Than 21 Fact Checked Proven Lies During His Acceptance Speech
You know, lies. Statements that are undeniably untrue, where their untruth can be clearly and easily demonstrated by citing the actual, verifiable facts.
That’s a lot of demonstrable lies to be rolling out in the course of a single speech. The problem is that Trump supporters won’t believe or care about that, any more than they care about the missing details of how Trump intends to do anything he claims he’ll do. Because Hillary.
@Greg: So is there some frigging trollite that works in his moms basement carefully checking every speech or statement and his long speech had 21 lies. Think about what sad sad life that person must have. Does he have the number of times Hillary said about Bengahzi, it was the fault of a internet film?
Why dont you have a night on the town Greg just a relaxing night out, a little popcorn and soda Go see a democrat movie, Hillarys America.
@Nanny G: #11
Nanny G, I agree, . . . I was referring to what the MSM was representing, which was more than an exaggeration, it was an outright lie.
Undoubtedly many people are fact checking Trump every time he opens his mouth. There should be. The media should be doing it. They haven’t devoted one-tenth the time to fact checking Trump’s statements that they’ve devoted to the GOP’s politically motivated investigations of Hillary Clinton. While Trump constantly condemns the media, his political rise is entirely a product of media attention. They haven’t covered him critically or analytically. They’ve kept a spotlight on him because his campaign was viewed as entertainment. Now they suddenly realize he’s had his way with a non-critical audience who have hung on his every word without questioning the underlying reality. Their negligence has let this guy happen.
@Greg: No need with Hillary she cant tell the truth at all.
@kitt, #60:
That’s a right wing mantra, not reality. Fact check Clinton and Trump both. Fact check them against established, demonstrable facts, not against manure cranked out by conspiracy theorists, discredited rumors, or propaganda memes.
I fully understand the pointlessness of that suggestion, of course. Trump supporters and Hillary haters aren’t going to do that. They think facts are part of a deception, unless they’re a hand picked assortment chosen to reinforce what they already believe.
Donald Trump’s NATO comments are the scariest thing he’s said
Not if you’re Vladimir Putin, of course.
@Richard Wheeler:
Sweet Caroline by Neil Diamond is Rock and Roll?
@Greg: Trump said that Obama had doubled the national debt to over 19 Trillion. It was 10.6 on Jan 20, 2009 and is 19.3 today, Essentially it has doubled to over 19 Trillion. You need to stop relying on those lib sites to verify facts for you. They only see the lib side.
ISIS came into existence in 2011. Hardly a lie.
You’re clearly wrong on the first two you mention, I didn’t even read any further. When you rely on snopes or fact check, you’re hitting rock bottom.
@Greg: He absolutely should not comment on anything of that nature until he gets the people around him that are well versed in the subject.
The exhaustive list in his acceptance speech ,dont think anyone really thinks he will accomplish much of it he needs to sit down with advisors and prioritize. Should he win the election there is a nasty liberal mess that needs to be cleaned, just slowing down the damage done by O and Hill will take 4 years.
@Greg:
Greg, here is one of the ‘lies” that you claim is demonstratively untrue. tell us how you disproved that nothing has affected him more deeply. Just go ahead and admit you are full of sh*t.
@Greg:
No one has to check crooked Hillary, we know if she said it, it’s a lie and if she did it, it was crooked. Why look any further?.
@Greg:
Let me see if I understand: Trump saying that if our Nato allies have fulfilled their obligations, we will fulfill ours. That’s scary? Seems as if you’re implying that even if Nato allies are no longer participating or fulfilling their membership obligations, that we should ignore all that and go ahead and support them? Is that what you’re saying? Are you really?
In the netherworld of the socialist media, CNN is now consistently feeding lies to its shrinking audience, using the likes of communist and Obama advisor, Van Jones, with too much regularity.
Are they really that much out of touch?
@Redteam, #64:
That arithmetic conveniently ignores the fact that the $1.632 trillion in debt accrued in 2009 wasn’t actually Obama’s doing. You can deduct that from the debt attributable to Obama and add it to that of his predecessor.
Obama didn’t run the economy off the rails, causing federal revenue to crash through the floor boards. Obama wasn’t responsible for the 2009 federal budget, including the Bush bail outs. The effects of Obama’s budget and policies actually commenced with 2010, the year after he took office.
@Greg:
So does that mean that the debt accumulated for the next two years under Pres Trump can be credited to Obama? Since it is going up much faster today than it was back in 09, then that makes Obozo look even worse, so take off that 1.6 which occurred in 09 and add the 3.4 that will accumulate in ’17 and it makes Obozo even worse, is that how you want it to show up? Since everything that happened since Obozo took office is George Bush’s fault, then all the blame shifts to Obozo as soon as Trump takes office.
Why was Obozo such an ineffective president that nothing that has happened during his term of office, except for Obozocare, is because of him? Every action Bush took has endured for the entire duration of Obozo.
@Redteam, #68:
No, what’s being pointed out by anybody with a rudimentary understanding of geopolitics and modern history is that what protects NATO members from invasion is belief in Article 5 of the NATO Treaty—that an attack on any one member will be responded to as an attack on all. The moment there is any cause to doubt that principle, it’s usefulness as a deterrent begins to fail and the world becomes a far more dangerous place.
Trump just publicly suggested that we might not defend our NATO allies unless they’re current with their club dues. Hey, Greece is in economic trouble. I guess Greece is up for grabs. So, what about all of those Eastern European NATO members formerly under the thumb of the Soviet Union?
Coming from a presidential candidate, the mere suggestion is dangerous. Up until now, republicans have generally understood this. They’ve generally understood that a totally credible threat of military response is what keeps such a response from becoming necessary. This has been one of the nation’s undisputed core geopolitical principles. Are you ready to replace it with Yeah, I don’t know…maybe we will or maybe we won’t ?
Another fact check article: Fact-checking Donald Trump’s acceptance speech at the 2016 RNC
@Greg:
Anyone that supports a president such as Obozo who has ignored every obligation the US has and has illegally negotiated with the enemy (Iran) and put into place a treaty that has not been approved by the US senate, should be thrilled with the prospects of a new president that just does whatever the hell he wants to, regardless of any law. There are several articles in the NATO treaty. Is one of them more important than the others? Why. Doesn’t the articles all say what the members are obligated to do under certain conditions. Do you think all of those Nato members have lived up to all their obligations? Why should the US go to the rescue of a country that would not come to the rescue of the US? If a country is not maintaining an armed force, then they sure as hell aren’t going to raise an army just to send them to the US. I’ll bet if you really wanted to be objective and not just politically correct (as a Dimocrat) you could put together a much longer list of reasons to be afraid of Hillary. Do you think she can get anyone to serve as an Ambassador overseas with them knowing she will do nothing to aid them if they are attacked?
Why didn’t you ask that question before we invaded Iraq?
In the case of NATO, it’s because we learned a lesson from not standing up to Hitler the moment he began crossing borders. The NATO treaty is about our own national interests, not just about Latvia or Lithuania or whatever. It was republicans who were all so hot on expanding NATO membership following the breakup of the Soviet Union, as I recall.
@Greg:
Hey smart ass, just which Nato country did Iraq invade? The country that the US was representing in Iraq was the US, not some Nato ally.
Soo why are the Dimocrats flipping out about it?
So now you’re showing us that you don’t know US History very well, that’s certainly NOT why the US got involved with Germany.
Having just dealt with the consequences of failing to present a united front against Hitler’s territorial expansions, the original NATO treaty nations saw the same sort of threat emerging with Joseph Stalin. The lesson of Hitler and the Second World War is precisely why NATO came into being.
Fox’s Ralph Peters: Trump’s NATO Position Is “Destructive And Idiotic”
It’s not like it’s coming from some leftist, is it?