This Market Of Women/Recommendations

[Tenacity]

Taiyuu,

But again, you aren't being consistent with your stance. Your conclusion is:

....If you can't find what you want, don't blame the market, blame your sorting and qualifying skills. IF ONLY TO MAINTAIN THE IDEA that what you want is "out there" somewhere. And interesting things happen to people who KEEP LOOKING.

So that's your stance, which is based totally on this Positive Thinking notion that I have been railing against because it doesn't factor in reality (the negative sides) at all.

But your stance isn't consistent, because you also say this:

Certainly dating and relationships are the least logical thing on Earth, and everybody's experience will differ, based on a zillion different variables.

If relationships make no sense and thus, cause random experiences per individual, how can you make a sweeping generalization about said relationships that an individual can find a high amount of decent quality if he just properly filters the market? If the experiences are random, you can't make sweeping generalizations.

What you would say is that one guy might find it but another might not find it, it depends on the unique characteristics, circumstances, opportunities, etc. of said individual AS WELL AS the availability of said "quality" in the Marketplace.

That would be like saying anybody who becomes an Entrepreneur can eventually "succeed," without acknowledging the random variables within the management of every individual Entrepreneur's business.

Some Entrepreneurs are in bad markets, some are in bad locations, some are in good markets, some are in good locations, some have in demand/innovative products, some have "me too" products, some have products that are priced too high, some have products priced too low, some don't really produce any value but just scam people, some produce a lot of value, some have a lot of equity capital, some have no equity but just debt, some have NO CAPITAL at all (debt or equity), etc, etc, etc.

These are all random experiences per Entrepreneur, but those of the Positive Thinking camp like yours will say that EVERY Entrepreneur will eventually succeed if they just keep going, keep learning, keep adjusting, etc.

It doesn't workout that way all of the time. Sometimes you have a bad product, sometimes you just suck as an Entrepreneur and need to work for someone else, sometimes you are just in a bad location, etc., etc.

Positive Psychology, or my Reality Based Thinking approach of examining all of the positives, negatives and balancing them out for an optimal path going forward, would avoid all of this. Matter of fact, it would avoid you starting up a business that is likely to FAIL in the first place. Matter of fact, it would avoid you investing money in investment products that are likely to cause a loss of principal and future interest.

 

[Tenacity]

I'm in BOLD

......Women who are somehow flawed in their looks by society's standards will be more eager to please a man who shows up in their life. But today, these women are being treated the same as hot women in the name of "equality"........Fat women are now taught to be proud of their curves instead of being encouraged to lose the weight. Society is embracing the fat chick as an emotional equal.

^^^ THIS. It goes back to what I was saying in that this market as a whole is moving to a totally gynocentric market. A woman can get away with anything and not be called out on it. She can be FAT and beautiful, a dude can't get away with that. She can be BROKE and get bailed out, a dude would get mocked. Even on the sexuality side of things, go to a straight bar or club and what do you see? You see straight women on the floor (in a straight club) bumping, grinding, kissing, and doing all types of lesbian activities. I'm not advocating that a man do this lol, but I'm just saying if in that straight club you seen a group of dudes doing that shyt, they would be jumped and kicked out of the club.

....It's all crap. Finding "quality" in a woman these days is like winning the lottery. So why not adapt to the current social atmosphere and treat them all as equally fvckable? You're not going to notice any difference in their personalities or how they feel when your d1ck is inside of them.

^^^ This incorporates Positive Psychology, not this Positive Thinking notion. Positive Psychology looks at the overall picture, looks at reality, and then formulates a plan of action going forward. You see the market is mostly full of shyt, the women you get (even the "good girls") are mostly full of shyt, so seeing this and NOT adapting your management of women going forward is very much a kin to a business refusing to adapt to 21st Century Technology and Automation. Des is smart in that aspect because he doesn't allow his optimism (Positive Thinking) to cloud GOOD JUDGEMENT, like a lot of you guys are doing on this forum talking about how everything is care bears, rainbows and puppy dogs...and all you have to do is "filter the market efficiently" to find a lot of decent quality. That's hogwash gentlemen lol

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

This will be my last post on this subject.

(my original posts in bold)

Taiyuu,

But again, you aren't being consistent with your stance. Your conclusion is:

....If you can't find what you want, don't blame the market, blame your sorting and qualifying skills. IF ONLY TO MAINTAIN THE IDEA that what you want is "out there" somewhere. And interesting things happen to people who KEEP LOOKING.

So that's your stance, which is based totally on this Positive Thinking notion that I have been railing against because it doesn't factor in reality (the negative sides) at all.

It's not based on positive thinking. I never said anything like positive thinking in any of my posts. My conclusions are based on OBJECTIVE OBSERVATIONS of market data.

Namely, there are TENS OF MILLIONS of people in this country who are in committed family relationships. TENS OF MILLIONS of people who have made the decision that their relationship is important, and takes work.

TENS OF MILLIONS of people that remain married despite the court system, despite rampant hypergamy, despite floozies making a career out of being super cheating sex-tape bimbos.

This is what a RATIONAL market operator does. He looks out into the market. He looks at everything that is available on the market. He decides what he wants that IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE on the market.

Then he interacts with the market to get what he wants. If he can't get what he wants, he INCREASES WHAT HE BRINGS to the market IN EXCHANGE for what he wants.

He doesn't get angry at the market, and takes his ball and runs home crying to mommy that the market isn't fair.

THE MARKET IS ALWAYS FAIR.

YOU GET IN EQUAL MEASURE TO WHAT YOU BRING.

The idea that you bring some mad skills to the market yet can't get what you want, DESPITE TENS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE getting what YOU said you wanted, is IMPOSSIBLE.

But your stance isn't consistent, because you also say this:

Certainly dating and relationships are the least logical thing on Earth, and everybody's experience will differ, based on a zillion different variables.

If relationships make no sense and thus, cause random experiences per individual, how can you make a sweeping generalization about said relationships that an individual can find a high amount of decent quality if he just properly filters the market? If the experiences are random, you can't make sweeping generalizations.

"dating and relationships are the least logical thing on Earth"

DOES NOT EQUAL

relationships make no sense and cause random experiences per individual

What you would say is that one guy might find it but another might not find it, it depends on the unique characteristics, circumstances, opportunities, etc. of said individual AS WELL AS the availability of said "quality" in the Marketplace.

Absolutely correct. What you GET is in equal proportion to WHAT YOU BRING.

The ONLY VARIABLE you can change is WHAT YOU BRING.

However, NEVER HAVE YOU mentioned that your problem is that you are not bringing enough to the market. You have ALWAYS BLAMED THE MARKET.

Here's a potentially INSULTING EXAMPLE (I do not mean it as such):

You mentioned in another thread that "women are penny stocks."

Could it be possible is if "penny stock" women are ALL ONE CAN AFFORD with current quality of "game," that is all one can find?

That would be like saying anybody who becomes an Entrepreneur can eventually "succeed," without acknowledging the random variables within the management of every individual Entrepreneur's business.

Perhaps I miscommunication. Not every guy can get TOP QUALITY women. Not every entrepreneur can get rich.

THAT IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE MARKET.

Especially when certain individuals ARE getting top quality women, and certain individuals ARE getting rich.

Some Entrepreneurs are in bad markets, some are in bad locations, some are in good markets, some are in good locations, some have in demand/innovative products, some have "me too" products, some have products that are priced too high, some have products priced too low, some don't really produce any value but just scam people, some produce a lot of value, some have a lot of equity capital, some have no equity but just debt, some have NO CAPITAL at all (debt or equity), etc, etc, etc.

Yep. And the fault lies SQUARELY on said entrepreneur for NOT DOING SUFFICIENT MARKET RESEARCH.

Also, it's crucial to note, that many successful entrepreneurs take YEARS before they hit it big. After many failures.

And some give up after a few tries, and BLAME THE MARKET.

What's the difference? Not positive thinking, but a rock solid FAITH IN THEIR OWN ABILITY TO KEEP TRYING UNTIL THEY SUCCEED.

Any economist will tell you that from an entrepreneurial standpoint, paying attention to failure (losses) is just as important, if not more so, than paying attention to successes (profits).

I believe any entrepreneur that doesn't take lessons from failures (like dating the same low quality type of woman over and over and over) is guilty of positive thinking in face of contrary evidence.

These are all random experiences per Entrepreneur, but those of the Positive Thinking camp like yours will say that EVERY Entrepreneur will eventually succeed if they just keep going, keep learning, keep adjusting, etc.

I never said nor implied nor do I believe I am in the "positive thinking camp."

Positive Psychology, or my Reality Based Thinking approach of examining all of the positives, negatives and balancing them out for an optimal path going forward, would avoid all of this. Matter of fact, it would avoid you starting up a business that is likely to FAIL in the first place. Matter of fact, it would avoid you investing money in investment products that are likely to cause a loss of principal and future interest.

Impossible. The future is ALWAYS uncertain. You never know if you win or lose until you try. However, once you try and fail, you HAVE SOLID DATA to learn from.

Very few ENTREPRENEURS EVER SUCCEEDS without significant losses at first. But they DO NOT keep making the same losses over and over and over.

In fact, some of the greatest companies EVER operated at a loss for YEARS before finally making a profit.

They very best investors of ALL TIME know that every single investment can lose money if they aren't careful.

They would certainly NOT DO what YOU have been doing.

Which is namely, dating the SAME low quality women over and over and over without learning from your mistakes.

Why do you NOT practice the positive psychology that you preach, and LEARN FROM YOUR MISTAKES?

Namely, if you date a girl that has quality X, that is a deal breaker for you, WHY NOT SORT FOR QUALITY X before you date the next girl?

Like covertly ASK HER if she has QUALITY X in the first conversation?

Yet you spend time in thread after thread trying to convince everybody (and more importantly yourself) that it is NOT YOUR FAULT.

If one cannot get what one wants from the market, when others are getting it, one simply cannot blame the market.

One MUST blame ones current level of skills.

Believing this is not positive thinking, or even positive psychology.

This is PRAGMATIC.

This is the entrepreneurial mind.

Choose Goal-->Take Action-->Measure Results (profits and losses)-->Use Results To Increase Skills-->Take Action-->Repeat Until Goal Achieved

This is the same thing successful people have been doing since the DAWN OF TIME.

Why not you?

(and please don't say we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking about a general guideline for maximizing ones success IN ANY MARKET, and you are arguing FOR YOUR LIMITATIONS).

 

[guru1000]

There are those who research and execute their game plan by the rules of the market. And then, there are those who create their own markets.
While pragmatism to the extent of assiduous research, trying, failing, learning, and re-employing is superb in theory, by all means does it not ensure gargantuan, or any, success for that matter. Most entrepreneurs are pragmatic, assiduous, and even tenacious. Most also fail.

I will reiterate the following from another thread:

I’m a VC. On average, I'm solicited a couple dozen times a month with business plans. Some of these plans are prospectuses for bona fide public offerings, not only delineating company modus operandi; but including certified existing and pro-forma financials, liquidation strategies, debt-to-income/PE ratios at aftermarket share pricing, LTD cost-efficiency book value, etc.

At the end of the solicitation, I take the prospectus and toss it across the room. I ask only one question of the solicitor: Why should I choose you?

I have entered into agreements with the most egregious-looking prospectuses, and have done quite well. Why? Because, while careful planning, solid infrastructure, and pragmatism are ubiquitious in my arena, it is only the cussed bloody-minded, ramrod-backed type of damnfool entrepreneur that would rather break than sway with the breeze that will succeed. Unfortunately, this type of thinking will remain apocryphal to most, as very few truly understand that guaranteed success rests not in careful planning nor execution, but rather in the thoughts and beliefs of the damnfool before execution. Assiduous planning and execution are the shooting fingers, not the success trigger.

Tenacity, to answer your question about what's wrong with your thinking. I have not the time to research, cut, nor paste your posts. You have mentioned myriad times your inclination to grab a gun and start shooting X, Y, Z , inter alia, including your own admissions that you need to see a psychotherapist. Let's not sugarcoat your thinking patterns.

 

[Tenacity]

Taiyuu,

I get your point, in that if a good chunk of people are generating a good level of success from a market in general and YOU aren't obtaining it, then it could more than likely be related to your skills.

But you still refuse to acknowledge higher market forces that are at play that you have NO CONTROL over. You literally refuse to even acknowledge these forces for some reason?

Let's look at Economics.

You say the market is always fair and that you get from the market in proportion of the level of value that you bring, I agree with this 100% with Economics, but you have to understand the markets are structured so that everybody can't even participate.

There are resource and supply limitations in every market, these resources are fiercely competed for and usually those with the best networks, the best budgets, the best influence, etc., obtain the majority of these resources. This allows them to have power and maintain said power.

This is why you have the huge divide between the HAVES and the HAVE NOTS, it's not statistically possible nor setup for the majority of the 300 million Americans to be Billionaires or Millionaires. About 10 million households in the country have over $1 million and about 1.5 million households have over $5 million.

YOUR argument would state that because 1.5 million households have over $5 million in assets, then EVERYBODY can go out and achieve that same level of success? That's simply not true and our system is not designed that way.

One Billionaire and even one Multi-Millionaire, has market share over a large industry that usually incorporates a bunch of inter-connected professions, smaller industries, smaller merchants, and individual jobs. The reason the guy is a Billionaire or Multi-Millionaire, is because he's on the top of the food chain so to speak, if you take out all of those inter-connections under him then his wealth significantly decreases. You usually have the following type of food chain:

- A billionaire sits at the top
- Some millionaires are right under him in the next link
- Some "hundred thousandires" are right under the millionaires
- Some middle class folks are right under the "hundred thousandires"
- Some lower class/working class folks are right under the middle class folks

To give you an example of how this works in my industry of Commercial Finance (Alternative)

- We have billionaire hedge fund managers and bankers at the top who supply VC capital to our industry

- We have people that use the VC capital that underwrite/create various commercial finance lending platforms and products to provide commercial funding, they become millionaires

- You have people that work in middle management positions for those commercial finance lending companies, they become the middle class

- You have people that clean the building where those managers and staff members work, they become the working class

It's just not true that anybody can just BE whatever the hell they want to BE, if they try hard enough. It's not true, it's never been true. There are market forces that determine winners and losers, and sometimes the opportunity to "work your way up or educate your way up" into the WINNER category is just NOT available.

> Go ask a Staff Accountant that's been a Staff Accountant for 25 years, WHY they never moved up to CFO or Controller? Or go ask a Lawyer that's been working for 25 years, WHY they never moved up to Partner? It's because a lot of times those positions aren't even available and if they are available, political networks are already established to give those positions off to "certain individuals" already anyway.

 

[Tenacity]

Tenacity, to answer your question about what's wrong with your thinking. I have not the time to research, cut, nor paste your posts. You have mentioned myriad times your inclination to grab a gun and start shooting X, Y, Z , inter alia, including your own admissions that you need to see a psychotherapist. Let's not sugarcoat your thinking patterns.

I don't believe my Positive Psychology/Reality Based Thinking has anything to do with those personal issues. Those are personal issues that I have from a family and cultural standpoint, it's actually my way of THINKING that allowed me to become successful in spite of having those personal issues.

 

[guru1000]

Go ask a Staff Accountant that's been a Staff Accountant for 25 years, WHY they never moved up to CFO or Controller? Or go ask a Lawyer that's been working for 25 years, WHY they never moved up to Partner? It's because a lot of times those positions aren't even available and if they are available, political networks are already established to give those positions off to "certain individuals" already anyway.

Herein is what I specifically refer to when I state "positive thinking." The position is not available. HA! That's a joke. You MAKE the position available. Are you not in sales? Do you not understand the concept of willing a plan into reality through "brute force"? Have you ever had days where you closed every prospect, and have you had days where you could close no one? Was the difference in your mindset or in the market?

My friend, take a trip to NY one day. I will show you things you have never envisioned in respect to willing your "reality" into fruition--in ANY market.

 

[guru1000]

No offense Tenacity, I like you as an individual. But I won't be participating in these kinds of threads anymore. It seems to be a melting pot which facilitates "loser" thinking.

 

[Tenacity]

Herein is what I specifically refer to when I state "positive thinking." The position is not available. HA! That's a joke. You MAKE the position available. Are you not in sales? Do you not understand the concept of willing a plan into reality through "brute force"? Have you ever had days where you closed every prospect, and have you had days where you could close no one? Was the difference in your mindset or in the market?

My friend, take a trip to NY one day. I will show you things you have never envisioned in respect to willing your "reality" into fruition--in ANY market.

No my friend, it doesn't work like that. With the Accountant and Lawyer examples, a lot of the people that become Partners at Law Firms and CFO/Controllers for medium-large corporations, are those who were already "politically selected" to get those positions in the first place. Some can WILL (or work or network) their way into one of those positions, but in general there are forces there that provide a hindrance.

There are political networks and market forces that you guys refuse to acknowledge exist, which is strange, because I know you guys are aware of these forces but for some reason, you refuse to acknowledge them? For example, Guru I KNOW you understand what I'm talking about when I break this stuff down.

I'm a Conservative, and while I believe in some capacity that everyone can "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" I do understand that if you don't even have bootstraps to begin with, it might take you a long time to acquire the bootstraps needed to pull yourself up and by the time you acquire those bootstraps....the opportunity in the market might be gone.

To continue with the bootstraps example, when I was homeless I had to FIRST acquire bootstraps before I could effectively begin competing in the market and building a career. What are those bootstraps? They are:

- Shelter
- Food
- Clothing
- Hygiene Products
- Basic Transportation
- Access To A Computer
- Access To A Cell Phone

Once I acquired these bootstraps, I was able to then start pulling myself up "by them" which was to use them to the best potential possible to climb up the ladder. I would do massive networking via the Computer on the Internet and use my Cell Phone to make deals, close deals, and gain new opportunities.

 

[Tenacity]

No offense Tenacity, I like you as an individual. But I won't be participating in these kinds of threads anymore. It seems to be a melting pot which facilitates "loser" thinking.

It's not loser thinking, it's reality based thinking. Guru when you invest in stocks, do you just THROW money in there because someone told you everything was positive and excellent about a company? Or do you do fundamental analysis, research, etc. and determine which investments are the best ones based on your strategic approach(es)?

 

[DaddyLongShanks]

I also understand it can be politics, but politics does not necessarily mean you will be stonewalled or marginalized

Sometimes the politics will define what's required of you before you make those moves, and the connections you will need. For all parts of our journeys there are things we need to move forward.

Politics is no different.

 

[Tenacity]

What I think has been happening here is that you guys (like Pair Plus said) believe it's much more therapeutic for someone to shift their focus to an optimistic future, rather than a bleak or mediocre one, as you believe focusing on the bleak or the mediocre (Chicken Little) causes a lot of various issues within a person that aren't good from a mental health standpoint.

As a result, you guys find the New Thought Movement's Prosperity Gospel or Law of Attraction messages to be much more attractive because, trust me, when the Prosperity Gospel preacher or the Law of Attraction motivational speaker says, Everyone in here is somebody and everyone in here is going to be blessed financially if they just believe it, that shyt makes me feel damn good on the inside as well . How can you sit in a meeting full of other like minded people like that, listening to that "rah rah" speech of how everybody in there is going to be blessed financially, and NOT come out feeling good? Listen, I have to sit through these messages at Sales Meetings all of the time lol, and as I told you guys I used to work in Church Ministry for almost 10 years, I'm very familiar with this line of thinking.

There are people that absolutely NEED to hear that message, as Guru talked about earlier in the thread, he talked about where does initial motivation to do something or chase something come from? I believe he was hitting at someone having heard positive words and those words having sparked their internal fire. It goes along with this scripture out of Romans 10:17 that Prosperity Preachers of the New Thought Movement use a lot:

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

So following the passage, someone hears the "rah rah" speech of Everyone in here is somebody and everyone in here is going to be blessed financially if they just believe it, that would spark the fire within and the person would now be motivated to go out and SEEK such blessings.

Matter of fact, Prosperity Gospel Preachers of the New Thought Movement follow this up by telling their audience to, Believe it's already done. You say it, you proclaim it, you claim it.

Man just typing that makes me feel fired up lol.

But nevertheless, I would much rather take my Reality Based Thinking approach over the New Thought Movement's Prosperity Gospel or Law of Attraction approach because the message from the New Thought Movement's promise of "a better tomorrow" is still riddled with:

- Extreme Ambiguity

- Absolutely NO substantive details, resources, opportunities, networks, plans, visions, directional outlines, market analysis, financial analysis, current health examinations, life expectancy analyses, etc., etc.

Based on this, I believe even though the New Thought Movement's message of a better tomorrow makes you feel good, it does way more DAMAGE than good because it makes people feel "comforted" rather than being "comfortable". There's a difference between the two and I want you guys to ponder that as we bring this discussion to a close.

Comforted - This is to console a person. The focus is SOLELY to improve their mood.

Comfortable - This is to move a person into a pleasant PHYSICAL PLACE. The focus is SOLELY on physical "warmth" rather than just emotional "warmth".

One thing Newbies and others can learn from this thread is that not at one time did we name call each other, throw out personal attacks, or anything of the sort. We debated our points, discussed our points, and at the end of the day we provided a lot of great content no matter if even still after five pages, we still agree to disagree.

 

[guru1000]

Who is to define objective reality? You? LOL. If "objectivity" means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings, then how do you define what is true if your thinking of what is true is already shaped/programmed off your indoctrination of social constructs? Perhaps, your objectivity is not so objective. This is the mental trap of calling the rational, irrational.

To the norm, every venture I ever partaken could be construed as irrational. Simply because if you engage in what everyone already knows--you will be just like everyone else; that is average.

Can anyone on this site who is above "average" refute the above? Remember I said above "average," meaning not a norm thinker.

Tenacity, I'm glad that you climbed to the middle class. But that's not transcendental friend. So how do you argue against what you are not familiar with? Transcendental thinking follows not the societal norms of practice. It's taking original ideas into unknown markets and willing these ideas into fruition. Any real entrepreneur who has any real measure of success understands this rudimentary concept. Your counter of not looking at the facts of an endeavor is a straw-claim, as such assertion was neither made, nor inferred, nor to supersede my claim, but instead to work conjointly with my claim. I'm speaking apples, you're countering peanuts.

They don't teach you this in school fellas. This is real-life application. So what if I were to say, as an example, that having ventured in over couple dozen businesses in the last six years and employed this rudimentary concept successfully, that believing in societal "rational" thinking makes you irrational. And as I choose to be "rational" by taking an unorthodox approach unfettered by "aberrant" social constructs, I cannot concede to the irrationality of all opposed.

 

[Tenacity]

Okay Guru, I'm going to take a different spin on this now....

Who is to define objective reality? You? LOL. If "objectivity" means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings, then how do you define what is true if your thinking of what is true is already shaped/programmed off your indoctrination of social constructs? Perhaps, your objectivity is not so objective. This is the mental trap of calling the rational, irrational.

To the norm, every venture I ever partaken could be construed as irrational. Simply because if you engage in what everyone already knows--you will be just like everyone else; that is average.

Can anyone on this site who is above "average" refute the above? Remember I said above "average," meaning not a norm thinker.

Here's my question, can you provide details on Business Ventures you were involved in/are involved in that are irrational and not founded on objectivity reality? You made this statement that you make irrational business investments, so can you provide examples of investments you made that were irrational based on financial, economic, market, etc. data that STILL turned out to be a positive return for you?


Tenacity, I'm glad that you climbed to the middle class. But that's not transcendental friend.

Guru I'm not at my goal of being a Self-Made Millionaire yet, but I'm on the right path. I know that you personally have detailed your successes and I believe you have tasted that Millionaire Status before, so I respect that (and you) so I'm always seeking to learn. But understand based on national data, I'm not average, I'm in the Top 1% and higher based on my Generation (Millennials). If you were to break it down further by race, gender and age/generation, I'm in the Top 0.1% based on Black Male Millennials. When I look at where I stand, I don't compare myself at 31 to men who might be 62, they have had double the time to acquire, save and compound wealth. One should compare himself to his Age Group and Generation.

So how do you argue against what you are not familiar with? Transcendental thinking follows not the societal norms of practice. It's taking original ideas into unknown markets and willing these ideas into fruition.

Can you provide an example of a Business Venture that wasn't working, but you WILLED it into fruition? Also include HOW did you WILL it into success? I'm talking about a Business Venture that every metric, analysis, data set, etc., was showing that you had sunk costs and should move onto another investment, but you instead ignored those metrics and continued and it eventually turned around?

Any real entrepreneur who has any real measure of success understands this rudimentary concept.

Guru I work with small business owners on a daily basis, I have never heard of someone WILLING a business to success when the business was irrational, products not selling, markets not aligned with it, etc. I'm not even sure I understand what you mean by WILLING it to success? Are you referring to increasing your marketing efforts? Making more calls? Increasing your sales skills? Raising more capital? All of those things are good, but if the products aren't aligned with the market, and aren't selling, then aren't you just adding to your SUNK costs? Again, you educate me then Guru and tell me HOW do you do this? Let me state this though, I'm not referring to a company that's not PROFITABLE yet. Sometimes a company will use a strategy of not being profitable in order to run into the market and gain a significant amount of market share, and then will cut their costs to gain profitability.

Your counter of not looking at the facts of an endeavor is a straw-claim, as such assertion was neither made, nor inferred, nor to supersede my claim, but instead to work conjointly with my claim. I'm speaking apples, you're countering peanuts.

Not totally, the argument and discussion has jumped over into different aspects of various concepts. We began discussing the market of women but then changed into discussing Economics. While discussing Economics, we got into discussing the value (or lack of value) of Positive Thinking.

They don't teach you this in school fellas. This is real-life application. So what if I were to say, as an example, that having ventured in over couple dozen businesses in the last six years and employed this rudimentary concept successfully, that believing in societal "rational" thinking makes you irrational. And as I choose to be "rational" by taking an unorthodox approach unfettered by "aberrant" social constructs, I cannot concede to the irrationality of all opposed.

I want to see your answers to the questions I posed, but this last paragraph looks like you are just playing semantics again Guru? How about let's agree to some definitions here. Rational is conducting quality research on the supply/demand forces in your market segment, doing strategic planning and rounding up quality resources BEFORE you start a Business Venture, coming to it with an estimated forecast of sales, expenses and profit. You go into the market, implement your strategies and compare them to the estimated forecast. If everything is solid, you keep going and investing, if it's not, you look at what modifications need to be done or you look at aborting the project altogether if forecasts are totally off. Irrational is perhaps conducting quality research on the supply/demand forces and all indicators are telling you that the investment will NOT WORK, but you try it anyway and you are losing money hand over fist (not just unprofitable, but losing significant amounts of money with no signs of ever being profitable), but yet you continue the investment regardless trying to WILL it to fruition as you explained. Have you EVER did this and can you provide details of said experience?

 

[guru1000]

Again, you are confounding the irrational/rational dichotomy with perception. In laymen terms my rationality may seem irrational to you, and your rationality may seem irrational to me, simply because our perceptions of objective reality differ. Does that make sense?

But, I will be more than happy to paint an example for you of how objective realities can indeed differ tremendously, excluding certain details that may breach confidentialities with the company I will describe. I will delineate the venture I took last year that was rejected and labeled "dogcrap" by seven VCs before me. And yes, I did will the venture into a significantly profitable investment via creative, outside-the-box thinking--and liquidated it via a reverse shell into a publicly-traded instrument, currently trading in the small-cap Nasdaq today. The story is quite lengthy, so it will take a few days to describe. You may argue that the investment was indeed "rational," but that will only be after you have seen what I did with the company.

Remember VCing is not based in fundamental analysis acumen as much as finding "Value" where no one else can. So in fact, having a "vision" is of greater value than ripping apart balance sheets.

But if you want me to to take the time to describe this story to you, I first need you to answer one question: Would you consider buying an insolvent company to the extent of 3MM in debt, its imminent filing of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, no account receivables, revenue less than $100,000 annually over the previous three years, annual expenses of $700,000, only operating losses since its inception of five years of operations, no assets, and absolutely no market share as its only product is entirely obsolete at time of the venture, an irrational investment?

 

[Tenacity]

I'm in BOLD

Again, you are confounding the irrational/rational dichotomy with perception. In laymen terms my rationality may seem irrational to you, and your rationality may seem irrational to me, simply because our perceptions of objective reality differ. Does that make sense?

Yes, that makes sense.

But if you want me to to take the time to describe this story to you, I first need you to answer one question: Would you consider buying an insolvent company to the extent of 3MM in debt, its imminent filing of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, no account receivables, revenue less than $100,000 annually over the previous three years, annual expenses of $700,000, only operating losses since its inception of five years of operations, no assets, and absolutely no market share as its only product is entirely obsolete at time of the venture, an irrational investment?

Not just Yes, but Hell Yes lol. Its product is out of market and it has no equipment, portfolios or other assets, what exactly are you even buying? It's not worth anything. Unless the company's trademarked name has some sort of value to it, but based on the situation of the company this is a horrendous investment because there's no asset value.

 

[backbreaker]

OP where do you live

 

[Tenacity]

OP where do you live

Clinton Township, MI which is a suburb of Detroit:

http://www.city-data.com/township/Clinton-Macomb-MI.html

 

[backbreaker]

yeah you need to move. you're in a buyer's market

 

[Tenacity]

yeah you need to move. you're in a buyer's market

Move to where though?