|
joether -> RE: Encourage business building? (9/3/2010 6:13:31 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DarkSteven
I have this bias that someone who build a business is more valuable than someone who runs an already-built company. In other words, a Ted Tuner/Richard Branson/Steve Jobs brings more benefit to society in my eyes than a Richard Fuld, Carly Fiorina, or Roger Smith.
1. Does anyone else agree?
2. If you do agree, do you feel that business creation/building should be rewarded more highly than business running after the company is built? Should there be incentives, and if so, just a lower tax rate or something else?
Management Theory. Good topic, Dark Steven.
A good business man (or woman), is one that has vision on where the company is headed, not on where its been. Start up companies, dont have much to worry about 'where it was', and so, can do better on 'where they are going'. Determining who is more valuable to a company largely depends on what the company is trying to achieve. For the most part, a entrepreneur, does well when a company is starting, or growing in to a new area, industry, or production. Where as a company that is floating for internal or external pressures, may need someone that is part accountant/salesman.
I would think the entrepreneur that creates and builds new concepts and products, usually gets rewarded. That is not always the case, sadly. And not all rewards, are in the form of green backs (as some greedy folks on this board believe). Turning something, from nothing, is a reward in itself. Increase confidence and acknowledgement are rewards, one can not buy. Finding a breakthrough technology, that helps mankind, can be a reward itself.
Entrepreneurs, tend to be a misunderstood crowd towards the polulation. Yes, they are liked, when they are right, and hated when they are wrong. Their ideas, can be simple or complex, but usually, hard for the common person to fathom, or confident such a challenge could succeed. Which, should not surprise anyone in the business world.
In an ecoomy like ours (The USA, but this applies to other similar economies), it'll be the entrepreneur, tapping in to knew schools of thought. The introduction of 'green technology' for energy is a hot money maker. As its know that oil is depleting by an unknown rate (since we dont know the total barrels of oil on planet Earth); it would make sense to have companies try out new areas of power. Yes, nuclear is an option, but the waste is deadily to the enviroment (not to mention us). Coal, likewise and similar to nuclear, but for different reasons. Hydro, solar, and wind (the renewable power sources), are in their infant stages. An entrepreneur would look in to the idea of developing the technology to increase power generated. In order to do that, takes two things: Financial and Human Capital. And what does the USA have an abunance of right now? Both. We have highly skilled workers, and the ability to set up companies with enough capital to run operations (slowly being off-set by income from power sold to customers). It was in the stilimulus bill two years ago. The funding set assign for the project, didnt go to huge, multi-state corporations either; so, where did it go? That's right, in to small businesses, trying to make a 'go' of solar, wind, and hydro generation.
Another emerging technology, is tooth restoration. That's right, grow one's teeth, using their own DNA. While the technology is still being used on mice, its not as Sci-Fi as one would have thought twenty years ago. All it takes, is a entrepreneur, some skilled employees, and financial capital investment.
|
|
|
|
