Glamour and business

[Shredder]

Assume business ventures outside of the healthcare industry. No glamour: waste management, a la Wayne Huizenga; trailer parks, low income housing, dollar stores, liquor stores. Any other examples of either category? Glamour: luxury real estate, a la me. At this point in my young life I will go with glamour, but there may come a time when I'm less choosy. With China and India coming up I may have to change my mentality or miss out. Actually I take back what I said about healthcare, there's no reason to exclude it. The point is, are you open to business opportunities that are not so glamorous?

I guess this doesn't necessarily have to apply to entrepreneurship, it can be investing too. How do you feel about investing in questionable business like cigarette companies, liquor, adult entertainment? On one hand it can be seen as subsidizing societal decadence, but on the other hand you are indirectly making people happy.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DrBowtie]

I would have no problem filling a niche business. It won't matter whether your venture is respectable, just whether you are.

 

[Shredder]

even adult entertainment? i would have a hard time associating myself with something like that. i just use that as an example bc its the most extreme i can think of within legal bounds. and dollar stores, even though youre providing cheap products to people, in a way its contributing to their complacency with that situation. hmm, this must be where my conservatism and your libertarianism branch off, interesting.

i found myself envying the high society in wedding crashers. in movies ppl like owen wilson get the classy girls, but in real life class distinctions are not so easy to breach. btw do you know dinesh dsouza

 

[DrBowtie]

You could be a silent partner in said ventures. Have no real participation except for picking up your check.

Who is dsouza?

 

[Shredder]

You could be a silent partner in said ventures. Have no real participation except for picking up your check.

Who is dsouza?

haha yes one could be a silent partner or investor, but its not only about the publicity, clear conscience also factors in. oh if you dont know dsouza nm, hes just a conservative author who went to dartmouth. i emailed him to put in a good word for me, he said ordinarily he would but he was hated there since its so liberal. sigh, academia. made any progress with mentoring or humana?

 

[DrBowtie]

haha yes one could be a silent partner or investor, but its not only about the publicity, clear conscience also factors in. oh if you dont know dsouza nm, hes just a conservative author who went to dartmouth. i emailed him to put in a good word for me, he said ordinarily he would but he was hated there since its so liberal. sigh, academia. made any progress with mentoring or humana?

I won't get my mentor assignment til Sept. at this sweet catered meal. Humana, my email got lost in the shuffle im sure. I guess I need to put in the hours to hit up HR. LOL at emailing influential alumni and asking for a good word. Was it just a random email with your intentions and CV asking for a rec?

 

[Shredder]

I won't get my mentor assignment til Sept. at this sweet catered meal. Humana, my email got lost in the shuffle im sure. I guess I need to put in the hours to hit up HR. LOL at emailing influential alumni and asking for a good word. Was it just a random email with your intentions and CV asking for a rec?

humana seems cool, next summer ill probably pursue something like that for biz experience. market driven healthcares a pretty insightful book so far, you might want to check it out, a few yrs old though. i think it was widely lauded by the med community.
haha dsouza, i went to his website and the contact link was directed to his email, so i sent one praising him and his books, then briefly requested if he could drop in a word. no CV, just desperately trying to leverage whatever connections might be at my disposal ha. were both indian, christian, and right wing so i figured he might be sympathetic.

he was once a domestic policy analyst for the reagan administration, and spearheaded a controversial conservative periodical at dartmouth, thus the potential animosity and memories.

 

[CTSballer11]

even adult entertainment? i would have a hard time associating myself with something like that. i just use that as an example bc its the most extreme i can think of within legal bounds. and dollar stores, even though youre providing cheap products to people, in a way its contributing to their complacency with that situation. hmm, this must be where my conservatism and your libertarianism branch off, interesting.

i found myself envying the high society in wedding crashers. in movies ppl like owen wilson get the classy girls, but in real life class distinctions are not so easy to breach. btw do you know dinesh dsouza

I would have no reservations making money off of the adult industry. I would not want my name front and center, I would prefer to be in the background reaping the benefits. I am surprised that you are reluctant to "associate yourself" with such a profitable industry. I am not a "conservative", so I probably do not understand your veiwpoint. Could it be religion?

 

[Shredder]

I would have no reservations making money off of the adult industry. I would not want my name front and center, I would prefer to be in the background reaping the benefits. I am surprised that you are reluctant to "associate yourself" with such a profitable industry. I am not a "conservative", so I probably do not understand your veiwpoint. Could it be religion?

i think i mentioned that it could be construed as subsidizing activity that leads to societal decadence. shouldnt you want to be proud of your investments? i guess it has some basis in religion--america was founded by the prude puritans, they left behind the decadence in europe.

its kind of like placing bets on whether terrorist attacks will occur, or how many will die. there are profits to be had in many places, but where to draw the line? sure, if you dont make them, others might, but they can carry the burdens on their shoulders.

 

[CTSballer11]

i think i mentioned that it could be construed as subsidizing activity that leads to societal decadence. shouldnt you want to be proud of your investments? i guess it has some basis in religion--america was founded by the prude puritans, they left behind the decadence in europe.

its kind of like placing bets on whether terrorist attacks will occur, or how many will die. there are profits to be had in many places, but where to draw the line? sure, if you dont make them, others might, but they can carry the burdens on their shoulders.

Sure I would want to be proud of my work. But I would just be providing a service and a valuable one at that. I do not think it is fair to compare the adult film industry to terrorist attacks. From a business standpoint placing bets is not the same as providing a service. Come on now, it is only sex.

 

[Shredder]

Sure I would want to be proud of my work. But I would just be providing a service and a valuable one at that. I do not think it is fair to compare the adult film industry to terrorist attacks. From a business standpoint placing bets is not the same as providing a service. Come on now, it is only sex.

i agree, they are not on the same level. im big on capitalism, self interest, and greed, but does there come a point where the invisible hand fails, and self interest no longer promotes the social interest? i think it does boil down to conservatism vs libertarianism. for example if drugs were legalized, would you feel ok about profiting from that line of business? does rampant drug use and adult entertainment really promote the social interest? or cigarette smokers everywhere? im not really sure, im just spouting off questions

oh about placing bets vs providing a service: from a business standpoint you can see placing bets as providing a service, not really bets but investments that allow the services to be financed. okay so yeah not bets but rather creating markets, which are bets in a way.

 

[CTSballer11]

i agree, they are not on the same level. im big on capitalism, self interest, and greed, but does there come a point where the invisible hand fails, and self interest no longer promotes the social interest? i think it does boil down to conservatism vs libertarianism. for example if drugs were legalized, would you feel ok about profiting from that line of business? does rampant drug use and adult entertainment really promote the social interest? or cigarette smokers everywhere? im not really sure, im just spouting off questions

oh about placing bets vs providing a service: from a business standpoint you can see placing bets as providing a service, not really bets but investments that allow the services to be financed

You raise some good questions that are difficult to answer. When I look at the adult film industry, it is a thriving industry, and at the end of the day I think it is just sex, which I do not think is a big deal. If drugs were legalized I would feel shady if I supported that business. CEO's of cigarette companies
know they are providing a service that has long term negative results and can kill their consumers. The negative results of cigarette smoking have been documented for years. There are warning labels on magazine ads etc. If people still decide they want to harm their bodies, let them. Good point about the providing bets vs services. I overlooked that.

 

[powermd]

i agree, they are not on the same level. im big on capitalism, self interest, and greed, but does there come a point where the invisible hand fails, and self interest no longer promotes the social interest? i think it does boil down to conservatism vs libertarianism. for example if drugs were legalized, would you feel ok about profiting from that line of business? does rampant drug use and adult entertainment really promote the social interest? or cigarette smokers everywhere? im not really sure, im just spouting off questions

oh about placing bets vs providing a service: from a business standpoint you can see placing bets as providing a service, not really bets but investments that allow the services to be financed. okay so yeah not bets but rather creating markets, which are bets in a way.

Does there come a time when self-interest no longer promotes the social interest?

I take it capitalism is more of a religion to you than an idea. I'm amazed someone would raise that question seriously, but you seem serious, so...
The tobacco industry is the best example I can think of to answer your question. Tobacco-related illness kills hundreds of thousands every year, and costs taxpayers billions in lost wages and health expenditures. I believe people should have a right to choose to smoke, if they wish, but in self vs social interest terms, the tobaccoo industry is raping America. Another good example of the limitations of self-interest are social services. I'm speculating here (reasonably, I think) that if people had to individually donate money to pay for schools, police, fire, and other social services that contribute heavily to our standard of living, those services would collapse. That is probably the reason why they haven't been privatized.

 

[Law2Doc]

Assume business ventures outside of the healthcare industry. No glamour: waste management, a la Wayne Huizenga; trailer parks, low income housing, dollar stores, liquor stores. Any other examples of either category? Glamour: luxury real estate, a la me. At this point in my young life I will go with glamour, but there may come a time when I'm less choosy. With China and India coming up I may have to change my mentality or miss out. Actually I take back what I said about healthcare, there's no reason to exclude it. The point is, are you open to business opportunities that are not so glamorous?

I guess this doesn't necessarily have to apply to entrepreneurship, it can be investing too. How do you feel about investing in questionable business like cigarette companies, liquor, adult entertainment? On one hand it can be seen as subsidizing societal decadence, but on the other hand you are indirectly making people happy.

Not sure I totally understand your post, but I'm sure I would necessarilly put low income housing as questionable or nonglamorous. State and federal monies are available to those moguls who plan to develop low income housing (Section 8 projects and the like), and these buildings frequently also involve tax exempt bond deal syndications -- kind of fancy high end developer stuff, actually. The end result is pretty positive too -- you give poor people a decent affordable place to live at a profit to yourself (win-win!); And after a number of years when the low income housing restrictions expire, you can rehabilitate the place, and resell it as condominiums.
As for the cigarettes, liquor, gambling and porn, there are a couple of mutual fund "sin-dex"es out there you can invest in if you want to run the whole gamut of vices in one fell swoop. Probably doesn't fit within most people's ethics, but investors who do this tend to do slightly better than the market, with less fall off in down years (as I guess people smoke and drink more in hard times).

 

[Shredder]

Does there come a time when self-interest no longer promotes the social interest?

I take it capitalism is more of a religion to you than an idea. I'm amazed someone would raise that question seriously, but you seem serious, so...
The tobacco industry is the best example I can think of to answer your question. Tobacco-related illness kills hundreds of thousands every year, and costs taxpayers billions in lost wages and health expenditures. I believe people should have a right to choose to smoke, if they wish, but in self vs social interest terms, the tobaccoo industry is raping America. Another good example of the limitations of self-interest are social services. I'm speculating here (reasonably, I think) that if people had to individually donate money to pay for schools, police, fire, and other social services that contribute heavily to our standard of living, those services would collapse. That is probably the reason why they haven't been privatized.

dammet i had a response and IE crapped out and cleared it, i hate when that happens. or when SDN craps out.

anyway, so essentially ppl are not smart or farsighted enough, and the govt has to coercively step in and make up for that. thats probably true, most ppl would not be able to handle a large degree of personal responsibility, so they need to hand it and their dollars to politicians, who will not spend it as efficiently as the private sector but will not totally squander it either. but is it the govts job to play that paternal role? and taxation in that fashion takes away from the rights of the people who are responsible. fire, police, and military are considered minimal functions of govt to maintain life, liberty, and property rights, but anything in addition is extra. medicare, medicaid, social security? i dont think the founding fathers or adam smith had ever envisioned things like that. school has some privatization, and the private schools are far superior to the substandard public sector schools. do attendees of private schools have to pay taxes to support public schooling? as for fire, you can privatize it like nero hmm but imagine if there was nero1 nero2 and neroX, a la tow trucks? or wait was it not nero? that ancient guy who negotiated with ppl on the spot about extinguishing fires and derived massive profits.

 

[Shredder]

Not sure I totally understand your post, but I'm sure I would necessarilly put low income housing as questionable or nonglamorous. State and federal monies are available to those moguls who plan to develop low income housing (Section 8 projects and the like), and these buildings frequently also involve tax exempt bond deal syndications -- kind of fancy high end developer stuff, actually. The end result is pretty positive too -- you give poor people a decent affordable place to live at a profit to yourself (win-win!); And after a number of years when the low income housing restrictions expire, you can rehabilitate the place, and resell it as condominiums.
As for the cigarettes, liquor, gambling and porn, there are a couple of mutual fund "sin-dex"es out there you can invest in if you want to run the whole gamut of vices in one fell swoop. Probably doesn't fit within most people's ethics, but investors who do this tend to do slightly better than the market, with less fall off in down years (as I guess people smoke and drink more in hard times).

haha sindexes. low income housing eh...well yeah its good, but i dont know if it gets the glamor factor. just like dollar stores. you might have to deal with lots of bad tenants, violence, and druggies, which wouldnt be too cool to discuss with friends and family. true, it is win win, im just being picky. its not like a sindex fund. its much neater to demolish low income housing and turn it into luxury high rises though

smoking and drinking may not necessarily increase, but they may not decrease either, as other expenditures such as electronics and automobiles do. in the great depression items like bread and chewing gum had about the same consumption throughout, i think.

 

[powermd]

dammet i had a response and IE crapped out and cleared it, i hate when that happens. or when SDN craps out.

anyway, so essentially ppl are not smart or farsighted enough, and the govt has to coercively step in and make up for that. thats probably true, most ppl would not be able to handle a large degree of personal responsibility, so they need to hand it and their dollars to politicians, who will not spend it as efficiently as the private sector but will not totally squander it either. but is it the govts job to play that paternal role? and taxation in that fashion takes away from the rights of the people who are responsible. fire, police, and military are considered minimal functions of govt to maintain life, liberty, and property rights, but anything in addition is extra. medicare, medicaid, social security? i dont think the founding fathers or adam smith had ever envisioned things like that. school has some privatization, and the private schools are far superior to the substandard public sector schools. do attendees of private schools have to pay taxes to support public schooling? as for fire, you can privatize it like nero hmm but imagine if there was nero1 nero2 and neroX, a la tow trucks? or wait was it not nero? that ancient guy who negotiated with ppl on the spot about extinguishing fires and derived massive profits.

I would assert that in many instances people are, in fact, too narrowly focused on self-interest to put theiir heart, soul, and money to work for much needed common causes. It would be very nice if everyone appreciated the importance of the common interest to self-interest, but that is just not so. I don't know enough about this to have a really good debate, but I would guess that the average private school is better than the average public school for two reasons- 1) more money, 2) better students with well supporting families. Under privatization, would inner-city dump schools (I've heard from a person applying for jobs as a teacher that there are schools in Harlem that doen't even have a single computer for student use) be able to do a better job? The quality of students and their family support is unlikely to improve, so I would hope they would get more money. Would privatization do that? Or would no one choose to go to the dumpy school, thus forcing it to close, everyone would apply to the good schools, which would eventually have to set limits on how many they could take, and ultimately leave a lot of inner-city kids without a school to go to? I guess we could just bus them out to less, but not completely undesireable schools 100 miles away. They could do their homework on the bus! Brilliant.

 

[Will Hunting]

great thread shred. I voted before reading. I wouldn't support adult entertainment. However, anything that isn't indecent and socially reprehensible is fair game. Like if I came up with a new way to eliminate waste and could make millions in the garbage industry I would feel no shame.

 

[Shredder]

great thread shred. I voted before reading. I wouldn't support adult entertainment. However, anything that isn't indecent and socially reprehensible is fair game. Like if I came up with a new way to eliminate waste and could make millions in the garbage industry I would feel no shame.

yeah, that was my original question, but then it digressed into other areas. so i would say your vote is correct. well the discussion is more meaningful than the poll anyway, especially since its md/mba forum and getting double digit voting is unheard of.

 

[CTSballer11]

yeah, that was my original question, but then it digressed into other areas. so i would say your vote is correct. well the discussion is more meaningful than the poll anyway, especially since its md/mba forum and getting double digit voting is unheard of.

This is off topic but did you see Donald Trump on the Conan O'Brien show last night? He was sitting in the audience and no one seemed to notice untill his little skit with Conan.

 

[Shredder]

This is off topic but did you see Donald Trump on the Conan O'Brien show last night? He was sitting in the audience and no one seemed to notice untill his little skit with Conan.

no, i dont watch conan, much less last night. interesting, what does he have to gain from appearing on there. i guess if its in NY its right down the street, why not eh.

 

[SanDiegoSOD]

As a future politician, any business ventures of mine will avoid "sin" categories, such as adult entertainment, tobacco, and hard alcohol (I would have no problem with wine/beer). I could see problems with that on the campaign trail. But things like low-income housing, waste management, trailer parks? Hell yes, I would invest if the time was right.

 

[CTSballer11]

no, i dont watch conan, much less last night. interesting, what does he have to gain from appearing on there. i guess if its in NY its right down the street, why not eh.

He was plugging some washing detergent, but it was more of a joke than anything else. His new apprentice wil be airing soon so that might be why he came on.

 

[Shredder]

He was plugging some washing detergent, but it was more of a joke than anything else. His new apprentice wil be airing soon so that might be why he came on.

he should have quit apprentice by now, it will grow stale like michael jordan. seinfeld should be everyones example. can you think of anyone else like seinfeld in that regard. ah, lance armstrong i suppose. pete sampras. good stuff. agassi...poor geezer

 

[DrBowtie]

he should have quit apprentice by now, it will grow stale like michael jordan. seinfeld should be everyones example. can you think of anyone else like seinfeld in that regard. ah, lance armstrong i suppose. pete sampras. good stuff. agassi...poor geezer

I saw he has a blog now. I will have to look up the website for you.