Quote:
Originally Posted by kerry
Interesting. A lot of ink has been spent on explaining the relationship of Calvinism to the rise of capitalism If what you say is correct, and people took the rule seriously, it would mean that only the shrewdest of business ventures could be pursued.
Did this have any effect on the rapid growth of capitalism in Europe, pushing modest business ventures to the margins and encouraging only the most profitable business plans? In other words, concentrating capital in the most profitable businesses?
|
I don't think so. People will say much to your face. Believe in few of them and do even fewer. That is why I eschew those grateful complements people give. I am not intersted in what you have to say about how wonderful I am. As I have said, nothing says "I love you" better than a BJ. Don't tell me how much you love me. I can't hear it. Speak into the mic.
Some will take the rule seriously and the smarter ones will pay it lip service. One of my fav stories was that Nam was poor and grew just about enough to feed the people. One bad harvest, they had to import broken rice (cheap stuff. Kinda like rejects) to feed the people. The govt couldn't afford it so they told the farmers they could keep what they made. THE NEXT YEAR, the exported a few tons of rice. Since then, they have been exporting rice. Govt did the same with aquaculture and they are #4 or #3 exporters of shrimp in the Asia region.
After all, if you must make $1000 because you borrowed $1000, few, if any businesses could guarantee such an ROI except with illegal drugs. The best I can say is that it discouraged the less capable and confident but not much else. After all, if people can be that soft in the head as to listen to some bozo on a pedestal about profit when that guy hasn't made a dime himself, what good are they in the business world?