'You Didn't Build That'

[CARLHAYDEN]

July 17, 2012

'You Didn't Build That'

On the President's burst of ideological candor.

 “If you've got a business—you didn't build that.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304388004577533300916053684.html

[True Federalist]

Badly enough said to be considered a minor gaffe, the basic point, that a highly successful business depends upon the actions of more than a single person, is true.  Businesses these days do not generally develop their own human capital.  They are dependent upon others to build the transportation and other infrastructure they make use of.  Of course, government need not be the providers of most of those things either.  The degree to which businesses benefit from government providing such services is a major point of contention between the two major parties these days.

[Yelnoc]

A man can't build a bridge without two banks to anchor it on.

[© Tweed the Younger]

he is of course correct; the wage-slaves employed by a business 'build' the business, and the socialized costs re: building roads, bridges, and communication networks provide the necessary atmosphere for profit-making, free of charge.  if only Mr President would go further, and if only he had moved left along with his rhetoric post-Occupy.

[opebo]

Haha!  It is so incredibly bizarre to hear an american politician speak the obvious truth for once!  What a gaffe!

[Lief]

People who disagree with his point are dumbs. It's pretty obviously true.

[opebo]

People who disagree with his point are dumbs.

Yes, but you see this is a huge problem as he is running for re-election in America.

[Speaker Dereich]

A man can't build a bridge without two banks to anchor it on.

Do you mean banks literally or metaphorically? I could see both.

[asexual trans victimologist]

A man can't build a bridge without two banks to anchor it on.

Do you mean banks literally or metaphorically? I could see both.

I think we should let it stand in its ambiguity, because in that sense it's a rather good pun, ne?

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

What are the more right wing elements of the American business community afraid of exactly? All this rhetoric suggests that the shrill screams of "OMG SOCIALISM!!1111" are masking something much more essential...

[Vosem]

If the business would not exist without you, then yes, of course you built that. You may have received aid from the government, you may not have. The government did not put in the work, you did.

he is of course correct; the wage-slaves employed by a business 'build' the business, and the socialized costs re: building roads, bridges, and communication networks provide the necessary atmosphere for profit-making, free of charge.  if only Mr President would go further, and if only he had moved left along with his rhetoric post-Occupy.

wage-slaves, *snicker*. I will however give you credit for recognizing Occupy is over, something Bandit still hasn't grasped. And keep in mind this is a gaffe Romney will now try to shove in everyone's faces -- how could Obama move to the left without having his poll numbers fall, and with a Republican House blocking legislative action?

[opebo]

If the business would not exist without you, then yes, of course you built that. You may have received aid from the government, you may not have. The government did not put in the work, you did.

wage-slaves, *snicker*. I will however give you credit for recognizing Occupy is over, something Bandit still hasn't grasped. And keep in mind this is a gaffe Romney will now try to shove in everyone's faces -- how could Obama move to the left without having his poll numbers fall, and with a Republican House blocking legislative action?

Vosem, you refute yourself in your own post - the owner of a company doesn't put in any work,  this is done for him by the wage-slaves.

Merely having large sums of capital is not 'work', you see, it is power to force others toil for you.

[memphis]

Romney 2012
Every Man an Island

[HagridOfTheDeep]

If the business would not exist without you, then yes, of course you built that. You may have received aid from the government, you may not have. The government did not put in the work, you did.

wage-slaves, *snicker*. I will however give you credit for recognizing Occupy is over, something Bandit still hasn't grasped. And keep in mind this is a gaffe Romney will now try to shove in everyone's faces -- how could Obama move to the left without having his poll numbers fall, and with a Republican House blocking legislative action?

Vosem, you refute yourself in your own post - the owner of a company doesn't put in any work,  this is done for him by the wage-slaves.

Merely having large sums of capital is not 'work', you see, it is power to force others toil for you.

Excuse me? That capital stems from an initial moment of inception. And while today's owner might not have created the business, the first owner--the one who thought up the business--played the pivotal role in starting the company and fuelling its growth. Maybe that one owner goes on to build a business that provides tens of thousands of jobs to people who need them. He does a good for himself, a good for others, and a good for country.

Moreover, the people who are shafted the most by Obama's comment are those owners who are in the smaller stages of business. They're the business owners who work beyond nine-to-five. Whose personal finances are the business's finances. Who sacrificed everything they had to follow their dream.

How can you sit there with a straight face and say "the owner of a company doesn't put in any work?" That's insulting, and it's exactly why Republicans are leary of President Obama when he makes comments like this. It's absolutely out of touch with what makes America America.

[opebo]

How can you sit there with a straight face and say "the owner of a company doesn't put in any work?"

If my statement is slightly hyperbolic, it is only an attempt to counteract the completely absurd levels of hyperbole used to lionize these exploiters by your side, the media, popular culture, etc.

Of course, sometimes the owner of a little shop puts in a lot of work - though normally he is wiped out by the large corporate business, in which the owner(s) do no work whatsoever.  In other words, the dominant owning class does no work, but the issue is confused in your mind because of the existence of a slowly disappearing petite bourgeoisie.

[Vosem]

If the business would not exist without you, then yes, of course you built that. You may have received aid from the government, you may not have. The government did not put in the work, you did.

wage-slaves, *snicker*. I will however give you credit for recognizing Occupy is over, something Bandit still hasn't grasped. And keep in mind this is a gaffe Romney will now try to shove in everyone's faces -- how could Obama move to the left without having his poll numbers fall, and with a Republican House blocking legislative action?

Vosem, you refute yourself in your own post - the owner of a company doesn't put in any work,  this is done for him by the wage-slaves.

Merely having large sums of capital is not 'work', you see, it is power to force others toil for you.

While I object to the use of the term 'wage-slaves' to describe American workers, for once you do actually have a point -- of course it is rare for the owner of a business to build that solely by himself. The reason he is nevertheless the builder, even if he never touched a brick and mortar and hired workers to do it, is simply that had he not decided that should be built it wouldn't've been. The workers have agreed to help him do it on the basis that in return they will get money, but the workers didn't consciously decide to do it. The government, depending on circumstance, may have helped or hindered him, but the government did not consciously decide to do that: you did. Not only that, but in most cases (such as our own poster clarence) the builder of the business is taking a substantial risk -- if the business is not profitable, he still has to pay the workers and can quickly end up seriously indebted and not any richer than they are. The taking that risk (if not of bankruptcy, then at least of severe monetary loss) is why so many are offended when Obama says they didn't build the business: of course they did.

People who disagree with his point are dumbs.

Yes, but you see this is a huge problem as he is running for re-election in America.

We must be thankful this is the case; in other Western countries people might simply agree with this.

[opebo]

The reason he is nevertheless the builder, even if he never touched a brick and mortar and hired workers to do it, is simply that had he not decided that should be built it wouldn't've been.

So, in exactly the same way that mad King Ludwig 'built' this:

[Vosem]

The reason he is nevertheless the builder, even if he never touched a brick and mortar and hired workers to do it, is simply that had he not decided that should be built it wouldn't've been.

So, in exactly the same way that mad King Ludwig 'built' this:

He was an idiot for doing so, but yes, the chief person behind the building of the castle was Mad King Ludwig. The workers deserve some credit, of course, but he deserves more.

[opebo]

He was an idiot for doing so, but yes, the chief person behind the building of the castle was Mad King Ludwig. The workers deserve some credit, of course, but he deserves more.

'Credit'?  The only reason he could order them about so was because he had Power - he could kill them.  It is no different with the present controllers, Vosem.  I've no objection to your congratulating them for the blood on their hands, if that's your taste.

[ModerateCoward]

The reason he is nevertheless the builder, even if he never touched a brick and mortar and hired workers to do it, is simply that had he not decided that should be built it wouldn't've been.

So, in exactly the same way that mad King Ludwig 'built' this:

He was an idiot for doing so, but yes, the chief person behind the building of the castle was Mad King Ludwig. The workers deserve some credit, of course, but he deserves more.

Lol.  The King didn't lay a single stone in building of the castle, so all the credit goes to the worker.

[Vosem]

He was an idiot for doing so, but yes, the chief person behind the building of the castle was Mad King Ludwig. The workers deserve some credit, of course, but he deserves more.

'Credit'?  The only reason he could order them about so was because he had Power - he could kill them.  It is no different with the present controllers, Vosem.  I've no objection to your congratulating them for the blood on their hands, if that's your taste.

The reason he could order them about so was because they agreed to let him do it in exchange for money, an act that has been a key part of functioning societies for thousands of years. Ironically, nowadays Ludwig's legacy brings tourism to Bavaria, and tourism is one of the key reasons Bavaria is the richest part of Germany today. There's no blood on Ludwig's hands.

The reason he is nevertheless the builder, even if he never touched a brick and mortar and hired workers to do it, is simply that had he not decided that should be built it wouldn't've been.

So, in exactly the same way that mad King Ludwig 'built' this:

He was an idiot for doing so, but yes, the chief person behind the building of the castle was Mad King Ludwig. The workers deserve some credit, of course, but he deserves more.

Lol.  The King didn't lay a single stone in building of the castle, so all the credit goes to the worker.

The worker wouldn't've built it if the King hadn't payed for it to be designed and then built. More credit goes to the King than anyone else. Some credit goes to the worker, but certainly not all or even most. (Also, as I recall Ludwig personally laid the cornerstone on Neuschwanstein, so he did lay at least that one.)

[ModerateCoward]

He was an idiot for doing so, but yes, the chief person behind the building of the castle was Mad King Ludwig. The workers deserve some credit, of course, but he deserves more.

'Credit'?  The only reason he could order them about so was because he had Power - he could kill them.  It is no different with the present controllers, Vosem.  I've no objection to your congratulating them for the blood on their hands, if that's your taste.

The reason he could order them about so was because they agreed to let him do it in exchange for money, an act that has been a key part of functioning societies for thousands of years. Ironically, nowadays Ludwig's legacy brings tourism to Bavaria, and tourism is one of the key reasons Bavaria is the richest part of Germany today. There's no blood on Ludwig's hands.

The reason he is nevertheless the builder, even if he never touched a brick and mortar and hired workers to do it, is simply that had he not decided that should be built it wouldn't've been.

So, in exactly the same way that mad King Ludwig 'built' this:

He was an idiot for doing so, but yes, the chief person behind the building of the castle was Mad King Ludwig. The workers deserve some credit, of course, but he deserves more.

Lol.  The King didn't lay a single stone in building of the castle, so all the credit goes to the worker.

The worker wouldn't've built it if the King hadn't payed for it to be designed and then built. More credit goes to the King than anyone else. Some credit goes to the worker, but certainly not all or even most. (Also, as I recall Ludwig personally laid the cornerstone on Neuschwanstein, so he did lay at least that one.)

The worker would have built it or an equally impressive structure if there was no King and all the capital(fruits of labor) were in the rightful hands of the worker. The designer is also most likely a worker(engineer & architect).

[Gustaf]

The point is obviously how replaceable someone is. Someone who is replaceable can't really take that much credit.

[asexual trans victimologist]

The workers then are individually replaceable but collectively obviously not. I don't know that that's necessarily any less relevant than Ludwig being (ostensibly) individually irreplaceable.

[Gustaf]

The workers then are individually replaceable but collectively obviously not. I don't know that that's necessarily any less relevant than Ludwig being (ostensibly) individually irreplaceable.

I'm sorry, but the whole Ludwig thing is a really stupid distraction from the actual point here.

Of course, there needs to be some workers but that's still stupid. Must Federer share his credit for winning Wimbledon with the tennis balls because he couldn't have done it without some tennis balls? If I cook a great meal must I share the credit with the salt and my stove?

A common line in a thank you speech is "I could not have done this without you." The reason is that that's how we acknowledge credit. If I could have replaced you with someone else your share of the credit is at least rather small.