condor

Agreed, it looks like the breakdown for '49-07 is $53B military $30B economic. I have no idea how that was committed etc., but it shouldn't be discounted the unique position Israel has been on the US Aid side, and what affect that could have on spurring economic (and start-up) growth for a nation of 7MM people. That shouldn't take away anything from the qualitative characteristics mentioned in the article, just another data point.

the way I look at it, ambition is your own personal goal/view/desire (directed inward) . . . arrogance is when you push your ambitions on others (directed outward).

"The last 3 years was a process you had to go through to get to where you eventually want to be. A very efficient process that not too many others ever get a chance for."

Why not actually try to be what you 'eventually want to be', now . . . choose you're own adventure, now. You don't need to put up with feeling like you're being taken advantage now, so that later you can feel you're getting what you're worth. I don't believe there are any standard, efficient processes that you 'have to do' to get where you want to be. You figure out, thats part of the learning process.

"Do you have any idea what the current financial situation would have looked like if the government had just let the banks collapse?"

No, and neither do you. That's why its called a free-market. It's free to do anything. It's not a free-market thats only free to take the form of what our expectations are.

Goldman's business was subsidized by the Government, in the form of funding Goldman's transaction partners, so that they could pay Goldman what was owed.

In normal business if my customer goes bankrupt, even if I made the sale and was owed money, I would take a loss on that transaction., and if the loss was large enough it would affect all of my employees, who in turn took the risk of working for me. I took the risk of selling to that customer, I was in the best position to judge their stability, and so would have to deal with the consequences. Goldman didn't have to deal with the consequences of transacting with unstable partners, the Government (in the form of the taxpayers) stepped in to deal with those consequences, and that is why in large part Goldman is able to exist, earn a profit, and pay bonuses.

couldn't agree more . . . just because something exists in a market doesn't mean it should. Capitalism is a system/strategy, how you apply that depends on your values (or what you value).

and again those are decided numbers, someone was convinced of those figures.

Only if you CHOOSE to ACCEPT outside investors, and CHOOSE a board that doesn't have the same vision for the company as you do. I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing if you own your own business, your fiduciary responsibility is to yourself.

I think what Jason's getting at is to look beyond the offer/fiduciary responsibility mindset and to think bigger, to be motivated by passion and have grander ambitions than looking at one's business as "company + product + customer = offer/price".

There are many successful business that truly don't have a number they'd HAVE to take. It's a choice, and that choice doesn't appear to be actively made by this generation's poster-child business leaders.

I do disagree with Jason, I think that there are a lot of unspoken young businsses, not in the spotlight, that do have the passion to take the baton from the previous generation; it's just that they don't seek out the attention, nor does the attention seek them out.