Offensive Jerk or Just Misunderstood?

[Masked Bandit]

Saw this on Facebook today, had a little discussion in the office. Just wondering what people think of this.

watch?v=8rMPea0lm9U

[woodywoodford]

I can't watch it at work right now, but I freakin love Kevin O'leary. Interested to see what I think after checking it out after though...

[CanmoreOrLess]

O'Leary is the yang to her yin. It makes for a good tv couple. Who is going to watch a couple of nodding heads? Google around for O'Leary and how he made his cash, he is not as rich as some believe, he does have money though and is bright no doubt. It is easy to play his character, it does get very predictable. I doubt he is as cold as he makes himself out to be, these types seldom are what they appear. We've all seen him tear up on DD and Shark Tank. O'Leary is entertaining and this seems to be the point. Like Don Cherry, who O'Leary had a working relationship with, they are entertaining and over the top. For the record, I like them both.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazine/kevin-oleary-hes-not-a-billionaire-he-just-plays-one-on-tv/article4564334/?page=all

[ZenOps]

Neither, there is no misunderstanding. He is a realist.

Now Schiff, he has billionaire balls. He actually went out into the streets to talk to the Occupy protestors.

UGL-Ex1CD1c

[TYMSMNY]

Bang on! Zenops.

[revelations]

Nothing wrong with being stupid rich if youre self-made.

Getting rich by mis-allocating public money, setting up a fake religous group, running a "public" company in Quebec .... etc. is where I have a problem.

[lilmira]

Why should anyone be ashamed of being better than the rest? That's a stupid question. However you can question which path they take to get to the top.

[Masked Bandit]

Originally posted by revelations
Nothing wrong with being stupid rich if youre self-made.

Getting rich by mis-allocating public money, setting up a fake religous group, running a "public" company in Quebec .... etc. is where I have a problem.

Perhaps I missed the memo, but who are you actually referring too?

[clem24]

Hahaha occupy ... Is that still going on anywhere?

[Sentry]

Originally posted by CanmoreOrLess
[B]O'Leary is the yang to her yin. It makes for a good tv couple. Who is going to watch a couple of nodding heads?
http://www.countryweekly.com/sites/countryweekly.com/files/u14/the-view-cast-2013.jpeg

[revelations]

Originally posted by Masked Bandit


Perhaps I missed the memo, but who are you actually referring too?

Nobody specifically .... I know a few self-made millionaires and they did it with their own skill and good business sense.

[Modelexis]

The philosophy that offends the most people tends to be the most logical. There is far more sickness than health in our society and so if people aren't offended when you have something to say about society you have to really question whether you've got something wrong along the way.

It's like anti-theism, if you're not offending a large portion of religious sects you've gone terribly wrong in your philosophy.

Same goes for parenting, state education, economics, morality etc.

I love when people are offended by the philosophy that I come to accept as true, it means that I'm on the right track.

If people are offended that just means that there is a chance to win the debate and change society. If there is no opposition that means society already has the most logical philosophy and remains sick - that is a hopeless situation.

[Graham_A_M]

I understand where Kevin is coming from. He had a very very regular middle class upbringing, but through his business savvy-ness and good decisions (etc etc) look where he is today. He was one of those 3.5 billion scrubs, now one of Canada's more wealthy.

So I can understand his logic, that if he can do it, anybody can.... and they truly can if they want it bad enough, but that brings in a lot of clout with ethical VS. partially unethical ways of making money in the manner of obtaining the almighty dollar, and thats where things can get quite cloudy, very fast.

[frizzlefry]

I agree with him. He is pretty much self-made. His funds don't perform very well though and he is a bit over-inflated on himself. As one article I read said "O'Leary's money makes a lot of money in a lot of places but his funds aren't one of them". His original deal selling his software to Mattel is regarded as one of the worst business deals for investors. He flooded the market with a shoddy product (ie at the time it was the only software that was sold in 7-11 by being bundled with cheap books) that temporarily inflated his stock value due to the sudden sales increase. He sold his company then and after that Mattel and their investors lost a shitload once everyone caught on that the product sucked. But none of this was illegal, he simply took advantage of people not doing due diligence before buying his company. Nowadays that deal would not have happened. People are far more wise but that the time the tech bubble was inflating and everyone wanted on-board. But hey, good on him for capitalizing.

Anyways, I agree with him and if people think its bad now they should look back to the time when an even smaller percent owned almost everything. And the poor were called peasants.

[01RedDX]

.

[LollerBrader]

Originally posted by Masked Bandit
Saw this on Facebook today, had a little discussion in the office. Just wondering what people think of this.


O'Leary believes the myth that access to opportunity is equitably distributed globally.

It's not.

Being an educated white male in Canada puts one in the pole position of the global rat race.

[Thomas Gabriel]

Look at all the butthurt faggots commenting on youtube. As a kid I always looked up to rich people, and even though I probably will never be one of them, the act of trying has put me far ahead of these youtube losers.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by LollerBrader


O'Leary believes the myth that access to opportunity is equitably distributed globally.

It's not.

Being an educated white male in Canada puts one in the pole position of the global rat race.

Agree...but...this is not a blessing handed out at random or just because you are white. Previous generations worked hard/smart and got their kids educated. And their offspring get a leg up in life. That's why they worked hard. I see a lot of immigrants who worked their asses off as janitors and got their kids educated and they became 6 figure engineers. Is that unfair too?

[Nitro5]

I forget the exact amount, but if you make around $34,000 a year you are in the 1% of top wage earners.

[DeleriousZ]

Originally posted by LollerBrader


O'Leary believes the myth that access to opportunity is equitably distributed globally.

It's not.

Being an educated white male in Canada puts one in the pole position of the global rat race.

This. Pretty sure it's a bit more difficult for a muslim woman living in Iraq to 'work hard' and become a self made millionaire...

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by DeleriousZ


This. Pretty sure it's a bit more difficult for a muslim woman living in Iraq to 'work hard' and become a self made millionaire...

True but that has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with religion and sexual discrimination in many (if not most) 3rd world countries. You can't blame the vast majority of 1st world capitalists for that.

*edit*

Just another point on the topic. My wife goes to school in a 3rd world country. Their major export is spices. A pound of spice ain't worth a pound of oil so naturally they are generally poor. 25% unemployment and 45% live under the poverty line. The medical school my wife goes to is the largest source of GDP for them accounting for 45%. So they do their best to attract foreign investment. Aside from spices (which are not very investable) their other resource is people. But they need to make the price attractive. So they offer cheap labour to attract foreign companies which creates jobs and income which should make leftist pundits happy.

But no. That's called "outsourcing" and unions flip out.

Dude, if I was rich and had to deal with "you rich bastards are so much more rich than the 3rd world but don't you fucking dare employ them for less than...wait, my job?? No don't employ them at all or I'll sic my union on you" I would quit my job, sell my stock and go golfing. Screw that shit :)

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by frizzlefry

True but that has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with religion and sexual discrimination in many (if not most) 3rd world countries. You can't blame the vast majority of 1st world capitalists for that.


QFT

Not to mention the government enforces this discrimination. That's why I always laugh when people look to the government to solve problems in society that it's usually directly responsible for.

[98brg2d]

Originally posted by frizzlefry


My wife goes to school in a 3rd world country. Their major export is spices. A pound of spice ain't worth a pound of oil so naturally they are generally poor.

You need to actually check that "fact". Currently a kg of WTI crude is worth about $0.57CAD on NYMEX and pepper is worth about $9CAD on the Indian market (one of the world's largest producers).

Other herbs can be checked here (although these are local market prices not global):

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateO&navID=ViewU.S.TerminalMarketPriceReports&rightNav1=ViewU.S.TerminalMarketPriceReports&topNav&leftNav&page=FVMarketNewsTerminalMarketReportsMore

In most of those markets a pound of any randomly selected herb or spice is around $6 to $10 dollars or roughly $13 to $22 per kg.

Saffron market prices can easily be $2000/lb. Last year it got up to $18000/kg in Canada for high grade spice.

Edit: point being, the per unit cost of spice as a comparison to oil to try to understand why that country is poor is not valid in the slightest, total domestic product from the spice would be a better comparison but also may not correlate (I don't know any country's DP from any specific product so I can't say one way or the other). Generally governments can only extract value from agriculture through export tariffs whereas oil is generally "owned" by the government and the sale price can be negotiated with the producer. This makes it easier for a government to keep money in the country on oil sales than other sales.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by Sentry

http://www.countryweekly.com/sites/countryweekly.com/files/u14/the-view-cast-2013.jpeg

I didn't know Oprah was on the view.

[ZenOps]

Black peppercorn is up there too, even today. Pound for pound, it used to be equivalent to gold to ancient English kings.

Lest one forget, back in 1970 a $100 box of nickels (20 pounds of nickel) would buy 40 barrels of oil.

But oil could still easily be $3,000 a barrel by the time I'm ready to kick the bucket.

[DeleriousZ]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE


I didn't know Oprah was on the view.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Masked Bandit]

Since I started this I guess I should comment. My favourite part of the video is Lang's reaction to Kevin's opening statement. She's either a good actor or she truly wants to kick him in the junk.

As for Kevin's statements overall, I actually got a different message than most. I don't think he was really talking about how wonderful it is to be rich. I think his message was that the top 1% of ANY group is a goal for the rest of the people to shoot for.

Does a young hockey player strive to be just like their favourite NHL player, or some washout that played semi-pro in Europe for 15 minutes? Do we secretly hate the guys that make it to the NHL because they're better than the millions of other kids that picked up a stick but didn't make it to the big show? Of course not.

Someone has to be at the top of the pyramid. Some has to be the pinnacle of success in their given activity. For Kevin, his game is just money.

[AsianAfroSamurai]

Kevin's comment completely obfuscates the real issue with this statistic. This is his style and he is really good at it.

You don't get to be int the top 85 because you are really, really good at business.

The real issue is the amount of influence these multi-billionaires have over the world's governments and their economic policies. A lot of these policies are driven by their best interests and allow them to get this rich. This is how they become the top.

It would be nice if they just left everyone alone and went about their business, instead they further enrich their position by going after governments and influencing regulations, and laws to deepen their pocket. It's somewhat moderated in Western countries but its a nice wild west in the rest of the world.

This is frankly the disgusting part. And, for everyone that love's Kevin, he's a showcase for this as his history shows. Kevin's made his real money from being a heckler and an entertainer and not from his businesses. Frankly, I have tremendous respect for people like Mark Cuban and Jim Treliving who are the real entrepreneurs.

I respect Kevin for his hustle and showmanship, he gets incredible credit for that.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by 98brg2d


You need to actually check that "fact"

I was not clear but I did not intend to invoke a direct price comparison but more the overall value of having oil vs having spices. Oil would be worth more to the country and is a better commodity to produce ie Alberta would not be in the financial position its in if we exported pepper instead of oil.

Did not mean to sound so literal.

[01RedDX]

.

[osspasha]

Originally posted by DeleriousZ


This. Pretty sure it's a bit more difficult for a muslim woman living in Iraq to 'work hard' and become a self made millionaire...

why muslim in particular, are you saying that a christain women in iraq might have less difficulties to work hard and become a millionaire

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by AsianAfroSamurai
Kevin's comment completely obfuscates the real issue with this statistic. This is his style and he is really good at it.

You don't get to be int the top 85 because you are really, really good at business.

The real issue is the amount of influence these multi-billionaires have over the world's governments and their economic policies. A lot of these policies are driven by their best interests and allow them to get this rich. This is how they become the top.

It would be nice if they just left everyone alone and went about their business, instead they further enrich their position by going after governments and influencing regulations, and laws to deepen their pocket. It's somewhat moderated in Western countries but its a nice wild west in the rest of the world.

This is frankly the disgusting part. And, for everyone that love's Kevin, he's a showcase for this as his history shows. Kevin's made his real money from being a heckler and an entertainer and not from his businesses. Frankly, I have tremendous respect for people like Mark Cuban and Jim Treliving who are the real entrepreneurs.

I respect Kevin for his hustle and showmanship, he gets incredible credit for that.

The government had no involvement on the Mattel deal that made Kevin rich. He just managed to get his stock over valued by saturating the market with sales (not illegal) then sold it. After that everyone caught on that their product sucked and most people ended up with his software because it was bundled with a book. Most people likely just tossed it.

The guy I respect the most is Robert Herjavec. Truly poor background, got rich in tech but actually founded a good company that was worth what AT&T paid for it.

Plus, to get his foot in the tech door initially, he offered to work for free for 6 months selling IBM boards to prove himself and paid rent by being a waiter at night.

Stupid lucky white man. Gets everything handed to him. :rolleyes:

[sxtasy]

OLeary claims to be a true capitalist criticizing government in business, yet with this show he gets a paycheque from the federally funded CBC? :confused:

He's an actor playing the Simon Cowell of the business world, gaining noteriety with shock value.

[osspasha]

I like Kevin, i read his book. It was amazing read, made me think of money different for sure. however, i strongly disagree with him in that statement.

Majority of poor people live in political corrupted countries, You cant become rich through legit ways, if you want to go legit, you automatically have to pay a big percentage of your profit to some dude in some political party ruling the country. Take Pakistan for example, the 11st president used to be known by Mr 10 percent for charging a ten percent commission for obtaining permission to set up any project or to receive loans.

If your business takes off, and becomes successful, someone with connections can use the police to set you up with a crime that will throw you in jail, and next thing you know your business is now closed and all your money is frozen. you can appeal to courts, but it can take years before you can even see anything again thats if you are lucky.

In countries like Somalia and Nigeria, its impossible to become rich through legal means.

Sorry about my English guys, not my first language.

[DeleriousZ]

Originally posted by osspasha


why muslim in particular, are you saying that a christain women in iraq might have less difficulties to work hard and become a millionaire

just a random example.

[Feruk]

Originally posted by osspasha
why muslim in particular, are you saying that a christain women in iraq might have less difficulties to work hard and become a millionaire
Duh? Muslim women in those countries have traditionally not been brought up with even the idea of work. In some of those countries, the idea of women going to school can get them shot. Sharia law preaches this (from my limited CNN brain washed knowledge). So yes, there is a fundamental difference between a muslim and non-muslim woman wanting to start a business.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by AsianAfroSamurai
The real issue is the amount of influence these multi-billionaires have over the world's governments and their economic policies. A lot of these policies are driven by their best interests and allow them to get this rich. This is how they become the top.

It would be nice if they just left everyone alone and went about their business, instead they further enrich their position by going after governments and influencing regulations, and laws to deepen their pocket. It's somewhat moderated in Western countries but its a nice wild west in the rest of the world.

You're blaming capitalism for the problems that governments create.

Without the government handing out free money and favors for rich men in exchange for votes you wouldn't have the problem to worry about in the first place.

What you are describing is crony-capitalism (crapitalism)

Governments have nothing to do with capitalism, they only exist to distort and corrupt capitalism.

You should get mad at the people that steal your money in taxes, not the people that are handed that stolen money by politicians.

[osspasha]

Originally posted by Feruk

Sharia law preaches this (from my limited CNN brain washed knowledge).




:rofl:

[AsianAfroSamurai]

Originally posted by Modelexis


You're blaming capitalism for the problems that governments create.

Without the government handing out free money and favors for rich men in exchange for votes you wouldn't have the problem to worry about in the first place.

What you are describing is crony-capitalism (crapitalism)

Governments have nothing to do with capitalism, they only exist to distort and corrupt capitalism.

You should get mad at the people that steal your money in taxes, not the people that are handed that stolen money by politicians.

Sorry, I don't really understand what you are saying?

I'm talking about reality not some textbook case of capitalistic nirvana where all the boys and girls play nice and don't hurt each other and don't need anybody looking after them because gosh golly they can play nice. Sorry, your version of capitalism doesn't exist.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by AsianAfroSamurai
Sorry, I don't really understand what you are saying?

I'm talking about reality not some textbook case of capitalistic nirvana where all the boys and girls play nice and don't hurt each other and don't need anybody looking after them because gosh golly they can play nice. Sorry, your version of capitalism doesn't exist.

Your false assumption is that the government exists to protect people from being hurt or for looking after the market players. The governement exists for exactly the opposite reason, not only does it not protect people or force people to play by the rules in the market but it distorts the market and gives special trump cards to already rich people that pay for politicians to fund their campaign.

You're the one living in a governement nirvana textbook that imagines that government is this heroic entity that saves the market from corruption and keeps everyone honest. This is a pipedream of false reality. I accept that people are corrupt and can be corrupted, that's why I don't give them all guns and hope they can garnish wages to fight wars in my name.

What I'm saying is that people WILL seek out ways to gain unfair advantage over the market and their competition and government exists as a giant trump card that economic 'players' (capitalists) currently can use at their disposal to gain ultimate economic advantage.

The trump card is the problem, not the players in the game that are using the trump card.

You will always have people trying to cheat the game, but the point is to not throw fuel on the fire by adding a trump card to the mix.

It's like trying to solve a headache by cutting the persons head off, that's government.


Here is your thought process:

1. humans are corrupt so we need a human (we will call him daddy government) who we will give ultimate money and power to in order to contain the corruption of humans.

2. If this daddy government itself becomes corrupt we will blame the other humans and vilify them.

3. anyone who questions the rationality of any of this is living in a dream world.

This notion has religious origins:
"humans are sinners and are corrupt and cannot directly communicate with god, so we need humans (priests) to communicate directly with god and relay the information since they are not capable of being corrupt"

The flaw in all of these false notions is that there is only one category (humans) and you cannot make exceptions within that category. If you make a universal statement about humans you cannot make an opposite exception for certain humans.
If humans are incapable of looking after themselves and playing nice then it follows that politicians (humans) are incapable of looking after themselves and playing nice (nevermind looking after others)

[AsianAfroSamurai]

Originally posted by Modelexis


Your false assumption is that the government exists to protect people from being hurt or for looking after the market players. The governement exists for exactly the opposite reason, not only does it not protect people or force people to play by the rules in the market but it distorts the market and gives special trump cards to already rich people that pay for politicians to fund their campaign.

You're the one living in a governement nirvana textbook that imagines that government is this heroic entity that saves the market from corruption and keeps everyone honest. This is a pipedream of false reality. I accept that people are corrupt and can be corrupted, that's why I don't give them all guns and hope they can garnish wages to fight wars in my name.

What I'm saying is that people WILL seek out ways to gain unfair advantage over the market and their competition and government exists as a giant trump card that economic 'players' (capitalists) currently can use at their disposal to gain ultimate economic advantage.

The trump card is the problem, not the players in the game that are using the trump card.

You will always have people trying to cheat the game, but the point is to not throw fuel on the fire by adding a trump card to the mix.

It's like trying to solve a headache by cutting the persons head off, that's government.


I don't think government is this noble institution that does good all the time. But, government's mandate is to look after the mainstream (most of the time) versus individual's (and companies) self interests. This doesn't apply when the government is a dictatorship and such but for the most part it does.

Sorry, the problem is the trump card and the players. When you have people at the highest levels of government being run by the same people that they are trying to regulate its a problem.

There wouldn't be much of capitalism without government. This notion that you can have no government and the world will run fine is poppycock.

Sorry, government is all we got.

It's not perfect. I would rather have a government (no matter how broken it is) than be left in the hands of the world's capitalists focused on increasing "shareholder value".

Anyway, interesting viewpoints!

[uv1569]

Kevin is a realist.. "Money doesnt have feelings"

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by AsianAfroSamurai
I don't think government is this noble institution that does good all the time. But, government's mandate is to look after the mainstream (most of the time) versus individual's (and companies) self interests. This doesn't apply when the government is a dictatorship and such but for the most part it does.

Sorry, the problem is the trump card and the players. When you have people at the highest levels of government being run by the same people that they are trying to regulate its a problem.

There wouldn't be much of capitalism without government. This notion that you can have no government and the world will run fine is poppycock.

Sorry, government is all we got.

It's not perfect. I would rather have a government (no matter how broken it is) than be left in the hands of the world's capitalists focused on increasing "shareholder value".

Anyway, interesting viewpoints!

Maybe you can elaborate on the 'mandate' that you spoke of and help me to understand what this mandate is and how it works and who it applies to.
If a mandate can change basic human tenancies couldn't we apply the mandate to each individual person and skip the government middleman?

I'm just a little bit suspicious about this mandate since historically the USA had the most well written constitution and the most checks and balances in place yet it has grown into the largest and most powerful and most destructive governments on earth.

Seems like your stapling a mandate to a cancerous tumor and expecting it not to grow and destroy the host as it always does.

I'm all for a society of rules, but should we put a bunch of people in charge of creating rules and allow them to not be subject to any rules?

If humans are greedy and corrupt, you are admitting that governments are greedy and corrupt, since governments are made up of humans.
If humans can be turned to good with a simple mandate you don't need a government since you can just apply the simple mandate to all humans.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[max_boost]

It's not fair but life's not fair. It's just the way it goes.

[googe]

He's a dick, but this is schtick. He's made a character for himself.

He never really struck me as someone who knows what they are doing. He basically won the dot com lottery and seemingly hasn't done much else since other than be loud and obnoxious.

Mark Cuban on the other hand also won the dot com lottery, but he knows how lucky he got, and is pretty level headed about it. And he is far richer than O'Leary.