[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's also him having great song writers and producers, which he is dependent on.

No one in show business survives alone.

I agree this is generally the case, but wealth certainly does not guarantee that somebody is smart or hard working in and of itself.

On that level ($100M+), yes, they're generally both.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No one in show business survives alone.

Yes, but musicians that write their own songs and come up with their own artistic content have a larger candidate pool to draw from in picking out sound men, managers, booking people, etc. then somebody who is dependent on somebody else to write their songs. There are a limited number of people that crank out hit pop songs.

On that level ($100M+), yes, they're generally both.

A-Rod's 10 year contract he is guaranteed to get was for $252.87M. Roger Clemens, another athlete who probably isn't terribly smart, has made over $150M.

There are exceptions, but generally, yes, I agree.

[besson3c]

I guess it really depends on how you define smart. Athletes are very specialized, they don't have to be well-rounded or book/IQ/problem solving smart in any way, but they are smart at physical stuff.

[besson3c]

Shaddim, I actually am kind of curious as to how many years you spent building your company to the success levels you claim you've had, and whether this is around the 10 year general rule-of-thumb (or more, which happens too).

[ghporter]

Bieber is an example of marketing, plain and simple. Now that he thinks he's all grown up (and has police records in two different countries), his glitter seems to be fading. Unless he gets some new sort of schtick, he's going to start fading pretty soon. And the machine that put Justin where he is will essentially drop him like a hot rock and find someone else they can bilk teenage girls' parents out of billions of dollars with.

Yes, he performs well, but if he were also a songwriter, also a dancer, also somehow philosophically deep, etc, he might have more longevity in the industry. But he's not, so his Wiki entry won't be getting much longer...

So who gets the credit for his success? My money is on whomever it was that pitched "this guy can sing, and girls think he's cute" to the right people at the right time. And then the power people in the music industry (the music industry oligarchs) just saw him as a resource to use up, and did so.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Bieber is an example of marketing, plain and simple.

I disagree. He's an example of a kid who, beginning at age 12 began flooding YouTube with his wares, but unlike the run-o-the-mill wannabe stars, this kid showed a butt-load of promise and was absolutely relentless in his pursuit. Usher discovered him and put his name behind him. Usher is no slouch, there's absolutely no reason to conclude Bieber is. Granted, he's an unsightly character, but that's the sacrifice of throwing your childhood away. I'd be willing to bet he worked his ever-lovin' ass off and has the scars at a very young age to prove it.

This is the problem with class warfare. We want to insist that either poor people are spoon fed or rich people are spoon fed. The fact is, it doesn't matter and we can't adequately adjudicate every single instance of wealth or poverty because we can't possibly hope to have a clue what's truly behind each example or the sacrifices of their scenario. The only unemotional thing we can do IMO is ensure we're not advocating policy that perpetuates societal ill and drives more wedges between people and classes of people who need one another.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I hope I've also convinced you that Bieber represents shortcuts to wealth as far as timeline goes as well, I think that case has been made pretty clearly, this is the case for most pop-stars really. This is the big record label formula in action that has been utilized countless times.

I agree that what he does is not easy. I never said that, but if I gave this impression, hopefully this changes that.

I still don't know what I'm supposed to be taking away from the shortcut thing.

What is the "long route" to being a 13-year-old pop star?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

I still don't know what I'm supposed to be taking away from the shortcut thing.

What is the "long route" to being a 13-year-old pop star?

Shirley Temple, obviously. No one takes into account how long he spent doing self-promotion. Then spent 16 hrs each day, 6 days /wk, in a studio when his friends were out enjoying "life". He sold his freedom during his teen years (at a great rate of return, I'll admit) and those are some of the best in a person's life. The main reason he does stupid things now is because he was caged for so long, and quite literally has more money than sense (19, no surprise).

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I guess it really depends on how you define smart. Athletes are very specialized, they don't have to be well-rounded or book/IQ/problem solving smart in any way, but they are smart at physical stuff.

Entertainers are a very tiny % of the people with wealth, and with few exceptions, they don't keep it for long. Recent history is littered with the names of hasbeen stars who had fortunes and fame and are now broke. >70% of pro athletes are bankrupt within 5 years of leaving their sport.

I remember seeing a giant of a man, barefoot wearing overalls (no shirt), trying to wash car windows outside a convenience store one afternoon. I was too scared to tell him no, he must have been nearly 6 1/2 feet tall and 350lbs with the widest shoulders I'd ever seen. So I told him "sure" and gave him a few bucks and walked in the store. The guy inside told me who he was and my jaw nearly hit the counter, that was "Big" John Tate, the former WBA HW boxing champion. $50M to nothing in 7 years. As I was leaving I'd decided I was going to do something nice for him, maybe buy him some lunch and possibly get a chance to hear his story, but he was gone. He hadn't done much with my windows either. heh

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Shaddim, I actually am kind of curious as to how many years you spent building your company to the success levels you claim you've had, and whether this is around the 10 year general rule-of-thumb (or more, which happens too).

I didn't really build a company. I came up with an idea, leveraged everything I could to develop it, and sold it at a good time, then I invested well. What businesses I have and run now are either charitable or mostly for recreation. My wife has a vibrant greenhouse and gardening business, but she gets all credit for that.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is the problem with class warfare. We want to insist that either poor people are spoon fed or rich people are spoon fed. The fact is, it doesn't matter and we can't adequately adjudicate every single instance of wealth or poverty because we can't possibly hope to have a clue what's truly behind each example or the sacrifices of their scenario. The only unemotional thing we can do IMO is ensure we're not advocating policy that perpetuates societal ill and drives more wedges between people and classes of people who need one another.

Why must this be a political issue? Bieber's class has never crossed my mind. At all.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I still don't know what I'm supposed to be taking away from the shortcut thing.

What is the "long route" to being a 13-year-old pop star?

The long route would be to wait until you have enough ability to not depend upon others to make your career work for you, likely manipulating and exploiting you in the process.

There are a number of child stars that have not fallen into the same traps. Quincy Jones is backing a girl now by the name of Emily Bear, and Michael Jackson was handled pretty well, presumably by his father, remaining independent, relevant, and self-sufficient well beyond his childhood years.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why must this be a political issue? Bieber's class has never crossed my mind. At all.

A. because we're in the "US is an oligarchy, not a democracy" thread as highly political out of the gate.
B. because Justin Bieber has been given up as an example of someone whose wealth was handed to him as determined by people who really couldn't have a clue. Why? Because he's a butt-head kid who is not handling his wealth or fame well and because some here think his music sucks. None of this means he doesn't work his butt off. It's art, man.

My question is, how does this become a Justin Bieber issue?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A. because we're in the "US is an oligarchy, not a democracy" thread as highly political out of the gate.
B. because Justin Bieber has been given up as an example of someone whose wealth was handed to him as determined by people who really couldn't have a clue. Why? Because he's a butt-head kid who is not handling his wealth or fame well and because some here think his music sucks. None of this means he doesn't work his butt off. It's art, man.

My question is, how does this become a Justin Bieber issue?

The question is what are we talking about? Nobody here has claimed that he doesn't work hard.

[subego]

It was claimed he didn't work as hard as a hypothetical entrepreneur. This is almost assuredly untrue.

If said claim is untrue, your false perception comes from somewhere. Where do you think that would be?

Honest question. I want your analysis.

Likewise, if it is somehow true, where do you think our false perception originates?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

It was claimed he didn't work as hard as a hypothetical entrepreneur. This is almost assuredly untrue.

If said claim is untrue, your false perception comes from somewhere. Where do you think that would be?

Honest question. I want your analysis.

Likewise, if it is somehow true, where do you think our false perception originates?

You tell me: what is a typical Bieber day like, and what is the typical day of an entrepreneur like in your mind?

[subego]

About 10 to 15 hours of work.

Your turn.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

About 10 to 15 hours of work.

Your turn.

Which is 10 to 15 hours of work?

[subego]

Both.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Christ...

If you can't afford to buy the shit outright, then it's really not an investment.

[Not directed at you, Shaddim]

As a side note: it certainly can be.

As Shaddim noted, sometimes people mortgage everything they own for what they think is a good idea - whether it's an invention, business, real estate speculation, etc.

People who can only afford to do this with a house are, well, just taking a larger risk, really. On the other hand, they may be no less savvy with respect to housing market trends and how to make reasonable sums of tax-free money off of their own living space.

It's still an investment.

[subego]

The property isn't the investment in your scenario, the project is. That's where you intend to make the profit.

If your intent was to make money off the mortgage, then the property is the investment.

That last bit was most certainly the context within which the statement was made.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yes, but musicians that write their own songs and come up with their own artistic content have a larger candidate pool to draw from in picking out sound men, managers, booking people, etc. then somebody who is dependent on somebody else to write their songs.

Until you're actually making money/showing some real success, you have ZERO choice in picking out sound men, managers, and booking people.

Money buys choice, and until then it's really not relevant whether you're covering somebody's songs, having somebody write good songs specifically for you, or writing them yourself.

[turtle777]

It's amazing: for someone that claims to be a musician, Besson surely has little clue about how the music biz really works.

He probably thinks that he is ultra-talented, but knows he hasn't made it to fame.
Therefore, he concludes that those that made it to fame we're lucky, rather than talented.

-t

[besson3c]

Turtle, why must you seek out conflict needlessly like this? You really, really, really need better hobbies.

How is it that you remembered that I'm a musician, but not a jazz musician? We don't have song writers nor Justin Bieber fame. This world is as foreign to me as it is for anybody else.

Can you manage to stop looking for confrontation, or is this just not possible?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Until you're actually making money/showing some real success, you have ZERO choice in picking out sound men, managers, and booking people.

Money buys choice, and until then it's really not relevant whether you're covering somebody's songs, having somebody write good songs specifically for you, or writing them yourself.

Of course, but there are plenty of musicians that write their own songs and understand their music well enough while also having money to have these sort of choices available.

[subego]

Isn't Emily Bear a jazz musician?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Isn't Emily Bear a jazz musician?

Yes, and while she isn't at the fame levels of Bieber, she understands her music enough to write it on her own.

I'm sure Bieber wrote his music back in his early days, but nowadays I highly doubt it, he's way too handled.

[ghporter]

@ ebuddy: "self marketing" is still marketing... Justin worked hard to be discovered, but that doesn't mean that he's perpetual. And if he continues to behave badly, he's going to be even less so. Nobody that isn't their own publisher and producer - with substantial resources that they own - can survive being seen as a liability to their support structure. And Bieber's tendency to flaunt his current wealth while acting like an ass is starting to wear on a lot of folks.

He has a great voice, but unless he gets his "ever-lovin' ass" back on the track of putting out music that sells and gets off the "yet another spoiled performer who can't behave well" track, the public won't care how he sings. While I agree that this is a class-based issue, I don't think it's one that the public, music-buying or otherwise, is involved in. It is really about how the folks that got Justin into the business and have supported him through his rise have failed to teach him how to behave in public. Surely he can't be unaware of his predecessors who borked their careers by their excesses of behavior. Somehow, though, he appears to be unaware of his own potential borkage.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yes, and while she isn't at the fame levels of Bieber, she understands her music enough to write it on her own.

A real quick Google reveals that Bieber is profiled as a "singer/songwriter", writes most of his stuff and in fact wrote every song on his My World 2.0 album including some of his biggest hits.

I think subego asked and didn't get an answer, but is there any particular reason why Bieber would be subjected to so many false assumptions such as those you and others have made in this thread?

I mean... if I were one of Bieber's parents, I'd tell him not to worry about the haters, they're obviously just acting out in jealousy. Which of course is the perfect illustration of class envy.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

@ ebuddy: "self marketing" is still marketing... Justin worked hard to be discovered, but that doesn't mean that he's perpetual. And if he continues to behave badly, he's going to be even less so. Nobody that isn't their own publisher and producer - with substantial resources that they own - can survive being seen as a liability to their support structure. And Bieber's tendency to flaunt his current wealth while acting like an ass is starting to wear on a lot of folks.

He has a great voice, but unless he gets his "ever-lovin' ass" back on the track of putting out music that sells and gets off the "yet another spoiled performer who can't behave well" track, the public won't care how he sings. While I agree that this is a class-based issue, I don't think it's one that the public, music-buying or otherwise, is involved in. It is really about how the folks that got Justin into the business and have supported him through his rise have failed to teach him how to behave in public. Surely he can't be unaware of his predecessors who borked their careers by their excesses of behavior. Somehow, though, he appears to be unaware of his own potential borkage.

Look, I agree with you that Bieber has become an unsightly character of late and career longevity is going to require more than mere shenanigans, but there's no reason he belongs in this thread. The entire premise of invoking his name in this thread is faulty. That is, founded on false assumptions about him.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Turtle, why must you seek out conflict needlessly like this?

Uhm, LOL, pot, meet kettle.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A real quick Google reveals that Bieber is profiled as a "singer/songwriter", writes most of his stuff and in fact wrote every song on his My World 2.0 album including some of his biggest hits.

I think subego asked and didn't get an answer, but is there any particular reason why Bieber would be subjected to so many false assumptions such as those you and others have made in this thread?

I mean... if I were one of Bieber's parents, I'd tell him not to worry about the haters, they're obviously just acting out in jealousy. Which of course is the perfect illustration of class envy.

It's unclear whether Bieber writes his songs himself, because there are usually a number of other writer credits involved. There is no way we'll never know to what extent he has a hand in things, but I would be willing to bet that he doesn't write all of his songs himself. There is simply too much money involved and at stake with his whole operation, and too many songwriters that record labels can hire that will produce consistent results.

I can't prove this, so sorry, no charts and graphs or smoking gun links for you. Nobody can, but I think most savvy musicians would share this educated guess. If nothing more, it's certainly not unreasonable to embrace this theory.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's unclear whether Bieber writes his songs himself, because there are usually a number of other writer credits involved. There is no way we'll never know to what extent he has a hand in things, but I would be willing to bet that he doesn't write all of his songs himself. There is simply too much money involved and at stake with his whole operation, and too many songwriters that record labels can hire that will produce consistent results.

I can't prove this, so sorry, no charts and graphs or smoking gun links for you. Nobody can, but I think most savvy musicians would share this educated guess. If nothing more, it's certainly not unreasonable to embrace this theory.

You're right, there's no way we could REALLY know for sure, but using this bizarre "collaboration" criteria that you're now having to resort to since I've told you he writes most of his own music, there's no way we could REALLY know this about _enter jazz musician here_ either.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're right, there's no way we could REALLY know for sure, but using this bizarre "collaboration" criteria that you're now having to resort to since I've told you he writes most of his own music, there's no way we could REALLY know this about _enter jazz musician here_ either.

And how the **** would you know that he writes his own music ebuddy?

Yahoo Answers doesn't agree with you:

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...6113045AASbT1A

but, as you can see, there is some disagreement there. What makes you so confident that you know the answer to this question?

[Shaddim]

That does sound like a good bit of music snobbery, "he's not a real musician". I hear that from folk, blues, and jazz people when they talk about artists from more popular genres, because they dedicate as much time and effort as, if not more than, the "pop" guys but don't see the financial windfall.

What's the difference between John Petrucci or Joe Satriani and Kirk Hammett? They're 3 of the greatest guitarists of their era, and if you think there's a lot of technical skill differentiating them you're fooling yourself. In terms of career impact they're all huge successes, in that they've all helped "shape the center" in modern guitar.

However...

The first only does what he wants and **** anyone who doesn't like it, including bandmates. The second works alone and doesn't "play well" with others at all, at least not for more than a couple days. The third? Well, he's worth 10x more than the other 2 combined, while still doing what he loves, but due to being so wealthy he catches shit for being a sellout.

I believe there's a notion in entertainment that there's nobility in avoiding mainstream popularity, that "money pollutes the artistic process". But you know, the fact of the matter is, that's mostly sour grapes over their tastes not being as widely enjoyed.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That does sound like a good bit of music snobbery, "he's not a real musician". I hear that from folk, blues, and jazz people when they talk about artists from more popular genres, because they dedicate as much time and effort as, if not more than, the "pop" guys but don't see the financial windfall.

What's the difference between John Petrucci or Joe Satriani and Kirk Hammett? They're 3 of the greatest guitarists of their era, and if you think there's a lot of technical skill differentiating them you're fooling yourself. In terms of career impact they're all huge successes, in that they've all helped "shape the center" in modern guitar.

However...

The first only does what he wants and **** anyone who doesn't like it, including bandmates. The second works alone and doesn't "play well" with others at all, at least not for more than a couple days. The third? Well, he's worth 10x more than the other 2 combined, while still doing what he loves, but due to being so wealthy he catches prostitute for being a sellout.

I believe there's a notion in entertainment that there's nobility in avoiding mainstream popularity, that "money pollutes the artistic process". But you know, the fact of the matter is, that's mostly sour grapes over their tastes not being as widely enjoyed.

Music snobbery does exist, but you're pegging it on the wrong guy if you're trying to peg it on me.

I have no problems with financial success in music, even if I don't think person enjoying financial success is terribly talented.

Success in the music business consists of many choices. If you go the route of a Bieber, you may not be held high on the totem pole of your musical peers if they don't think you have talent, but not everybody is concerned with the totem pole (including myself), and that is fine. The converse is true, you can be so hyper-obsessed with the totem pole that you don't create something of lasting cultural value.

The choices you make as an artist or entertainer are personal, and they each have their downside and upside, including the Bieber route. But this doesn't mean that I should be shy about identifying the Bieber route for what it is in fear that somebody will slap the jealous label on me.

For the record, if you are interested in "vetting" me, I'm actually not interested in that level of financial success, at least not that way and at the price that Bieber has paid, so I'm not jealous. What would interests me most (if I were to focus solely on being a musician) is a comfortable living where I'm in control of my destiny, I'm free to make my own choices, and I've achieved it without frills or shortcuts. That's just me, but again, I don't begrudge anybody that has different goals or desires. There are no "wrong" choices.

The reason why I'm coming down hard on Bieber is because reality is what it is. Reality is that many pop stars are manufactured products of big record labels that invest a great deal on a small handful of artists in the hopes of short-term financial gain, and their selection process is based on a tried-and-true formula that has proven to have made them money in the past. I get the sense that the same is true for big budget Hollywood movies. There is definitely no connection to skill/ability/talent and financial success, this has been long established. I don't really like the word "talent" anyway. Our natural talents only give us head starts in very specific and usually narrow ways, but talent is not a recipe for long-term success. In fact, sometimes it can be a hinderance. The recipe of long-term success is a prostitute load of work, just like it is for pretty much everything else.

There are no short-cuts that bring about long-term success, only short-term success. The glorification of success via reality TV is false, that success is only in the form of short-term success so long as you are seen as a consumable and viable commodity by the record label business. If you are fine with this, fine, great, I don't begrudge that, have at it, but it must be understood for what it is, but don't expect me to be surprised by the results. There will be plenty more Justin Biebers, when I harp on him I'm harping on the model he symbolizes more than I am him personally.

Having reread what I just wrote, it sounds like I do begrudge things. I honestly don't know how to remove that possible interpretation from my writing. All I'm trying to do is put up what I think is a fair mirror in my eyes, but I'm sure you will read into this what you will.

I believe that while we are free to make our choices, we must recognize things for what they are. If you want to support Bieber and the like, you should come to terms with what it is that you are supporting (and I don't think you are "wrong" for doing so). The same is probably true for supporting Hollywood movies vs. Indie films. I watch a lot of Hollywood movies, but I would definitely feel warm and fuzzy if I found an Indie film I sincerely enjoyed and supported it financially.

That's my motivation here, is to help prop up the underdog, because there are a lot of underdogs (that make any kind of music), and a lot of great music waiting to be discovered beyond what is marketed by the big record labels.

[besson3c]

To bring things back into context, again, the whole Justin Bieber thing came about on the topic of shortcuts to wealth.

There are shortcuts. I listed being in the will of somebody super wealthy (although as Shaddim pointed out this often doesn't last), and be Justin Bieber and the like. You could perhaps add getting on and winning some reality TV or perhaps game show into the mix.

Justin Bieber's success was a shortcut no matter what you feel about him, because his success pretty much materialized in around a year, as discussed earlier in this thread. One year is a *very* compressed time for this level of success. This got into debating me whether this is a good or bad thing, and I probably didn't do a good job sticking to my original point and expressing how I feel.

How about this: it can also be neither a good nor bad thing, but just a thing, and it is a thing. That was my original point: it's a thing.

Sure, I'd tend to want to shine more light on the bad things about this thing, but it is a mistake to only focus on the thing shining the light and not the thing being shined upon.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Look, I agree with you that Bieber has become an unsightly character of late and career longevity is going to require more than mere shenanigans, but there's no reason he belongs in this thread. The entire premise of invoking his name in this thread is faulty. That is, founded on false assumptions about him.

Well I have to agree with that, 100%. I'm not sure how he crept in in the first place.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Well I have to agree with that, 100%. I'm not sure how he crept in in the first place.

See my post above this for an explanation as to how he crept in.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And how the **** would you know that he writes his own music ebuddy?

Yahoo Answers doesn't agree with you:

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...6113045AASbT1A

The "best answer" from Yahoo was; "No it's a combination of writers and producers." Yeah, including Bieber... like on every song. BTW, not uncommon at all in this genre. That's just a stupid answer.

Wiki Answers is where I got the reference and I saw the Yahoo article in my search at that time where the guy a few posts down lists out who collaborated on the material, Bieber of course in all of them. How is this supposed to be a valid indictment against his work ethic or talent for that matter?

but, as you can see, there is some disagreement there. What makes you so confident that you know the answer to this question?

Uh... I'm not slandering the kid.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Uh... I'm not slandering the kid.

You also aren't answering my question, nor making an argument why it would be unreasonable to think that Bieber is not somehow immune from standard practices in the business.

[subego]

Speaking of answering questions, the "where would these misconceptions come from" question is on the table.

I'm finding it notable how the opinions on this are following political lines.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Speaking of answering questions, the "where would these misconceptions come from" question is on the table.

I'm finding it notable how the opinions on this are following political lines.

I've been noticing this too. There can't be this many Bieber fans here worried about some anonymous person on the internet "slandering" him. Some weird free market religion thing?

[subego]

Go on...

The right leaning people think he works as hard as an entrepreneur because...

[subego]

I mean. The basic idea here is people who are super successful work very, very hard.

Is that applying a religious tenet, or is it playing the odds?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I mean. The basic idea here is people who are super successful work very, very hard.

Is that applying a religious tenet, or is it playing the odds?

I don't know where you are getting this idea that I think that he doesn't work hard, in his own way. It's just a much easier kind of work to me than a pretty wide range of other kinds of work, is all.

This argument leaves out the maintenance/development of his singing too, but if you want to get into that for fun, I submit to you that big a pop singer is really not that hard. There are 2093420984 people out there that can sing well enough to be a pop star, reality TV is a good testament to this.

Anyway, to answer your question, I think there is more to it than this. Look at Turtle777's ridiculous post to me making this such a personal affair. Turtle rarely misses an opportunity to be confrontational, but it is Justin f-ing Bieber we are talking about here. ebuddy brought up this idea of classism. There is more going on here than just defending this poor defenseless Canadian kid who this mean old guy with a care bear signature points out may not be writing all of his own songs on his own.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I didn't really build a company. I came up with an idea, leveraged everything I could to develop it, and sold it at a good time, then I invested well. What businesses I have and run now are either charitable or mostly for recreation. My wife has a vibrant greenhouse and gardening business, but she gets all credit for that.

So, you were the investor? I'm starting to get into the world of investors myself. Not so much because I want to be one myself, but because learning about how they operate is very useful to my line of work. How did you get started, and where did you raise your capital to invest in this idea of yours that you have apparently done well with? I hope you don't mind the questions, but you seem like a guy that doesn't mind sharing things, so...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Go on...

The right leaning people think he works as hard as an entrepreneur because...

This is an interesting question to me, because it would be interesting for somebody to make the claim that his ridiculous success is some sort of testimony to the wisdom of the free market

Even if you really do think he has a lot of stuff going for him, you'd have to explain the ridiculous success of Brittany Spears, and all of the other pop stars that have faded into oblivion. Sooner or later we'd come across a head scratcher.

The free market is good at picking winners and losers, but the winners and losers don't always deserve their titles.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Anyway, to answer your question, I think there is more to it than this. Look at Turtle777's ridiculous post to me making this such a personal affair. Turtle rarely misses an opportunity to be confrontational, but it is Justin f-ing Bieber we are talking about here.

Muahahahaha.

*I* am making this a personal affair ?

I think it's clear to everyone that *YOU* have a huge issue with people being successful for something that you don't think is hard to do. So you find reasons to explain it away, and in the process of it, you derailed this whole thread.

Sour grapes. Now shut up and stop talking about Bieber.

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You also aren't answering my question, nor making an argument why it would be unreasonable to think that Bieber is not somehow immune from standard practices in the business.

There's nothing to answer. It seems bizarre to me that Bieber would wind up in a thread related to oligarchy as if there was no reason to put him on a pedestal like this other than to rip him down, post after post. Either he's an oligarch in control of something-anything or he ain't squat. Which is it man?

If it's neither, answer why on earth he'd wind up in this thread and perhaps multiple-choice will help:
A. Because he's rich
B. Because he's a rich kid
C. Because he's a rich, butt-head kid
D. Because he made it and others didn't... complete envy fueled by slanderous assumptions; the rise of the Occupy mentality. (Using 'D' as the answer to subego's question on misperceptions)

And then I'll answer your questions.

[besson3c]

Ebuddy, I explained multiple times including a few posts above how Bieber made his cameo into this thread.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The free market is good at picking winners and losers, but the winners and losers don't always deserve their titles.

This sentence baffles me. What exactly are you expecting of the free market?

Winning in the free market bestows exactly one title: that of having successfully supplied what is demanded.

How is either pop star not deserving of that title in spades?

Assuming that's not the title you had in mind, what title do you think is being (has been) bestowed by their success?