jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (9 posts)

"Give a man a match and he's warm for a minute. Set him on fire and he'll be war

  1. threekeys profile image81
    threekeysposted 22 months ago

    "Give a man a match and he's warm for a minute. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of...

    his life. Could we prevent big businees conglomerations from forming and spreading business niches to  mum and dad businesses by adopting the above formula. That is  dont make your Customer dependent on you. Give them the tools to enable themselves. Is that workable? Then again each of of us have our own strengths and weaknesses. Maybe we don't want to do it all? I know Im seeing busineses that sell the idea "we are giving you more choices" when all it means they have complicated my life in making x100 more decisions daily in just having to get one or two things done. Do you know what I mean?

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13053528_f260.jpg

  2. jackclee lm profile image82
    jackclee lmposted 22 months ago

    Your quote is a variation on the idea "give a man a fish, he won't be hungry for a day, teach a man to fish, he won't be hungry for life..."
    I'm not quite sure if this applies to big business. In general, having choices is good and is a tenet of capitalism and the free enterprise system.

    1. threekeys profile image81
      threekeysposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      Hi Jack. Yes that quote is an adaptation of the quote you cited...its all about balance isn't it?...that is about balanced freedom through having choice.
      I see what you are saying  Jack.

    2. jackclee lm profile image82
      jackclee lmposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      I thought it is more about charity and life philosophy. How best to help another in need. Do you just give them what they need to survive? or do you give them the skills that will allow them to be self sufficient? the latter is the more compassionate

  3. bradmasterOCcal profile image29
    bradmasterOCcalposted 22 months ago

    Well, if you look at what the democrats have done, at least from the 70s, is to create about 25% of the population that was given the match, and repeated as needed.

    They have set the fire on business, allowing it to become bigger than the US government. In 2008, they provided the Phoenix to big business instead of taking advantage when they were on their knees begging.

    Now, they are the government and people's puppeteer.

    The middle class has dramatically shrunk since 2008, and that was the class that needed to be set on fire.

    Neither the government nor big business want a country with strong self reliant people in it. That would mean that they would be the ones that have to make the change, and that would be the thin edge of a wedge that could take them down. In the sense, they would be controlled by the people.

    1. threekeys profile image81
      threekeysposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      Yes...I have to "get" it that it doesn't serve the people in power to have a nation of self reliant people otherwise they just may not be the people in rule. Then we all need to improve our negotiating skills to enable each other to get ahead.

    2. bradmasterOCcal profile image29
      bradmasterOCcalposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      I don't know how your last sentence can be applied to the problem?

    3. threekeys profile image81
      threekeysposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      Yes I contradicted myself in terms of you saying the people who manage our country don't want us to be "self reliant". Then negotiating to "get ahead" doesnt relate. I was just expressing an off the cuff feeling...

    4. bradmasterOCcal profile image29
      bradmasterOCcalposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      Thanks for the clarification

 
working