Any Objectivist businesspeople?

[y_feldblum]

Then you have earned a high rate of return on capital invested, which you promptly turned into additional capital invested.

[aequalsa]

Then you have earned a high rate of return on capital invested, which you promptly turned into additional capital invested.

Ok, I see. I was understanding rate of return to mean profit.

[DarkWaters]

Are there other successful Objectivist businesspersons?

Science fiction author Terry Goodkind indicates that his heavily influenced by Ayn Rand and Objectivism.

[simonsays]

For the purposes of this thread I think over $1m in net worth is a good figure to define a successful businessman. Obviously those with less than $1m are still successful but I think what the original poster wanted to know was whether you could reach the top echelons of business by following Objectivist philosophy.

[y_feldblum]

Why do you think possession of a certain amount of money would be a good definition for success as a businessman? Many people who are not businessmen (i.e., who do not own or run a business) have that much money sitting around: celebrities and stars in many areas, heirs of the wealthy, longtime employees, etc.

[BrassDragon]

For the purposes of this thread I think over $1m in net worth is a good figure to define a successful businessman. Obviously those with less than $1m are still successful but I think what the original poster wanted to know was whether you could reach the top echelons of business by following Objectivist philosophy.

I don't actually think $1m is that much money in modern America. That much cash would be, but you have to factor in things like housing when calculating net worth - and many people have homes that cost several hundred thousand dollars.

EDIT: That said, I think you could be a successful businessperson with a net worth of that much or less. Money isn't a direct indicator of success.

Edited February 8, 2007 by BrassDragon

[softwareNerd]

I don't actually think $1m is that much money in modern America.

I think a little under 9% of US households have a net worth of $1 million. If one removes home and 401(k) and looks at "investable assets" (a figure used by companies trying to market investments to the rich), about 3% of US households have $1 million in investable assets.

[BrassDragon]

I think a little under 9% of US households have a net worth of $1 million.

Right, which means having $1m net worth isn't even enough to put you in the upper class - you're still middle class (and not rich). When you consider the number of people who don't even have a college education, that kind of money is definitely achievable if you set out to make a lot of money and go into the right field. Obviously, though, definitions of class and what constitutes "a lot" of money are pretty open to interpretation, so maybe it's a moot point.

[softwareNerd]

According to this article, there are 755,000 households with "Investible Net Assets" over $ 5 million. With about 110 million households in the country, that means if you're a "Penta-millionaire" you're in the top 1%.

On the other hand, the median household networth is somewhere around $60,000 and around $200,000 takes you into the top 20%.

So, $million is rich or not rich, depending on how you want to define being rich.

[JMeganSnow]

Technically you could consider anyone that does any kind of productive work whatsoever to be a businessman: he has at least one employee (himself) and he has at least one unique product (his labor, whatever it is).

I find "self-employed" to be a kind of goofy term . . . EVERYONE is self-employed!