Yes on the risk, fully disagree on the reward part. And i am not talking about the reward of being able to focus on the business rather than raising money.
I am talking about cold hard cash. In a successful small business, many owners will make mid 6 figures, year in, year out, and still many will make 7 figures. After a few year, it beats a lot of exits. And there are many many more of those than the few IPO / big acquisition we can read about. Even with IPOs, the remaining share of the founder sometimes makes me sorry for them.
A six or even seven figure salary won't make you a billionaire. The success cases of the highly leveraged approach are billionaires. The highest return with high leverage is higher.
I do agree with you on the rest of the comment. The mean return for a highly leveraged approach is probably lower than the mean return for organic growth startups.
I have a hard time understanding how TJ or lawyers can pretend there is a case here. Companies cannnot dictate what is legal or not. If you cannot resell a good that you legally buy, then you kill commerce. And Craigslist can shut down. Do i need an authorization from manufacturers for my yard sale? Wondering why it even went to the Supreme Court...
They're alleging a trademark violation in his use of the name "Pirate Joe's" to sell Trader Joe's products, not that reselling them is itself illegal.
The case that went to the Supreme Court is unrelated to either Trader Joe's or this guy; the article is just juxtaposing it because it was also a case about international resale. But it was about someone importing international editions of textbooks for resale in the U.S., and the main arguments in the case turned on interpretation of a totally different area of law, copyright (so it's not really all that relevant here).
I agree but Levis did win a case stopping Tesco selling their jeans in the UK. Not under UK law but the stupid European Court of Justice sided with them.
One of the problems is that he has no valid passport. The US has cancelled his. So he cannot take a regular flight. Also, any country would need to proactively make an exception to their rules to have him enter their territory, welcoming the wrath of the US administration.
What a bizarre world are we living in where you need a specially colored and printed piece of paper to travel and where it is this piece of paper, and not the technical problem of traveling thousands of miles, is the real challenge.
Indeed. For thousands of years people were able to move about relatively freely in most parts of the world, exceptions most often due to war. Only relatively recently has it become the norm to need permission from multiple states to move between them. Prior to the U.S. Civil War, it was difficult to even determine who someone was if they left their area of birth. Most forms of identity were informal and ultimately relied on a community attesting to who someone is. Identity systems weren't formalized and reliable, so you could start a new life in a new place under a new identity if you wanted to.
While state-enforced identity controls are used to enforce travel controls, it need not be so. You only need identity controls for state sponsored benefits (insurance, welfare, licensure, etc). There is no necessity for your mobility to be imparied by those identity controls; it is only how states have chosen to do it.
My point was that identity controls predated travel controls and were a prerequisite for a "papers please" kind of society. Each state chooses (either directly or by will of its voters) what responsibilities it owes to non-citizens in its territory. Those responsibilities can range from almost nonexistent to very generous, but it is ultimately the choice of the state, and not the visitors to that state.
He has a residence permit that allows him to get past Russian exit controls and travel abroad, so I suppose he can get on a plane if he wishes. Getting off will be a problem, yes. He'd have to arrange something with Ecuador, Venezuela, Cuba, or the like.
Airlines generally won't let you board unless you have the necessary documents to enter the destination country (e.g. a valid passport, a visa if required). In fact, countries will fine airlines for bringing passengers without the correct documents.
As far as my experience goes, the only thing that gets checked in russian airport (for resident) is your passport. Passport control doesn't know where you are heading nor they care, nobody else checks it.
Maybe this is different matter for some flights (for example, to Israel or the USA), where the airline does additional checks on you, but you fly out to Europe and most other destinations unchecked (despite needing a visa to enter).
I've travelled quite a bit (including Russia -> EU), and I've never been asked that.
Maybe they do a fast peek at your passport when letting you to board in the very end, but they can only check if some visa is physically there, since it takes them around 5 sec.
Yet, he did what he did to demonstrate the the US government was violating the US Constitution, which are the law also, and the US government charges him with violating the law? Who will charge the US government with violating the law? Or is the US government above the law? Is the law meaningless if it doesn't apply to the US government? Isn't the US Constitution specifically drafted to restrict the actions of the US Government? But if the US government violates the constitution with impunity, then isn't the US government illegitimate? And is an illegitimate government allowed to issued valid charges of violation of law, when it violates the law itself?
Snowden should have never been charged. Snowden is a hero, one who took his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, with all seriousness, at great personal risk, and now his good name is tarnished and his freedom is restricted, and the people who violated their oaths and broke the law are free.
Yes on the risk, fully disagree on the reward part. And i am not talking about the reward of being able to focus on the business rather than raising money.
I am talking about cold hard cash. In a successful small business, many owners will make mid 6 figures, year in, year out, and still many will make 7 figures. After a few year, it beats a lot of exits. And there are many many more of those than the few IPO / big acquisition we can read about. Even with IPOs, the remaining share of the founder sometimes makes me sorry for them.
VCs don't publicize that though, understandably.