The Determinants of Success | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's weekly column appears in the Beaufort Observer.

    Sometimes it is difficult to understand things the Prez says. Take, for instance, his comments to the effect that people who have "succeeded" have not done so by themselves. They had a teacher somewhere along the line who instilled in them the motivation to succeed. We have the bureaucrats who built the bridges, the roads, and other infrastructure. We have the police who protected them from vandals; the firemen who also protected them. We have the farmers who fed them. And the Butcher, the Baker, the Candlestick maker and anyone else we can think of to "support" the point

    What is not at all clear is how all this help was provided to the successful entrepreneur without it being available to everyone else. The "help" to which the Prez refers was just sitting there, available to anyone desirous of partaking of it. It most assuredly was not the cause of any success realized.

    Surely there are some differences between those who are successful and those who aren't. So what are the different variables acting on both of these situations??

    Being smart. The Prez holds that it is not only the successful who are smart. He seems to be right about that. But then, there are a lot more "smart" folks out there than there are "successful" folks. A variable, but clearly not something common to only successful people. Successful folks probably are smart but "smart" does not guarantee success.

    Working hard. The Prez tells us that there are a lot of folks out there who work hard. Another variable, but, again, not the sole province of successful folks. Clearly success requires hard work but hard work does not necessarily bring success. Additionally, a distinction needs to be made between "productive" work and "busy" work.

    Having an idea. Lots of folks have ideas, some better than others. And some pursued with more imagination and vigor than others. Another variable. The utility of the idea or its cachet (think "pet rocks") or something that makes it either work or not work.

    Taking the risk Taking the risk to turn the idea into something real. Not everyone is willing to take the risk of creating something out of little more than an idea. Not taking the risk is no sin. Some folks simply are risk averse; others not so much.

    The "quality" of the idea and the willingness to "put your money where your mouth is"are what would seem to be peculiar to the success of a particular project.

    The amount of risk folks are willing to accept would seem to be a function of what happens if one succeeds vs what happens if one doesn't succeed tempered by the probability of either one of those outcomes. If you are a true entrepreneur the risk will likely involve some combination of your own money and borrowed money. The price of failure is that you lose your investment and end up owing the "lender". You are on the hook.

    As an aside, every day our ISP and e-mail program screen out a lot of junk mail. Much of that mail contains "get rich quick schemes" and all manner of scams. Some of the scams are indeed ingenuous, albeit frequently illegal. It is easy to believe that making the scam work involves a lot of hard work. That being the case, how successful do you suppose the promulgators would be if they were involved in something that was legal and above board?? It would be interesting to know.

    The Prez now says that someone helped created the American system (whatever that means) Could it possibly be the capitalist system the Prez is talking about?? After getting ridiculed over the "collective" mentality he initially expressed, he seems to have changed his tune somewhat. He now says , "America says we will give you opportunity but you have to earn your success". I saw and heard him say exactly that on TV. It surprised me that he didn't choke on the words because it is a significant departure from the usual liberal drivel that he normally espouses. His liberal focus has traditionally been that everyone is entitled not to equal opportunity to compete, but to equal results when they do compete. It will be interesting to find out whether he has truly changed his philosophy or if this is simply more of his rhetoric. My suspicion is that this is simply more of the rhetoric that he delivers so well. What is unfortunate is the large number of folks who simply overlook his history of misdirection and take him at his word. Yes, it is truly unfortunate.     D'ya think??