Reebok donated money to Jim Demint but none to Obama. The banks and wallstreet paid a shitload to Obama. Our government has reached the point where you have to pay protection money or they will come after you which is easy to do, especially with the FTC which is random at best in applying regulations. I mean really, how many late night infomercials make similarly ridiculous claims? I think it is a sad commentary that people buy into the bullshit.

While I find it hard to find sympathy for a company that blatantly lies about its product, I am also concerned with a government that decides to apply laws randomly (friends don't get punished for the same thing political enemies do). Reebok might cost me $50 if I am stupid enough to buy their stupid shoes the government is capable of causing far greater harm to me. We ought to use our own heads and research questionable claims ourselves rather than rely on government to do it for us as government will fail either through incompetence or corruption.

The fact that corporate America could buy the government speaks to flaws in the government more than flaws in corporate America.

Before anyone goes off the handle, this is not an attempted refutation of anything Brian or Beyond said, simply an observation of the situation.

I'd be willing to assign blame to corporations if there was any responsibility inherent in a corporation to be anything more than profitable, but one can't blame an entity for following its nature.
It is the responsibility of government to regulate corporations so they cannot cause undue harm to the ecosystem, economy, public and foreign relations, the public or foreigners, the government, the nation, and whatever other things aren't immediately coming to mind, if any.
Technically, any damage done by a corporation that is not remedied or punished via legislation is the fault of the government for failing to address the problem.
Now I grant that corporations can and do circumvent the government and laws whenever they have the opportunity, motive, and desire to do so; but the inherent responsibility to deal with it and punish offenders is the governments'.

On a little more reflection, I think that the spread of the idea, the 'meme',  that corporations have no broader responsibility than profitability, and that there is nothing wrong with that, IS the problem.

Now I don't think it's right, but it's the way things are.
We need to have a fundamental shift in society to change it. Away from limitless and unregulated aquisitions of wealth and toward investment in education and industry and science. We need a global charter that recognises the current threats to our survival and forces real effort to combat them as a primary goal of all societies.

Redesigning the education system is something I view as necessary. It is too stale and clinical, with almost all the "fun" of learning leached out.
We know that the greatest methods of instruction are repetition and experience. We need to use that as dynamically as possible.
We need to better identify skills and concentrate on developing them more efficiently as well.
But as to legislation, it isn't strictly true that legislation cannot affect ethical behaviour. There are many concepts that were legislated which had an impact on cultural ethics. Homosexuality, child exploitation, internet laws, women voting, and a few more issues are where a legislative ethical battle is taking or has taken place.
Now it is certainly the case that legislation came after the ethical battle was over in many cases, but not all of them. Legislation has had a significant impact on US societies acceptance of homosexuals through the last number of years.

You fucking deserve a Nobel Prize for that.

The lay persons example is that "money equals happiness". I am happy with what I have, I am not happy that those I work for look down on me.

If money were the only tool in humanity's arsenal to determine "happiness" most of the art in human history wouldn't exist.

Profits matter, THEY DO, but for every person on top who is the head of this, there are far more many who do the work, who abdicate their ideas and sweat to those above them, and most of these hard working people die in obscurity.

Martin Luther King was a great man, but if he didn't have the numbers behind him, which of those names will never be monuments, he wouldn't be in marble now.

Steve Jobs was a great man. But both these men got to where they were at and the labor they put in is nothing to the labor of those who supported them collectively.

Ideas and movements are part of the market of ideas and are what progress humanity forward. But for every person we carve in stone, and quote, there are far more that go unnoticed who the without the support we wouldn't be quoting or putting in marble.

I don't think we need a holiday named after him or anything like that, but I don't think there is a question that Steve Jobs' inventions improved the standard of living for people around the world. I am rather fond of the technologies that Jobs created and encouraged the creation of. Do you think that the people who worked for Apple, NeXT or Pixar would have been better off if those companies never existed? How do you think the computer your typing on gets in front of you? Things don't just magically appear at the store. Since the computer in front of you is an example of "petty, mindless, bourgeois consumerism", why are you using it?

You have no idea what I purchase or why so it requires no explanation. Even if I grant that workers benefit from the jobs, and would be worse off without them that doesn't mean they haven't been wrongfully exploited. And I do believe that people in general would be better off without companies like Apple attacking their rights as consumers.

I didn't say the jobs weren't needed, I said some people are more easily replaced than others. Some jobs can easily be done by a very large number of people, other jobs require people who are particularly talented or specialized. For example, we can see that Peyton Manning is not so easily replaced. There are only a handful of people in the world who can even compete with his talent at his job. I don't think it is any coincidence that the Colts are 0-5 the same year that Manning is injured. Last year, the Colts had many important players that were injured, yet they still got to the playoffs. Obviously, Manning is a more valuable asset to win games. That doesn't mean that Manning would win if he was the only player on the field, just that him missing from the game affects the team more than anyone else missing. Steve Jobs was the CEO equivalent of a Peyton Manning or Tom Brady, that is all I am saying.

Probably not, as much as you talk about your boss I probably would have told him to fuck off a long time ago and gotten fired. I was never good at holding jobs down for long which is why I choose to no longer be employed. 

Really? So a brain surgeon doesn't require more training than a garbageman? And you accuse me of living in a utopia. I will grant that skilled labor does not necessarily translate into higher wages, although in most cases there is a correlation between how much skill or training is required and the amount a job pays. The reason is that the more skill/training required means that the potential employment pool is smaller and the fewer eligible candidates for a given job, the more an employer will be willing to pay. 

I never said anything about morality nor did I suggest that Steve Jobs was the only aspect of society. I just note that Steve Jobs had more influence on the world than I or most of us will ever have. He was a genius and an exceptionally talented man, I believe that all of our lives are better for the work he put into making cool shit and making it available to us. 

Where did I ever say anyone was less important than me? I'm not under any illusion that the majority of the world is going to care if I die today. But inside any given company, there are positions that are harder to fill than others because they are more difficult jobs or sometimes undesirable jobs. The position that Steve Jobs filled for Apple will be an exceptionally hard one to fill, just like Peyton Manning's position as quarterback. I never claimed to have anywhere near the talent of either one.

I know my limitations and what I am good at and what I'm not good at. I prefer to hire people who are talented and can do things that I can't. Some of those employees are more easily replaced than others. Those that would be difficult/impossible to replace draw a higher salary than those who can be replaced quickly. Should I pay all employees the same regardless of skill/training/ability? 

No.

I am not saying that. Determining an appropriate wage for an employee has absolutely nothing to do with their value as a human. It is simply a statement of the value they are willing and capable of providing to a particular company at a particular time. Their value as a human is completely unrelated to their job, income or value to any company. I don't pay people based on their value as a human, I pay them based on the value they are able to provide my business. It is nothing more than a trade, just like when you trade money to your barber in exchange for a haircut.

Just because you might pay a lawyer more money for 20 minutes of legal services than you pay a barber for a haircut, does that mean you value the barber less as a human? Of course not. Your argument is absurd.

There's nothing wrong with different jobs earning different wages. It's a motivator. Even a purely socialist nation would be foolish to establish a pure and unalterable payrate for all.
The problem is that the lowest pay scale is often most responsible for production, maintenance, security, and cleaning services (the most necessary and productive jobs in a company). While the highest pay scale sits at a desk pushing paperwork for a few hours a week (the least necessary and productive jobs in a company).

Without the producers, there would be no paper to push. They are simply less necessary to the company, and more replacable because of it. There's also nothing especially difficult about what they do.

If your production line quits, it's going to cost you millions of times more than a few paper pushers. The training is almost exclusively in-house for most production, while it is external for paper pushers (college/uni). So you have to hire a whole new production team, then you have to train them, all the while producing less or no product while you wait = masive losses, plant shutdowns, and potential bankruptcies.

A few paper pushers quit, you take out an ad and do it yourself until someone successfully applies.

There is no justification for the pay discrepancy. The most valuable, productive, and labour intense part of a company also receives the least pay. That MUST change.

Then how do companies set up factories in countries with extremely low education levels and in some cases hire kids? Production simply isn't difficult for most products. Training for the vast majority of production jobs isn't difficult and more and more the actual production is done by machine. There are exceptions, but for most products that you use on a daily basis, you can't tell the difference if the people who made it were all brand new at their job or veterans with 20+ years experience.

Name me a company that has shut down because it was unable to produce. The only time you have significant production problems related to the workers is when unions strike. Even then most companies continue to produce some product and if the laws were not written so favorably for unions, most strikes would probably just be a hiccup in the supply chain that most customers wouldn't notice.

And you talk about the entire production line quitting and compare it to a "few" paper pushers quitting. Obviously, for any company to experience a large number of people quitting at the same time there is going to create problems even if it is the cleaning staff. If a few people quit on the line it is no big deal. If every paper pusher in the company quits, the company is DOA. If every person on the production line quits, the company will take a big hit but might survive. Companies have survived through walkoffs and strikes on production lines in the past.

I've worked in a number of different organisations and know the ratio of office staff to production is always huge. Like 1:5 or 10 huge. So when I say firing a few paper pushers, I'm comparing it to firing the entire production line. As in ALL the paper pushers. Which is actually a relatively common occurance, when companies are bought and sold. I've watched it happen at least twice. Never seen the production line go unless a plant was shutting down though.

Well sure, in general it is best to keep current employees if they are capable of producing the desired results. I fail to see how that has any relevance to the relative value of a high paid executive compared to the production line worker. Your comparison to the military is interesting because in the military the highly paid "paper pushers" (officers) are clearly recognized as more vital than the private who actually does the fighting. Military organizations go through great pains to protect higher ranking officers that they do not go through to protect the front line soldiers. 

Apple. They closed all of their factories and now contract their factory work through 3rd parties. Apple has been an extremely successful company throughout the recent economic downturn. But more relevant to my point would be a list of companies that failed because of poor management. My point was that companies don't fail because of problems caused by production workers, they fail or succeed because of decisions made by paper pushers. Therefore, who you hire as a paper pusher is far more important to your bottom line than who you hire to produce. It is a financially sound decision to be willing to pay a much higher wage to a skilled paper pusher than you would pay for a skilled factory worker. 

Which companies are those? Take your pick of any company that has failed. Off the top of my head, Circuit City, Borders, Blockbuster, Montgomery Ward, ATA, Lehman Brothers etc. 

Sure, they replaced the paper pushers with their own people. Generally when a company is purchased it is because the purchasing company believes they can manage it better. Why do they generally do massive layoffs of paper pushers but leave the production workers alone (unless they are relocating or something)? Because paper pushers are more important to the bottom line. They fire paper pushers because the new owners believe that whatever paper pushers they put in place will do a better job. 

The production plant simply has to produce, it doesn't matter who is working there as long as they are producing the proper amount of product at an acceptable cost at an acceptable speed. There might be layoffs if it is determined that product is being overproduced. A new owner might replace the shift managers, but there is little reason to replace the line workers because it doesn't really matter who is there. 

Now I will grant that there is a tendency for companies to hire too many paper pushers as they grow. I believe this is because it is much more difficult to notice unproductive paper pushers than unproductive factory workers. It is pretty easy to look busy and make your job look important if you are a talented paper pusher. When too many factory workers are hired, the effects can be seen quickly in the form of too much production or workers standing around doing nothing. As such, over hiring of production workers tends to be corrected quickly. Too many employees in upper-middle level management can be more difficult to spot quickly, especially in large corporations. A well ran corporation will occasionally clean house and lay off excess management. But that doesn't change the reality that who is in a paper pusher position is generally far more important than who is working on the production line as far as their influence on the bottom line. 

1: Difference being the military is a strict self regulating organisation that promotes based on merit and experience. The military also conducts ALL training itself. EVERYONE starts at the bottom. A paper pusher in the military is a veteran who earned his way up the ladder through hard work, skill, leadership abilities, and the respect of their underlings.
The same is not true for corporations. Not even close.

2: Apple never fired it's entire production line. Companies like Apple always hold onto a core group of engineers and researchers and often lawyers as well.
Factories are not the only producers for a company that develops software.

3: They replace the paper pushers because it is easy to do, and they'll have work for their own paper pushers (which can cost them too much to let go thanks to severance).
They don't replace the production line because they can't without shutting down for a week or three to conduct new training.

1. Utterly false. Enlisted people and officers do not take the same path through training. And advancing through hard work? Don't make me laugh.

2. Not really worth the time arguing over it.

3. Evidence? Production lines shut down for weeks fairly regularly; for most companies a shutdown for a week or two is hardly a catastrophe. Sure, it would be an expense, but if you buy a company that is failing and by your assertion the production line plays the most important role, it seems to me that the expense of replacing them with better people would be a worthwhile investment.

And to your last post, if your so sure a company could be ran by paying paper pushers so much less, why don't you go run a company? If it works as you say the savings would be huge and you would be making money hand over fist. I'm skeptical, but I've never owned a factory so I am hardly an expert in manufacturing. In my areas of expertise I could manage far better with workers that do the manual labor quitting than my professional paper pushers. 

If you could pay paper pushers 50k per year and get the equivalent results you would revolutionize the industry and become an incredibly wealthy man. It sounds extremely naive to me, but the great thing about a relatively free market is that people with ideas that go against conventional wisdom can attempt to build companies and succeed or fail. Good luck with that.

1. In what way? Officers receive different training and don't even necessarily come from enlisted ranks. They can come from ROTC, a military academy or be directly commissioned for certain jobs (doctors, lawyers, chaplains). Everyone goes through basic but beyond that enlisted and commissioned soldiers take very different routes. Furthermore, in my experience, promotions are far more based on kissing the right asses than performance and most people I know in the military would agree with that assessment. Of course, the same can be said of any organization, it seems to be human nature to offer rewards to people who kiss your ass. Few people are able to set aside their personal preferences and promote solely on merit. Those who can should be extremely highly paid paper pushers.  

3. I didn't say they were the same. Companies have survived walkouts and strikes in the past, it is a reality of doing business especially if your company is unionized. Verizon just went through a strike here in the states and is still going strong. If a company isn't unionized, it is that much easier to deal with because you can fire everyone. I worked for a company that happened at, our employees staged a walkout, we fired all of them and within a few weeks we hired back those who performed well and weren't directly involved and replaced the others with new employees. It hurt our numbers in the short run, but in the long run it didn't matter so much. A well ran company is prepared for unexpected obstacles. Weather, technical problems, natural disasters, fires and employee problems are always dangers you can't prevent. You deal with the issue, repair the damage and move on. Paper pushers are the ones primarily responsible for dealing with unexpected problems, which is why a good paper pusher is so valuable. 

4. So what? Get some. No one has money when they are starting out. I didn't have money, the people I invest in didn't have money (hence why they needed mine), several people who are billionaires today didn't have money. If you have a brilliant idea, go find someone with money and persuade them to invest in you. If I was in Canada and didn't have money to invest in a company I wanted to start I would head to Ottawa. http://www.angelinvestor.ca/ and be around that summit in November. The sunday before, monday morning and wednesday afternoon would be a great time to be hanging out at bars near the nicer hotels in the area. Strike up a conversation with anyone who looks like they might be attending the summit. When you find someone, exchange business cards and leave a good impression. You should be able to meet at least a half dozen potential investors and if you are lucky, maybe more. 

A few weeks later, send them a comprehensive business plan and follow up with a phone call requesting a meeting to pitch your idea. Don't be afraid to be persistent, business people appreciate persistence, vision, enthusiasm and balls. You probably aren't going to find someone who will invest $1 million to build a factory, but if you start with a smaller business idea that could start with something around $50k initial investment, you would have a respectable chance. I would recommend starting out with something in your current field (security?) since you have that experience to draw on. Once that business is a success, the investor will probably be willing to invest more in future endeavors and/or recommend you to their friends who are looking for places to invest. 

Most people who do angel investing are willing to take large risks. It is the most risky way to invest, but also has the potential to be extremely profitable. They are gambling, and know it is gambling. Since you don't have any collateral, you are an extremely risky investment and would have trouble getting funding from VC's or banks. Your best shot would be to impress an angel investor with your ideas and convince them you have the personality and skills to make it work. Angel investors are specifically looking for people with little to no money, but have really good ideas and the ability to make them a reality.  

What do you have to lose? If you try and get shot down, where are you going to be? Exactly where you are right now.

Beyond and Cain sitting in the tree.................

"LET THEM EAT CAKE"

Sucks for them that the "peasants" are getten all "uppity".

Freedom of speech sucks doesn't it Beyond? Funny how you masturbate over the free market of ideas, but when others "compete" to drive the political car, you bitch like a street whore who didn't get paid.

 Thats the thing about morons like Cain. They are so proud of running a fast food chain which makes him and his shareholders money hand over fist, but for the majority of employees of that chain, they don't give one fuck if most of them are starving. And then they project their pathetic narcissism on the rest of us thinking we are jealous of  a company that creates more poverty.

Making slaves out of others is morality, like decapitation is neurosurgery.

counter that, education costs money. And I don't have the required education to start a business or seek investors. I'm on my own. I'm also smart enough to know this, so I'm not wasting scarce resources in failed grandiose efforts to make a fortune.

I've probably received more business instruction from you and other people I've debated with than any other source. I appreciate it, and seek to learn more.

But that doesn't mean your idea of business makes any logical sense. NOTHING any CEO has EVER done qualifies their wages compared to the lowest rung. Nor anyone in other paper pusher positions.
I'm not saying THEY should get minimum wage and that the production staff should get millions a year, I'm saying the wages need balancing. The production should make more, and the paper should make less. Because the production DOES more, and are more necessary. Because it'll save the rich from the very greed that has the poor kill them off every couple hundred years. And because it would jump the economy overnight.

BINGO!

Inequity has to exist in an open market, but just like the temperature in a tropical fish tank, too much of a gap will kill the fish, including the ones at the top.

A class monopoly is what we have. It is no different than the political monopoly China has. It is no different than the religious monopoly Iran has.

Having an open market does not mean it cannot be monopolized or abused.

The vast majority of protesters don't want to end the open market, they simply don't want to starve to death.

MONOPOLIES, ABUSE OF POWER, is the issue.

It is bullshit to expect everyone to be poor. And it is bullshit to think everyone will get rich. The three class system CAN work well when not abused. But what is going on now will only in the future produce more poverty and end up like the slave wages of India and China.

You mention Scandinavian countries have a balanced approach. What are you thoughts on Japan in this light?

Humans are self-centered. It is hard to see beyond our own brain and therefore community tragedies are what it takes to wake us up at least for a little while. Dying at 70 or 80 and new generations having to re-learn doesn't help. The religious think they can  gain wisdom  from their holy books, but they don't. They cannot even hope to see it the way even the authors intended. We certainly have a version of Christianity today that would be unrecognizable in the 1st century. They might use some of the same words, but that's it.

For every uneducated business person who does well, there are a thousand who failed.
And how am I to gain experience when I have no capitol to start a business to gain experience?

Getting money isn't remotely as easy as you suggest. Investors don't hang around street corners waiting to be approached, they hide behind secretaries who ensure only people with valid proposals can even make an appointment.
Going to conventions requires money, so that's out too.
Saving is impossible. Every time I get close to having a few grand life steps in and the money I spent years saving vapourises. That it took years to save a few grand is part of the problem, I've never been paid enough.
Multiple jobs aren't an option, I'd be lucky to have one full time job in this economy.
Cofounder requires connections I don't have. Loans require good credit, which I don't have.

You capitalists never appreciate that you got lucky and met the right people.

So? If you go into business there is a great chance you will fail. In the words of the great philosopher Adam Savage "failure is always an option". Many of the people who failed went on and built successful businesses. You lose your money and hopefully learn a lesson or two so next time you succeed. Even large business tycoons have spectacular failures from time to time. We are human; mistakes and failures are a fact of life. It really isn't even a question of if your going to fail, it is when and how bad.  

I never said it was easy. If it was easy it probably wouldn't be so profitable. The whole debate in this thread started because I was arguing that paper pusher jobs are not easy. It is quite difficult, scary, exhilarating, stressful and may require a significant amount of risk taking. If your looking for the easy road you should probably stick to being an employee. On the flip side, when you are successful, your life can be significantly more comfortable than most forms of employment can provide. It is a question of risk vs reward and what kind of life you ultimately want to live.

Actually we are out and about in the world just like anyone else. We drink at bars, go bowling, go to the movies, shop at the mall and do pretty much everything every other human being does from time to time. Making friends with people who have disposable investment money isn't different from making friends with anyone else. Although, even if you decide to approach them at their business getting around a secretary isn't impossible, you just have to get the secretary to like you by being persistent but polite. 

The reason I suggested being around that convention isn't to actually go to it. The convention costs thousands of dollars to attend and is designed specifically for people who are interested in investing large sums of money into start up businesses. So around the time of the convention there is going to be a higher than average concentration of potential investors who not only have the ability but an active interest in investing in high risk/high reward people who have no money.

The have a couple hundred thousand laying around and for whatever reason do not want to start a business themselves, maybe they are retired, lazy or are simply not interested in managing the day to day operations of a business. They have business experience and are usually willing to serve as a mentor or use their black books to aid the business with their connections. They need someone with a viable idea, enthusiasm and a willingness to put in the necessary work.

Following the suggestion I outlined in the previous post to meet and get business cards from people around that convention would go a long way towards putting you ahead of the competition when they are actually deciding who to invest in. You will have shown an enthusiasm, creativity and willingness to take risks that most others won't. It isn't going to get you the money, but it should at least give you the opportunity to pitch your idea to them.  

Bullshit. Do you have a budget? I don't mean some general sense of how much you make and how much you spend every month. I mean a very detailed accounting of any penny you spend. If you have limited income and are serious about saving cash you have to have a gumball from a machine in your budget before you buy it. 

There are a variety of different systems and a variety of prominent proponents of different ones. There is certainly some radio show that plays in your area that discusses budgeting, usually in the form of paying off debt but the same principles work for saving as well. Around here the prominent radio personalities are Dave Ramsay and Clark Howard. Some advocate setting up various bank accounts/subaccounts, others suggest using envelopes with cash to keep funds separate etc.

The fundamentals are the same whichever system you use. Account for every penny you spend, set up a strict budget where you pay yourself first by putting $X in an account that you cannot or will not access- until it reaches your set goal that money doesn't exist. Then put $X into an emergency/rainy day fund earmarked for things like car breakdowns or other emergencies. Then list all your expenses in order of priority, ruthlessly cut anything that isn't absolutely necessary for survival, find ways to save more perhaps through smarter shopping, coupons, giving up certain luxuries etc. 

The hard part isn't really creating the budget, the hard part is following it. If you budget $35/week for food you have to avoid the temptation to eat out or buy that tasty looking steak. You have to make sure your food budget for the week is at or less than $35 and put the remainder in your savings. If you blow your budget early and have to eat ramen noodles for three days straight, well next week you will be more careful won't you?

The problem is that budgeting is like dieting, it can be done but most people cheat and try to rationalize it away. You ever see the person on a diet who says "well just one little piece of cake won't hurt"? It does hurt, and exceeding your budget by a penny hurts. Everyday people dig themselves out from massive amounts of debt, you have higher than average intelligence, I'm sure if you really applied yourself you could save a decent amount of money. You need to decide to do it and and be very strict with yourself. Maybe you have to take extreme measures, but then you have to make the decision if the end result is worth the discomfort.

Sure, I was doing so in an economy that favored employees and was able to pick up jobs at will. But I wouldn't say it is impossible if you are not picky about the job. Sales would be a good area to look for jobs in as they are always hiring and the skills you learn in sales are very applicable to any business. But if you have to work at a fast food place or stand by the road with one of those stupid boards on your chest, oh well. With Christmas coming up many retail stores will be hiring temp help which could serve as a second job. It is best that second jobs are temporary anyway because it helps avoid burnout if you are constantly doing something different. It might take a little time and effort, but if you're willing to do anything I am sure you could find a second job. 

Then make the connections. Connections are not made by happenstance. I have the connections I have because I consciously decided to meet people. Every person I meet I find out what their occupation is, get an idea how long they have been doing it, can generally figure out if they enjoy it, can usually get a rough idea of how much money they make at it and I often find an opportunity to discuss what they want to do in the future. Then if I think they might be useful at some point in the future I get their contact information. If they have a business card I jot down a few details about them on the back like where I met them, what subjects we talked about etc. so that if I ever do call them I can refresh my memory. If they don't have one I jot a note into my phone. Many of these never turn into anything useful, but when I am looking for someone with a particular set of skills or someone who might know someone who could help I have a list of people I can call that I have a some kind positive relationship with.

It really isn't that hard, people like to talk about themselves, what they do and what their dreams are. All you have to do is start the conversation, ask questions as they naturally fit into the conversation and make mental notes (and then physical notes after). It is a numbers game. The majority of people you meet won't be able to offer anything useful to you and you won't be able to offer anything useful to them, but if you meet enough people your needs will match what they supply or what you supply will meet their needs. I met the woman I co-own the wine shop with at a beer tasting festival she was working (I was just talking to her cause she is hot, I was drunk and looking to make an entirely different kind of investment), I met the guys I co-own the appraisal company with while sharing a campfire and playing cards in hunting camp, I met the guy who is running the furniture shop I bought at a poker club.

I guess any one of those meetings could be considered "luck" in that had our lives not collided at those particular moments in time I wouldn't even know their faces. But just as easily I could simply be sitting with the memory of the cute server with the sexy accent at the beer festival, some fun guys at hunting camp and that damn kid who hit his flush on me. All three turned into relationships that could be potentially profitable all around because I went through the effort to question, get to know them and got their contact information. How many people have you met in your life that you might have had a good conversation with for a couple of hours then each of you went your separate ways never to talk again? Is it possible that one or more of them might have been able to provide you with a business opportunity? 

And I have a host of other people I have met who might turn into business possibilities in the future. For example, there is an excellent bartender at one of my favorite watering holes who dreams of owning her own bar. She is accepting what will probably be a pay cut to go manage a restaurant to get experience. I plan to keep in contact with her because she is the type of person I would seriously consider investing in. When she is ready to own her own bar maybe I can help with the money if I have enough at that time. Another guy I met last year grows wine grapes and is interested in purchasing his own vineyard. I got his contact information as it might be something I would be interested in investing in the future. Will either investment every happen? I don't know, but the possibilities are out there, and I will make the decision at the appropriate times. If I do, and they turn into profitable investments it is hardly "luck" they are intentionally made relationships that lead to an intentionally made investment. 

Since you have a particular need, someone with money available for investment, you have the advantage of knowing exactly what kind of people you desire to meet. I would recommend you create a specific business idea and arrange to put yourself in situations where you can meet people with that kind of cash. Volunteering at charity events would be a good potential avenue as by definition people who attend charity events have disposable income. So you can kill two birds with one stone, volunteer for a charity that you care about and make potentially profitable contacts without spending any of your own money. Go to community events in wealthier areas of town. Go to your local chamber of commerce or whatever Canada's equivalent is and ask for a calender of events. Go to ones you find interesting and meet people. Worst case scenario, you might make a few new friends.