Maybe I am getting old, because I keep seeing articles written glorifying doing bad things. Such as this and sneaking into paid venues -- because "mhy fun" and "stick it to the man" without realizing that people following even the most simple of the rules is what makes any society work.
And some people breaking those rules is what makes society tolerable.
Breaking into concerts?
Breaking into homes?
Overthrowing elected governments?
People breaking rules is what makes society collapse.
Many revolutions involved assault and murder (from the French Revolution to Cromwell).
May 68 was all about "overthrowing elected governments".
In the punk era "breaking into concerts" was routine -- and a way for poorer kids to afford seeing some bands they liked.
(There's a very nice scene in Cinema Paradiso for how kids/teenagers would also break/sneak/into cinemas to watch the film free -- or watch more adult films, a huge part of the old Italian culture, also common in other European countries).
Could the poor kids not have mowed lawns, or done handy work around where they live to be able to save up money to buy the ticket properly?
But even so, breaking laws and rules simply for enjoyment is not the path to sustained enjoyment. The path to sustained enjoyment is discipline and focus, not instant gratification of breaking the law, which in the long run will probably just make it even harder for said person to experience real enjoyment.
I don't buy your argument that because your life is shitty you can do shitty things.
The rich kids didn't have to do those things, so why should they?
That was intended as a lesson in civility, but it's actually a lesson is servility and injustice. Those were just as good kids as any other, they just happened to have born into the "wrong" (ie poor) parents.
Hopefully at some point in a future society we would see the less access by those poor kids the same way we see segregation today, and not just ask "why couldn't they mowe lawns" to get the same thing the rich kids got doing nothing.
(Though the real answer is that those poor kids in 40s-50s Italy probably already worked much harder than "mowing lawns", and they still had their priorities, like helping feed their families.
(Not to mention it was deemed OK by the society and seen with understanding, they weren't stuck-up on commercialization like other cultures).
It reads as a story where you want to hear 'what happened next?'.
Those who take inspiration from it we need to worry about wether or not the story is written.
I too co-founded my last business with £30,000, but - funny story - we just asked our family & friends and they lent it to us. OK, not a funny story, but it's the only story.
If everyone who wanted to start a business in the UK could've accessed £30,000 the UK would be a lot better off right now :/
Gambling 30K he stole (from his mom!), paying stars to entertain his girlfriend... I wouldn't want to be near that person.
Good on him for being successful he might be rich but he sounds morally bankrupt.
The parties were real; I went to a few of them.
It's so unbelievable that someone did it to start a business?
Of course it did not work out that way. Gas station bankrupt, everybody out of a job. If one of my kids stole 30K from me I'd be more than happy to report them, wondering along the line where I'd failed in bringing them up to think that this would be an ok thing to do. Even if they would make millions.
I wrote about this here:
Actually it very much does. Life is all about outcomes.
Not true - I was working at one in 1996 (predating Fasthosts) that was explicitly pitching at individuals and small businesses. IIRC, Claranet was also doing the same at about the same time (late 1996).
I get that they want to get 'inside the mind' of successful entrepreneurs, but really I don't expect journalists to be this overtly, sickeningly fawning. Based on his opening business gambit I wouldn't be surprised if this guy is embroiled in some scandal, and currently the BBC is just bigging him up.
Not a good way to start a business.
My point was more, should we be holding up this person as an example to emulate, as the article seems to be doing?
Round about the same time, my father had a credit limit of around £50k, across 3 different cards. He was a contractor earning around £100k/year, and given he was terrible with managing money, likely didn't have a great credit history.
Now in 2019 I earn around £100-150k a year, and my credit limit across 2 cards is £10k, with an immaculate credit history. I'm sure my card providers would increase it if I asked, but certainly not to £50k or even £30k.
I forgot my password at some point and going through the forgotten password flow ended with them emailing me my plaintext password...
This was years ago, hopfully they've improved by now!
Still, few if any of them create a 50 million dollar business (or even an 1 million dollar one).
So there's that.
You think the only thing between you and "making it big" is 30 grand?
(1) (well, what americans call middle class, not what the British bizarrely call middle class, which means upper class very rich just no royalty)
Here's a hypothetical: suppose you wake up tomorrow as a teenager in 1997, and have the ability to invest $30,000 in Google. Of course, you don't have the money for it, and your parents refuse to believe you. Would you steal it from your parents anyway, knowing that once you've made your money back, they will be taken care of? I would do it in a heartbeat.
So whether you can describe this as "morally bankrupt" really needs to be taken in the context of his age at the time.
How? His mum ate the risk, not him.
I'd happily double down with your credit card, doesn't make me a visionary though.