How to make your own supplement company
This is a part from the movie “Bigger Stronger Faster”. It describes how to quickly make your own supplement company and be rich using prop blends
Duration : 0:3:14
Categories: Supplements Tags: bigger, blend, blends, companies, company, faster, fraud, prop, proprietary, stronger, supplement, Supplements
25 Responses to “How to make your own supplement company”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Great video. Keep …
Great video. Keep them coming!
@indyman77: You …
@indyman77: You must be an employee of a pharmaceutical company- their “so-called standards” are killing Americans off every day.
I live in Utah and …
I live in Utah and I always knew there was something I did not like about Senator Hatch- HOLY FREAKIN HELL- I want to go into the “Heath Supplement” business now after watching this- especially since I lost my job under our Current Administration’s Watch. Freakin hell.
This video reaks of …
This video reaks of Pharmaceutical company. I making false images of what happens. Saying there is no standards. Bunch of LIES!
the whole world is …
the whole world is trying to u up. this video proves it again !! ;]
@chivo2372 Go back …
@chivo2372 Go back to mexico
haha the guy …
haha the guy sneezed and they just continue on, guess hygiene and disease never exited!!
it is nice
it is nice
@somecomputergeek …
@somecomputergeek We have been through R&D already… yawn
@slingshot2427
I …
@slingshot2427
I assumed copyright laws benefited the economy and clearly stated that.
I never said being physically aggressive is the same as stealing, or that stealing a thing is the same as stealing an idea.
So you can’t think of any unjust laws that would arguably benefit the economy?
@somecomputergeek …
@somecomputergeek No, copyright laws benefit the economy. According to your definition, copyright infringement is a “violent” crime since you are forcibly taking something against someones will, harming their ability to provide for their family. I think youve backed yourself into a corner again, but unless you provide something interesting for me to refute im done now.
@slingshot2427
…
@slingshot2427
REALLY? The law is good BECAUSE it benefits the economy? So whenever a law benefits the economy, then that law is a good law and should be enforced? Something tells me you don’t actually believe that. You can’t think of a couple unjust laws that would arguably improve the economy?
@somecomputergeek …
@somecomputergeek Yes.
@slingshot2427
I’m …
@slingshot2427
I’m pretty sure you didn’t actually understand my question.
I accepted, for the sake of argument, the idea that patent laws benefit the economy. My QUESTION was “Is that a reason to implement a law” – ie: use force, coercion, and violence against people that don’t have the right paperwork?
Almost EVERY site on the internet is based on open source technology, not just YouTube, and there are several open-source pharmaceutical research projects, such as the DNDi.
@somecomputergeek …
@somecomputergeek Ive answered your question already, but for argument sake I will repeat myself. If a firm puts money into R&D with no patent laws, their development will be quickly stolen once they release it and that money will have gone to waste, quickly putting the firm out of business. This leads firms to underinvest in R&D. Youtube is not a business model for most industries. You cant open source pharmaceutical research for example, it takes too much capital. That world doesnt work.
@somecomputergeek …
@somecomputergeek They have no copyright laws and not only do firms underinvest in R&D, but certain sectors wont even develop there. End of story.
@slingshot2427
” …
@slingshot2427
“ask China about R&D.”
CHINA? Really? You first say my argument is “anarchist”, then you use CHINA as an example of an unregulated market? Sure, they may have a different approach to copyright laws, but who cares? EVERYTHING ELSE is over-regulated, so the little bit of freedom on copyright they have can’t exactly work in their favor. The last time I checked, China had a massive communist government.
@vrfl
Thank you
@vrfl
Thank you
@slingshot2427
…
@slingshot2427
Let’s say that you’re right, and patent laws have a positive effect on economic progress. Is that a reason to implement a law? There are lots of laws that could be made that could have positive impacts on the economy. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
R&D would be radically different without patent laws, that’s for sure. It would make cooperation a prerequisite for success, much like the open source model which produced much of the technology that youtube uses.
@somecomputergeek …
@somecomputergeek No it isnt, because patents make it worth it for a firm to do R&D because they can acquire the license to the patented object that they developed. Without patents firms underinvest in R&D knowing that the money they pour into it will just help their competitors as well. Good luck with no patent laws, ask China about R&D. It is NOT counter productive and has a positive effect on economic progress.
@slingshot2427
” …
@slingshot2427
“eliminates” R&D and economic progress? Aren’t you overstating that a bit? It IS possible to do R&D without patents.
The only real experience I have with patent laws is in the software industry, where they have been a disaster.
perens. com/Articles/PatentFarming. html
So, again, what you thought would help ends up hurting. It’s counter-productive and doesn’t actually work the way it’s supposed to, and actually has a negative effect on real progress.
@somecomputergeek …
@somecomputergeek How about patent laws? Without patent laws and protection of intellectual property it eliminates R&D. Violating this is not violent, but it eliminates R&D and economic progress. You would abolish these?
@slingshot2427
I’m …
@slingshot2427
I’m not against “any form of law”. I’m just against laws that prohibit behavior that is non-violent or actions that do not recklessly endanger other people.
But generally speaking, when the “solution” to a problem is VIOLENCE, FORCE, and COERCION, nothing has actually been solved, and this non-solution prevents REAL solutions from seeing the light of day.
@somecomputergeek . …
@somecomputergeek …And since you define violence to include making laws that might require an arrest, you are arguing against any form of law. So yeah, you would by definition be an anarchist arguing for the legalization of any and all drugs.
@slingshot2427
I’m …
@slingshot2427
I’m not arguing for the “legalization” of anything. I’m simply saying that it is IMMORAL, IMPRACTICAL, and UNNECESSARY to use violence to solve social problems, including drugs like heroine and crack. Yes, they are a problem, but it is intellectual laziness to pretend this violence is somehow solving it – quite the opposite.
The first step in solving societal problems is in ACKNOWLEDGING that the existing “solutions” DON’T WORK.
watch?v=P772Eb63qIY