Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What problems don't have a profitable business solution?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 43 posts

Re: Ask HN: What problems don't have a profitable business solution?

#21

Post by mjwhansen »

twobyfour wrote: post #14

There are also problems that can't be solved by businesses because they ARE profitable. For instance, a lot of aspects of poverty. Because people living paycheck to paycheck are desperate for cash and typically don't have enough savings to open bank accounts, they're easy prey for money lending at incredibly high interest rates - including payday loans and pawn shops; and for check-cashing services that take a signif…

There should be a line drawn between services that cater to lower income people that are blatantly exploitative and those that appear to be profitable but are highly risky.

Pawn shops and loan sharks are explorative. Yet, there has been much research done in recent years on the business of check-cashers and payday loans. They may appear profitable based on fees, yet the reason they charge fees or higher interest rates are due to the high cost of serving their populations. A higher risk of default means a higher rate of borrowing to compensate for the risk. Lisa Servon at Penn has done a lot of interesting work on this topic, and financial services for underserved populations in general: https://www.lisaservon.com

Re: Ask HN: What problems don't have a profitable business solution?

#22

Post by medz »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #12

Medical and health are significantly harmed by most for-profit models. You pay your doctor and big pharma for treatment, not for a resolution of the problem. This is an inherent conflict of interest. I have a serious medical condition. I walked away from conventional treatment. I have thought a lot about how to share information about what works. Even sharing that info comes with huge challenges. I am still trying to…

That's because people will pay for a cure / treatment when they are sick. Unfortunately they won't pay for prevention so that they wouldn't get sick in the first place.

Besides doctors can't guarantee a resolution, they can only guarantee treatment. If doctors would get paid only for a cure, it would just create different problems. Some people would be refused treatment because the odds of getting paid would be too low, others would have their treatment stopped because continuing would likely be unprofitable and only large institutions would be able to afford to provide services since only they could play the numbers in order to statistically stay profitable.

Re: Ask HN: What problems don't have a profitable business solution?

#23

Post by DoreenMichele »

medz wrote: post #22
DoreenMichele wrote: post #12

Medical and health are significantly harmed by most for-profit models. You pay your doctor and big pharma for treatment, not for a resolution of the problem. This is an inherent conflict of interest. I have a serious medical condition. I walked away from conventional treatment. I have thought a lot about how to share information about what works. Even sharing that info comes with huge challenges. I am still trying to…

That's because people will pay for a cure / treatment when they are sick. Unfortunately they won't pay for prevention so that they wouldn't get sick in the first place. Besides doctors can't guarantee a resolution, they can only guarantee treatment. If doctors would get paid only for a cure, it would just create different problems. Some people would be refused treatment because the odds of getting paid would be too l…

Historically, we had a tradition of having religious types also provide health care, a la the tribal medicine man who was both a spiritual leader and person who would treat medical stuff.

Doctors under a for profit model are not remotely the only possible approach to this problem space. Some good for profit health models include gym memberships and green grocers. Eating right plays a very important role in health and welfare and you don't have to wait until you are sick to wonder if your diet could stand to be improved.

Re: Ask HN: What problems don't have a profitable business solution?

#24

Post by danieltillett »

eesmith wrote: post #3

There is an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans, leading to global warming and ocean acidification. There hasn't been a profitable way to reduce that excess. It doesn't appear like there will be a profitable way.

Actually someone has worked out a way of making a profit from reducing CO2 by causing algal blooms in the deep ocean via phosphate fertilization [0]. The basic concept is you use the blooms to support fisheries that provide the profit - fish are expensive these days.

0.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_fertilization#Phosphorus

Re: Ask HN: What problems don't have a profitable business solution?

#25

Post by twobyfour »

mjwhansen wrote: post #21
twobyfour wrote: post #14

There are also problems that can't be solved by businesses because they ARE profitable. For instance, a lot of aspects of poverty. Because people living paycheck to paycheck are desperate for cash and typically don't have enough savings to open bank accounts, they're easy prey for money lending at incredibly high interest rates - including payday loans and pawn shops; and for check-cashing services that take a signif…

There should be a line drawn between services that cater to lower income people that are blatantly exploitative and those that appear to be profitable but are highly risky. Pawn shops and loan sharks are explorative. Yet, there has been much research done in recent years on the business of check-cashers and payday loans. They may appear profitable based on fees, yet the reason they charge fees or higher interest rate…

Yes, they solve one problem related to poverty. But because their motive is profit, they can do so only at a cost that exacerbates the underlying problem of not having enough money.

Re: Ask HN: What problems don't have a profitable business solution?

#27

Post by eesmith »

danieltillett wrote: post #24
eesmith wrote: post #3

There is an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans, leading to global warming and ocean acidification. There hasn't been a profitable way to reduce that excess. It doesn't appear like there will be a profitable way.

Actually someone has worked out a way of making a profit from reducing CO2 by causing algal blooms in the deep ocean via phosphate fertilization [0]. The basic concept is you use the blooms to support fisheries that provide the profit - fish are expensive these days. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_fertilization#Phosphorus

I don't think it's economically feasible. The amount of CO2 reduction needed will drop the cost of fish enormously, such that there isn't the profit to make it be sustainable.

The world produces about 5 metric tons of CO2 per capita ("only fossil fuels and cement manufacture", says Wikipedia). 27% of that is carbon.

That's 1 ton of carbon per person.

Let's assume fish are pure carbon.

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/fisheries/l-2/06-fish-consumpti... says "Preliminary estimates for 2006 indicate a slight increase in global per capita fish supply to about 16.7 kg."

That's rather smaller than 1 ton.

https://www.popsci.com/were-catching-way-more-fish-than-we-t... says we currently take about "130 million tons of fish out of the oceans".

Fish aren't pure carbon. In humans, carbon is 18% of the body. I'll assume it's about the same for fish. That's 7.5 metric tons of fish, per capita, per year.

Another way to think of the sizes, and realize how small the fish population is, comes from https://what-if.xkcd.com/33/ :

> Marine fish biomass dropped by 80% over the last century, which—taking into consideration the growth rate of the world’s shipping fleet—leads to an odd conclusion: Sometime in the last few years, we reached a point where there are, by weight, more ships in the ocean than fish.

Re: Ask HN: What problems don't have a profitable business solution?

#28

Post by mjwhansen »

twobyfour wrote: post #25
mjwhansen wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There should be a line drawn between services that cater to lower income people that are blatantly exploitative and those that appear to be profitable but are highly risky. Pawn shops and loan sharks are explorative. Yet, there has been much research done in recent years on the business of check-cashers and payday loans. They may appear profitable based on fees, yet the reason they charge fees or higher interest rate…

Yes, they solve one problem related to poverty. But because their motive is profit, they can do so only at a cost that exacerbates the underlying problem of not having enough money.

Sure, it certainly does. Yet there are also for-profit solutions that are helping significantly with poverty as well and helping people manage the cash flow and savings issues of being poor — take Instant Financial, for instance, which allows workers to get paid daily[1], and Walmart’s MoneyCard app, which uses behavioral finance to trick people into saving money.

When we close ourselves off to the idea that financial insecurity cannot be solved profitably, we close ourselves off to a multitude of potential solutions.

[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/apps-let-workers-make-every-day... [2] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article...

Re: Ask HN: What problems don't have a profitable business solution?

#29

Post by danieltillett »

eesmith wrote: post #27
danieltillett wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually someone has worked out a way of making a profit from reducing CO2 by causing algal blooms in the deep ocean via phosphate fertilization [0]. The basic concept is you use the blooms to support fisheries that provide the profit - fish are expensive these days. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_fertilization#Phosphorus

I don't think it's economically feasible. The amount of CO2 reduction needed will drop the cost of fish enormously, such that there isn't the profit to make it be sustainable. The world produces about 5 metric tons of CO2 per capita ("only fossil fuels and cement manufacture", says Wikipedia). 27% of that is carbon. That's 1 ton of carbon per person. Let's assume fish are pure carbon. http://www.greenfacts.org/en/fis…

It is a lot more complex than this (more than a HC post), but the simple version is most of the carbon captured is due to carbon rich waste products falling below 200m (about 400t of carbon for every t of phosphate), while the money is made from selling the fish.

I did a rather detailed investigation into the scheme a few years ago. The end result is provided you have a cheap source of phosphate (phosphate-rich rock is fine) and a good slow release system (think something like pumice), then the whole thing is both a massive money spinner and will capture enough carbon to reverse the current CO2 rise.

Re: Ask HN: What problems don't have a profitable business solution?

#30

Post by eesmith »

danieltillett wrote: post #29
eesmith wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's economically feasible. The amount of CO2 reduction needed will drop the cost of fish enormously, such that there isn't the profit to make it be sustainable. The world produces about 5 metric tons of CO2 per capita ("only fossil fuels and cement manufacture", says Wikipedia). 27% of that is carbon. That's 1 ton of carbon per person. Let's assume fish are pure carbon. http://www.greenfacts.org/en/fis…

It is a lot more complex than this (more than a HC post), but the simple version is most of the carbon captured is due to carbon rich waste products falling below 200m (about 400t of carbon for every t of phosphate), while the money is made from selling the fish. I did a rather detailed investigation into the scheme a few years ago. The end result is provided you have a cheap source of phosphate (phosphate-rich rock…

I agree it's complex. I see I also made a mistake - my calculations were for "fish and fish wastes", not "fish".

I still don't see how the numbers work out. You need about 7 tons of fish+waste per year to keep CO2 levels as they are. Only a few tens of kilos of those will be extracted via fishing.

The numbers I see are something like 1.5 kg feed for 1kg of salmon, so there's not that much waste.

You're going to have to cover huge amounts of ocean, as otherwise you're limited by the diffusion rate.

And what's the supply curve for fish? If twice as many fish are harvested, would the prices be the same? What about 10x as many fish?

How much fish are needed to reverse the current CO2 rise?

Then there are other questions like, will it induce algal blooms? if there's a surplus of phosphate then what becomes the limiting nutrient?

Post reply on HN