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

Who Are My Investors?

avc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 264 posts

Re: Who Are My Investors?

#251

Post by Kryptosis »

npunt wrote: post #202
tomasien wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good points but "where do you draw the line? It's not clear" is fair observation but not a conclusion. You DO have to draw the line and just because where to draw it isn't clear doesn't absolve you (or anyone!) from drawing it.

Yeah exactly - this isn't a minor inconvenience, it's a fundamental part of being in society. I appreciate OP's point about lack of clarity, because yes, the capitalist game has nothing to say about anything except following whatever you can get away with. But that narrow game is being played in a much broader context of society that exists because of a broader social contract and set of values which keeps everything…

Thanks for the great quote

https://i.imgur.com/fzzlVXv.jpg

Re: Who Are My Investors?

#252

Post by lacker »

tomasien wrote: post #158
lordnacho wrote: post #110

I've come across this problem a few times when running a hedge fund. To what degree does one care where the money came from, aside from following AML rules? I get the feeling you only write articles like that if you have more people wanting to invest than you have capacity for. - A friend called, asking for a recommendation for a job he was applying for. And advice about whether it was worth taking. Turned out, it wa…

Good points but "where do you draw the line? It's not clear" is fair observation but not a conclusion. You DO have to draw the line and just because where to draw it isn't clear doesn't absolve you (or anyone!) from drawing it.

Why do you have to draw a line anywhere? For public companies, anyone can invest in them. I’m sure there is some Saudi money, and some money from all sorts of criminals, invested in every publicly traded company. As a society we seem happy with that, so what’s the difference between privately and publicly traded companies here?

Re: Who Are My Investors?

#253

Post by ace_of_spades »

npunt wrote: post #202
tomasien wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good points but "where do you draw the line? It's not clear" is fair observation but not a conclusion. You DO have to draw the line and just because where to draw it isn't clear doesn't absolve you (or anyone!) from drawing it.

Yeah exactly - this isn't a minor inconvenience, it's a fundamental part of being in society. I appreciate OP's point about lack of clarity, because yes, the capitalist game has nothing to say about anything except following whatever you can get away with. But that narrow game is being played in a much broader context of society that exists because of a broader social contract and set of values which keeps everything…

Thank you for your insightful comment!

I agree with you on most points but would like to add another aspect to it. While I agree that we have somewhat of a personal responsibility to be moral and do the right thing, the pressures in a market do make it very hard to follow through on our values. If you are refusing someone else is taking the job. Thus, it is also a collective problem and not only an individual. In a perfect world, we would have an effecatious rule system which could help us enforce generally shared values more effectively than what we have right now.

I think you allude to this point when you write about “software engineering and finance” as important fields. Ideally, we would be able to create incentives in these whole professions/markets that are aligned with societies interests, however, I think that requires a shift in perspective. Away from anonymous (unregulated) markets towards treating these fields more like coherent self-governed entities with desired values and goals which are incentivized by the rules that are set in place. For that to work we would need a very flexible and efficient regulatory system though that is more akin to science than the politics we have right now. People who come up with new ideas would need to be able to propose and self-regulate new fields that may be able to improve societies well-being. Let people set targets for themselves and demonstrate their value to society as part of doing business. That’s how science has worked so well for the last couple of centuries.

Hope those rough thoughts make sense to someone :)

Re: Who Are My Investors?

#254

Post by oliv__ »

lordnacho wrote: post #110

I've come across this problem a few times when running a hedge fund. To what degree does one care where the money came from, aside from following AML rules? I get the feeling you only write articles like that if you have more people wanting to invest than you have capacity for. - A friend called, asking for a recommendation for a job he was applying for. And advice about whether it was worth taking. Turned out, it wa…

Sure, it's easy to rationalize decisions like these, and even find great arguments in favor of them. But, you still have to sleep with yourself a night.

I guess in the end it just boils down to how well you can cope with yourself.

Re: Who Are My Investors?

#255

Post by aaaaaaaaaab »

admax88q wrote: post #205
puranjay wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found that the west has a democracy bias. It assumes that democracy is intrinsic to people and it's only a matter of "liberating" them from tyranny. But as history is proof, there is nothing intrinsic about democracy. Democratic revolutions were hardly organic in much of the world. Most countries have known nothing but monarchy and/or dictatorships. To impose democracy on them would perhaps be as cruel as lettin…

> I'd say that people should be allowed to manage their own affairs. > If a country is better off with a dictator, then so be it. Those do not mesh. Democracy _is_ allowing people to manage their own affairs.

Democracy is indeed.

But when external forces try to impose democracy on a society not ready for it, typically all you get is a civil war netween local mini-dictators. E.g. Lybia, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq, countless African nations, etc.

Re: Who Are My Investors?

#256

Post by npunt »

ace_of_spades wrote: post #253
npunt wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah exactly - this isn't a minor inconvenience, it's a fundamental part of being in society. I appreciate OP's point about lack of clarity, because yes, the capitalist game has nothing to say about anything except following whatever you can get away with. But that narrow game is being played in a much broader context of society that exists because of a broader social contract and set of values which keeps everything…

Thank you for your insightful comment! I agree with you on most points but would like to add another aspect to it. While I agree that we have somewhat of a personal responsibility to be moral and do the right thing, the pressures in a market do make it very hard to follow through on our values. If you are refusing someone else is taking the job. Thus, it is also a collective problem and not only an individual. In a p…

Definitely there's a massive misalignment of what has value in markets and what has value in society, because only some roles and industries are positioned to capture the value they create. Many roles, especially those very human roles of caregivers, teachers, etc, tend to be undervalued because their particular effects are either long term or simply unquantifiable.

I'm not sure what system or frameworks we need in politics to better align these, perhaps your ideas are a rough sketch for them.

I'd like to push back on one point you mentioned: that if an individual refuses to take a job, someone will take their place.

We know in startups and in any organization in general that talent is a key ingredient in success, we talk about it all the time and in many high leverage positions we're looking to get the best of the best, because we know how much of a multiplier effect they have on product, culture, etc. Yet this idea persists that to not participate with your talent means someone else - presumably with equal talent - will take the role instead. This contradicts what we know about hiring for positions that are very talent-driven.

An alternative take is that if talented people refuse to take a position, the available people remaining will be less talented and less able to execute the (negative to society) plan. If the firm hiring them has high standards, then the position may remain unfilled for a long time (another net positive for society). Market forces may increase the salary of that job, but that doesn't mean it will be filled by really talented folks, because if you know talented folks, they typically have their pick of what type of work they want to do and do not pursue solely the highest paying jobs.

Re: Who Are My Investors?

#257

Post by npunt »

altonzheng wrote: post #213
npunt wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah exactly - this isn't a minor inconvenience, it's a fundamental part of being in society. I appreciate OP's point about lack of clarity, because yes, the capitalist game has nothing to say about anything except following whatever you can get away with. But that narrow game is being played in a much broader context of society that exists because of a broader social contract and set of values which keeps everything…

Well said. I’ve just started really thinking about this. Although I would venture that people naturally develop value systems as they get older, whatever field they are in. It’s just that many of our existing institutions set you up to create values based on self interest and wealth. I think it’s unfortunate. But then again, can I really say my values are superior?

Good point, we definitely develop value systems as we get older as we move away from self-oriented to other-oriented thinking.

As far as which value system is better, I think the nature of developing a sophisticated value system is to be able to make judgments about values and come to these conclusions based on research, careful consideration, and testing against issues. So if you're spending time considering your values, you're inherently going to be judging those of others in the process, and altering your values until you get to the point where you feel yours are better. But of course, its also incumbent on you to remain open-minded to the idea you are wrong and to be honest in the face of new information.

Re: Who Are My Investors?

#258

Post by npunt »

Draiken wrote: post #237
npunt wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah exactly - this isn't a minor inconvenience, it's a fundamental part of being in society. I appreciate OP's point about lack of clarity, because yes, the capitalist game has nothing to say about anything except following whatever you can get away with. But that narrow game is being played in a much broader context of society that exists because of a broader social contract and set of values which keeps everything…

The problem I see is that there are literally zero incentives for a company to do that. A company is a "being" that only has one purpose: profits. Even if your company does try to stick with a moral compass, because of how capitalism works, every other company will swallow you. I'm not a finance expert, so I always had this question in my mind. Is there any way to avoid that? I can't think of a way to do that without…

It's only a recent notion that profit maximization is a company's sole purpose, and what that means differs a great deal based on whether you're trying to maximize short-term profits vs long-term. The longer term you get, the more you have to consider things that are beyond the scope of immediate profit maximization.

Historically there are many examples of companies that have considered their shareholders, employees, and communities as part of their duties. A famous example being Ford, but many companies consider a broader purpose beyond profits, and say so in their annual filings as to what types of investors they want and what to expect.

And to get technical, companies have a duty to their shareholders, not profits, because shareholders have the ability to fire the leadership of the company. It so happens that most shareholders primarily want profits, but this isn't universal.

You can also see examples of having legal responsibility be beyond just shareholders, such as in the bylaws added by B-corps which allow carve-outs for different bottom lines. There's a lot going on in the space.

I also wouldn't assume that if you fail to solely pursue profits, that you will therefore be signing your death sentence. That's both an assumption of efficient markets (they aren't), and that a given industry is always going to reward a business that seeks the most profit. Profit does help companies acquire or beat others, but the pursuit of profit is something that customers and shareholders may not always reward in a given industry.

Re: Who Are My Investors?

#259

Post by catholicworker »

lordnacho wrote: post #217
npunt wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah exactly - this isn't a minor inconvenience, it's a fundamental part of being in society. I appreciate OP's point about lack of clarity, because yes, the capitalist game has nothing to say about anything except following whatever you can get away with. But that narrow game is being played in a much broader context of society that exists because of a broader social contract and set of values which keeps everything…

> The reasonable answer to where you draw the line is: when something is no longer compatible with your value system. And if that's not clear, the issue is that you haven't yet spent enough time defining your values. That's the thing to talk about, research, consider, ask advice on, etc. People having a solid, well-tested personal value system is critical to society's function, because that informs how groups of peop…

There are consistent moral systems out there. Read Peter Maurin's http://www.easyessays.org/creating-problems/

Re: Who Are My Investors?

#260

Post by puranjay »

everybodyknows wrote: post #246
puranjay wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found that the west has a democracy bias. It assumes that democracy is intrinsic to people and it's only a matter of "liberating" them from tyranny. But as history is proof, there is nothing intrinsic about democracy. Democratic revolutions were hardly organic in much of the world. Most countries have known nothing but monarchy and/or dictatorships. To impose democracy on them would perhaps be as cruel as lettin…

Well-meaning Westerners like to imagine that all one has to do is put on a fair election, get the "good people" in power, and all will be well thereafter. This can be effected by Western occupiers when they want to wash their hands as they exit some troubled spot. The occupiers don't want to hear that democracy is sustained by values and habits taught by parents to children who are still young enough to listen. Once…

Doesn't help that in any democratic setup, the people with the means to fight elections are usually the people who are already close to, or embedded in the previous dictatorial setup.

This is the post-colonial story across the world. The people who came into power after the colonizers left were direct beneficiaries of the colonial rule

Post reply on HN