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

The venture capitalist's dilemma

newsletter.mollywhite.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 94 posts

Re: The venture capitalist's dilemma

#51

Post by greyface- »

foverzar wrote: post #29
surgical_fire wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And it just so happens that the current system we came up with - a mixed market with a strong, democratically elected public authority, yet freedom for individuals to pursue taxable profits This is naive to the point of absurdity, when the rich and powerful quite often are gifted loopholes for the profits to not be taxable, with a wink and a nudge from the "democratically elected public authority". I would certainl…

> the rich and powerful quite often are gifted loopholes for the profits to not be taxable. Those loopholes aren't free and their nature is typically temporary. One example would be tax cuts in exchange for committing to provide N jobs.

One counterexample would be Peter Thiel's Roth IRA.

Re: The venture capitalist's dilemma

#52

Post by JoeJonathan »

zpeti wrote: post #21
cornholio wrote: post #15

Capital is just another name for power and powerful people fight to maintain and accumulate more power - welcome to the world, summer child. It's woefully naive to expect individuals to give that power up for social-positive goals, it practically never happened throughout human history. We achieve social-positive goals by behaving as a society and limiting what the powerful can do with their power - democracy, market…

Yet "capitalism" is actually the best way to limit that power of powerful people and make status pretty closely linked with ability. In every other attempt at forming different societies (from feudalism to capitalism) it's generally the ones good at power games that win, not the ones with the actual best abilites. It is said of Stalin he was the best power game player ever born, he was equalled by no one in power acc…

Is status really linked to ability? Was SBF an anomaly, or just might it have been the case that he benefitted from obvious unearned social capital, like his Stanford professor parents? And that he, like plenty of others, told a story about “doing good by doing well” that so many wealthy people love to hear?

Re: The venture capitalist's dilemma

#53

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

zpeti wrote: post #21
cornholio wrote: post #15

Capital is just another name for power and powerful people fight to maintain and accumulate more power - welcome to the world, summer child. It's woefully naive to expect individuals to give that power up for social-positive goals, it practically never happened throughout human history. We achieve social-positive goals by behaving as a society and limiting what the powerful can do with their power - democracy, market…

Yet "capitalism" is actually the best way to limit that power of powerful people and make status pretty closely linked with ability. In every other attempt at forming different societies (from feudalism to capitalism) it's generally the ones good at power games that win, not the ones with the actual best abilites. It is said of Stalin he was the best power game player ever born, he was equalled by no one in power acc…

Highly regulated capitalism maybe. Unregulated capitalism is a dystopia generator.

Re: The venture capitalist's dilemma

#54

Post by [deleted] »

kqr wrote: post #13
DannyBee wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, what we need is more hecklers vetos over more spending. Democratic control makes no sense. That's the entire reason the US has a representative government - direct large scale democratic control doesn't get anything done for starters. Heck, even the representative form has scaled to the point it doesn't get anything done. If the control that already existed produced anything other than total dysfunction, things.…

I think the problem is the other way around: the population's lack of experience with actual democracy is what hampers any attempt at it. If we had more democracy people would learn to be responsible with that power out of necessity. But of course, a functioning democracy needs some sort of shared goal among its population, to help people compromise on less important matters and agree on that which is important. This…

[deleted]

Re: The venture capitalist's dilemma

#55

Post by JoeJonathan »

DannyBee wrote: post #7
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #2

> that those controlling massive amounts of capital and power in our society are not the smartest, or most level-headed, or most altruistic among us. This seems to be the telling quote - and is to me the point. We are missing democracy in control over at least half of the spend in society. It's going to be weird, but we need democratic control over companies, as well as government. No idea what it's going to look lik…

Yes, what we need is more hecklers vetos over more spending. Democratic control makes no sense. That's the entire reason the US has a representative government - direct large scale democratic control doesn't get anything done for starters. Heck, even the representative form has scaled to the point it doesn't get anything done. If the control that already existed produced anything other than total dysfunction, things.…

Well, I guess I give you credit for being openly anti-democratic…?

Re: The venture capitalist's dilemma

#56

Post by [deleted] »

qikInNdOutReply wrote: post #10
re-thc wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then nothing will get done because everyone has a different opinion? It won't work. We already have enough politics and corporate games at work. Are you advocating for more of that?

Well, yes, but the whole "everyone has a different opinion" is a artifically created circumstance with social media and political manipulation by those who want to elude controls.

[deleted]

Re: The venture capitalist's dilemma

#57

Post by JumpCrisscross »

offtotheraces wrote: post #18

It’s funny that Molly (a VC) ascribes so much power to VCs that they can literally create bank runs on their own. No. VCs don’t make decisions on where a company keeps its cash; the founder/CEO does. And founders freaked the f-ck out. Let’s make sure to remember that founders had 100% agency in the decisions they made about their cash. Here’s a selection of comments in the Whatsapp founders group Im in - all founders…

When a bank runs, you run. Trying to pin the blame on depositors is misguided. There are real villains to the SVB story. Regulators. Senior management. Goldman Sachs.

Re: The venture capitalist's dilemma

#58

Post by JumpCrisscross »

louwrentius wrote: post #25
blippage wrote: post #23

[flagged]

> VCs, and capitalists in general, put money at risk in the hope of generating wealth above their initial capital. They produce goods or services that benefit society, absent the internet-controlled juice-squeezers. VCs hoarding even more capital doesn't contribute anything to society, they are all 100% rent-seeking juice-squeezers. They are a huge example of why capitalism is so broken. > Society has benefited great…

> people like Bill Gates and his contemporaries like Elon Musk only show why people should never be allowed to own billions

You picked the guy who’s curing malaria and the one who kickstarted the modern electric vehicle and rocket industries. Yes, they’re flawed. But all humans are, especially the ambitious. I’m struggling to imagine an alternate system where e.g. they’re in better form as elected representatives.

Re: The venture capitalist's dilemma

#59

Post by AnimalMuppet »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #57
offtotheraces wrote: post #18

It’s funny that Molly (a VC) ascribes so much power to VCs that they can literally create bank runs on their own. No. VCs don’t make decisions on where a company keeps its cash; the founder/CEO does. And founders freaked the f-ck out. Let’s make sure to remember that founders had 100% agency in the decisions they made about their cash. Here’s a selection of comments in the Whatsapp founders group Im in - all founders…

When a bank runs, you run. Trying to pin the blame on depositors is misguided. There are real villains to the SVB story. Regulators. Senior management. Goldman Sachs.

Can you explain why Goldman Sachs?

Re: The venture capitalist's dilemma

#60

Post by asah »

VCs are like bankers, lawyers, agents and unions - maybe in some carefree competition-free utopia they're unnecessary, but they're absolutely crucial in the real one where companies compete for capital and resources, and custom inside deals are the normalized way to win.
Post reply on HN