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

Should we normalize ephemeral businesses?

anu.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 123 posts

Re: Should we normalize ephemeral businesses?

#51

Post by nologic01 »

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #49
nologic01 wrote: post #7

No we shouldn't. In fact we should denormalize a lot of dysfunctional business models, the transactional, excessively financialised, dehumanised business that has become the norm. A business is group of people building things together. Its a family. Its a village. We dont want ephemeral families, we dont want ephemeral communities. What we have is not working (pun). The overall drift of the last decades has led to an…

> A business is group of people building things together. Disagree. A business is an operation meant to make money for investors. Things that call themselves businesses and don't do that over a period of X are failing, as businesses, for the duration X. A business is an organization, and organizations don't have to be businesses, even if they share some of the same attributes such as concern for expenses, desire to g…

> A business is an operation meant to make money for investors.

please stop repeating Friedmannite vacuities as if they are laws of nature. What exactly is a business is defined by contractual arrangements that have nothing inevitable about them. Nothing.

Money did not exist before it was invented. Its a social construct and actually idiotically simple. "Investors" did not exist before the invention of the corporation and the countless legalities, contracts, incentives and behaviors that shape it.

A business is fundamentally a group of (non-related) people building something together (a service, a product, something desirable by others). Obviously some quid-pro-quo is required for them to be incentivized. Everything else in how the business is structured is up for grabs. The employees can be owners. The business can be non-profit. The extent of liability of members varies. The expected lifespan may be "eternal" or "ephemeral". Etc.

I think if/when we start looking at our organizational arrangements with a critical eye instead of being dazed and confused we'll enter a better period of social and economic development. The prime objective is to have as many people be as happy, as productive, as creative as possible, for the longest periods of their lives. We are very far from that.

Re: Should we normalize ephemeral businesses?

#52

Post by RajT88 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #19
RobotToaster wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It would be great if there was a government institution which would compensate such businesses for their tech to open source it. Wouldn't that just incentivise more negative behaviour from businesses, since investors would know should they go bust, the government will buy all their IP? It seems potentially more sensible to pass a law that the IP of any business that fails becomes public domain.

> Wouldn't that just incentivise more negative behaviour from businesses, since investors would know should they go bust, the government will buy all their IP? All businesses who would use such a scheme would be started by friends of politicians and public servants, with the sole goal of getting this tax payer buy-out for worthless IP.

This sort of negativity you can use to shut down changing anything, about anything, in any system.

It's not inappropriate, but it is important to just have it inform the debate instead of ruling the debate. Yes, there should be constraints put in place to limit the potential for abuse, and as well oversight to ensure that people are following those constraints appropriately.

"But then the oversight program will be targeted!" I hear you say. Yes, yes it will. And sometimes by policy makers with undue interest in weakening oversight. Sometimes just infiltrated by monied interests who stand to benefit.

None of that is a reason to do nothing.

Re: Should we normalize ephemeral businesses?

#53

Post by carlosjobim »

RajT88 wrote: post #52
carlosjobim wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wouldn't that just incentivise more negative behaviour from businesses, since investors would know should they go bust, the government will buy all their IP? All businesses who would use such a scheme would be started by friends of politicians and public servants, with the sole goal of getting this tax payer buy-out for worthless IP.

This sort of negativity you can use to shut down changing anything, about anything, in any system. It's not inappropriate, but it is important to just have it inform the debate instead of ruling the debate. Yes, there should be constraints put in place to limit the potential for abuse, and as well oversight to ensure that people are following those constraints appropriately. "But then the oversight program will be ta…

It's not negativity, it is realism. Wherever the government gets involved corruption ensues. It is a rule, not an exception. Abuse is not potential, it is guaranteed - due to the kind of people involved. Especially when business owners can benefit from corruption. Strict constraints to deter abuse are always put in place in these programs, and they are always completely inefficient and/or supervised by people who are in on the scheme.

I don't see it as negativity to be against the worst imaginable solution to a problem. It doesn't mean I suggest doing nothing.

Re: Should we normalize ephemeral businesses?

#54

Post by bluGill »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #48
bluGill wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately things like car washes are zero sum games - if there already is one "in town" and you open a second all your business at best comes from what the other already had, and in the worst case it starts a price war and make far less. Sure I won't go to the next town for my car washes, but just on my short route to the office I pass 3, and I know of a couple more that would be an insignificant detour. I think…

Marketing can increase the size of the market. Making deals with other businesses can too (they pay a fixed monthly fee and get unlimited washes for all their cars, etc.). I used to wash my car myself but the automated car wash is so convenient I just go there instead. There's also a customer service aspect. I used to go to a more expensive car wash because the employees there were really friendly and at the other on…

To some extent marketing can help you, but for the most part car washes are a fixed game. Unless you are using marketing for a price war people who see your ads are likely to go to the other car wash anyway.

Don't get me wrong, marketing is very important. However there is only so much you can grow the pie for many businesses no matter how much you do. There is also a limit to the number of people you can attract away from your competitors. (the limit is different depending on how you compare on price and quality of course)

Re: Should we normalize ephemeral businesses?

#55

Post by machinawhite »

Swizec wrote: post #32
vkou wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But who wants a 70% chance at being a millionaire, when there's 0.01% chance at being a billionaire on offer? Literally anyone in the world will take the first deal.

And yet here we all are on HN not taking that deal playing pretend that any day now our lottery tickets will turn into billions :)

Who is "we all"?

Re: Should we normalize ephemeral businesses?

#56

Post by RajT88 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #53
RajT88 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sort of negativity you can use to shut down changing anything, about anything, in any system. It's not inappropriate, but it is important to just have it inform the debate instead of ruling the debate. Yes, there should be constraints put in place to limit the potential for abuse, and as well oversight to ensure that people are following those constraints appropriately. "But then the oversight program will be ta…

It's not negativity, it is realism. Wherever the government gets involved corruption ensues. It is a rule, not an exception. Abuse is not potential, it is guaranteed - due to the kind of people involved. Especially when business owners can benefit from corruption. Strict constraints to deter abuse are always put in place in these programs, and they are always completely inefficient and/or supervised by people who are…

It is negativity.

> Wherever the government gets involved corruption ensues. It is a rule, not an exception.

This is true. If your requirement is to never implement some system which can be abused (even a little bit), you are against government in any form. If you're not advocating for no government and you're OK with a little bit of abuse, then it's an argument over scale.

There will always be some abuse, but the key to any program or system is to minimize the potential for abuse. There's abuse in the US welfare system, but broadly the consensus among anyone but partisan pundits is that the good the system does far outweighs the abuse within the system.

> Strict constraints to deter abuse are always put in place in these programs, and they are always completely inefficient and/or supervised by people who are in on the scheme.

This is not true, and completely defeatist. If you think the US Government is hopelessly corrupted by vested interests - you have not spent time in a country with a hopelessly corrupt government.

The US Government is mildly corrupt, not wildly corrupt:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

> I don't see it as negativity to be against the worst imaginable solution to a problem.

More negativity. I can think of far worse solutions than what I have suggested.

If you're simply advocating for the private sector to solve the problem instead of the government getting involved, I am wondering where you live where the private sector left to its own devices doesn't rampantly pillage to its heart's content. I'd like to move there!

Re: Should we normalize ephemeral businesses?

#57

Post by carlosjobim »

RajT88 wrote: post #56
carlosjobim wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not negativity, it is realism. Wherever the government gets involved corruption ensues. It is a rule, not an exception. Abuse is not potential, it is guaranteed - due to the kind of people involved. Especially when business owners can benefit from corruption. Strict constraints to deter abuse are always put in place in these programs, and they are always completely inefficient and/or supervised by people who are…

It is negativity. > Wherever the government gets involved corruption ensues. It is a rule, not an exception. This is true. If your requirement is to never implement some system which can be abused (even a little bit), you are against government in any form. If you're not advocating for no government and you're OK with a little bit of abuse, then it's an argument over scale. There will always be some abuse, but the ke…

There is a widespread false idea that there exist some kind of system in governance, but this has never existed. It is just humans in an eternal power struggle. Whenever the "system" or rules don't benefit the rulers, they are not valid. It's a system to the extent that it exists inside the heads of the people who believe in that system. And most of people have a warped idea of what that system even nominally is, because their idea of it is by how they've been told by parents, teachers and other uninformed. Almost nobody has actually sat down and read the laws, the acts, and other documents.

Saying the government should solve this lost IP problem is like saying that God will fix it or the King will fix it. And the "government should solve it" argument is always a top comment on any HN thread, no matter what is the subject matter. Isn't something strange if we always have the same solution no matter the problem? What is the purpose of discussion if all problems present or future are already solved?

I haven't mentioned the US government, I'm not from there. I'm from a place where corruption is rife within government on all levels, and in most private businesses - who of course work together with politicians and public servants for this goal. And that is a nation who is far less corrupt than the US in the corruption perception index - which doesn't really say anything about actual corruption, just what people responded in a form. The general population is ignorant and don't even understand what corruption is, they think getting illicit funds from the government to your business is just being smart.

The private sector can only pillage if they have the help of government. Having the government buy obsolete IP is a recipe for more pillaging.

Re: Should we normalize ephemeral businesses?

#58

Post by saltcured »

hgsgm wrote: post #6

Movies and theater productions are ephemeral businesses. As are popup stores.

Right, I was looking to see if anybody made this comment. It also seems common for real estate developers. See also "joint ventures" and other subsidiary structures of large companies which may encapsulate certain activities and their corresponding risks and liabilities.

Re: Should we normalize ephemeral businesses?

#59

Post by phkahler »

Fidget spinners made a lot of money for about 3 months. Most were made in China, where everything is considered efemeral. That is the fundamental difference between them and a lot of US companies. Here everyone wants to set up a business for ROI or MRR, with the ultimate exit being IPO at which point a company is expected to never die, else the last purchasers of the stock are left holding the bag.

Could your company make a quick buck on the next fidget spinner craze? Not that I think you should, but you should clarify why not. It might illuminate something.

Re: Should we normalize ephemeral businesses?

#60

Post by haliskerbas »

Swizec wrote: post #32
vkou wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But who wants a 70% chance at being a millionaire, when there's 0.01% chance at being a billionaire on offer? Literally anyone in the world will take the first deal.

And yet here we all are on HN not taking that deal playing pretend that any day now our lottery tickets will turn into billions :)

I actively look for sales of car washes, laundromats, and other such businesses.

Most of the time it’s more than the amount of money I’d have, and I’d have to get lucky to make the numbers work to even break even. And I’d only have one shot.

I don’t know which deals you’re finding but everything I find is more than just a 70/30 risk.

Post reply on HN