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

Esther Dyson vs Bill Campbell: 2002 − 2012

longbets.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 79 posts

Re: Esther Dyson vs Bill Campbell: 2002 − 2012

#61

Post by dredmorbius »

timiscool999 wrote: post #24
dredmorbius wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hrm ... interesting thought: is a market dependent on financial services analogous to one dependent on natural resources? Particularly if those financial services are extractive in nature?

Maybe, but they look like two separate problems to me. Russia's is a "resource curse": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse Our current financial system looks more like a twist on a "rent seekers": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking They're kind of similar, but only because resource curse countries end up with a bunch of rent seekers and corrupt officials.

So ... finance definitely has a rent-seeking component, having reviewed some of the literature.

But it also has the effect of starving other fields of talent and technical expertise, of bidding up their costs, and related effects which are more similar to Dutch Disease / Resource Curse. The number of physics, maths, and engineering grads working at banks / financial institutions rather than at science / product R&D firms, for example, is pretty staggering.

Still mulling, but thanks for the food for thought.

Re: Esther Dyson vs Bill Campbell: 2002 − 2012

#62

Post by dredmorbius »

WildUtah wrote: post #35
vtail wrote: post #33

Since it's obvious that Dyson's statement is way too optimistic, I assume that for her it is (was) a good marketing - you bet a lot by investing in Russian startups, why not bet a little bit more to show to your future partners how confident you are? Here is why the statement is way too optimistic: - Resources always move to places where they can be used most effectively (econ 101) unless there is a significant frict…

>> When I was helping some friends to find VC funding in 2008 in Russia, I learnt that most VCs in Russia require kick-backs(!) from startups that they're investing in There are stories on HN all the time about US investors requiring the same. There are fancy meals on the company's tab, first class airplane tickets from all around the world for board meetings and various other abuses that HN founders complain about.…

There was a news item in the past year or two about brokerage fees in the US for IPOs. The spread on fees was ... distinctly narrow. Especially as compared with other markets (EU?). Strongly suggesting collusive / oligopolistic behavior.

June of this year. Here we go: http://www.businessweek.com/1998/45/b3603184.htm http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/06/07/the-us-ipo-...

Re: Esther Dyson vs Bill Campbell: 2002 − 2012

#63

Post by vtail »

bh42222 wrote: post #58
vtail wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, they were requiring 10%(!) of the investment as a kick-back. Another interesting feature: there are plenty of 'funding advisors' that can help connecting you to a right VC[1] for a fee, typically a few percent of the funding. Kick-backs are also typical if you are a mid-size company a need to get a commercial loan. [1] They all claim to have connections to some government-backed VC funds such as governm…

Another interesting feature: there are plenty of 'funding advisors' that can help connecting you to a right VC[1] for a fee Same in the US. I think Massachusetts might have a law against it? But as another Eastern European currently in the US, I agree with you and know what you are trying to say.

I'm wondering why such market exists in the US. Assuming there is enough VC capital, why would you need an intermediary?

Re: Esther Dyson vs Bill Campbell: 2002 − 2012

#64

Post by vtail »

dredmorbius wrote: post #62
WildUtah wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> When I was helping some friends to find VC funding in 2008 in Russia, I learnt that most VCs in Russia require kick-backs(!) from startups that they're investing in There are stories on HN all the time about US investors requiring the same. There are fancy meals on the company's tab, first class airplane tickets from all around the world for board meetings and various other abuses that HN founders complain about.…

There was a news item in the past year or two about brokerage fees in the US for IPOs. The spread on fees was ... distinctly narrow. Especially as compared with other markets (EU?). Strongly suggesting collusive / oligopolistic behavior. June of this year. Here we go: http://www.businessweek.com/1998/45/b3603184.htm http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/06/07/the-us-ipo-...

Unfortunately, this is a market with a high barrier to entry, since IB's reputation for many investors is a proxy for the quality of due diligence. It's hard to disrupt this market unless companies will be willing to do their IPOs in other markets, like Europe or Asia.

Re: Esther Dyson vs Bill Campbell: 2002 − 2012

#65

Post by billswift »

michaelf wrote: post #42
dredmorbius wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hrm ... interesting thought: is a market dependent on financial services analogous to one dependent on natural resources? Particularly if those financial services are extractive in nature?

> Particularly if those financial services are extractive in nature? Could you elaborate on that sentence? What do you mean by "extractive"? In the context of natural resources, I take that word to imply that the resource is depleted (e.g. non-renewable). Do you have a difference sense in mind?

I wondered what he meant by "extractive" financial services, too.

>In the context of natural resources, I take that word to imply that the resource is depleted (e.g. non-renewable).

Is incorrect. Lumbering and agriculture are extractive industries but not "non-renewable". All primary production of resources are "extractive" industries.

Re: Esther Dyson vs Bill Campbell: 2002 − 2012

#66

Post by wnight »

noahc wrote: post #30
peterb wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OWS is not against capitalism, it is against corporatism. It wants the same laws enforced weather you are rich, poor, an individual or a corporation.

Perhaps I'm nitpicking here, but I believe they don't actually want the same laws for individuals and corporations. They don't want corporations to have the same rights as individuals.

Sort of. But if you played a small form of the recent mortgage scam a police officer would put cuffs on you and take you away for running a Ponzi scheme.

Run a large enough one and they bail you out and let you keep profiting on it. I haven't seen a single person charged in the mortgage meltdown despite that almost everyone at every bank was in a better position to see the problems than I was, as a borrower, did.

If our laws were applied without regard for the wealth of the guilty almost every bank employee in the majority of the world would be charged with conspiracy to defraud their customers and at least permanently banned from ever professionally handling money. (They did worse than Kevin Mitnick, they deserve worse punishments.)

As for corporations having rights, it's ridiculous. My cycling group doesn't have rights, the individuals in it have rights. Corporations are groups of individuals and thus, indirectly, have all the rights they need. Anything beyond that is corruption.

Re: Esther Dyson vs Bill Campbell: 2002 − 2012

#67

Post by wnight »

natrius wrote: post #43
olefoo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is problematic; more so because it is true. Households that make more than $500,000 a year pay less in taxes as a percentage of their earnings than households that make $50,000 a year. They also benefit disproportionately from the protections our society offers and suffer less from the economic uncertainty that has become the bane of middle-class existence in the last two decades. Now I am certain you can find mor…

Many. This is the exact problem with class warfare. Without evidence, it assumes that an overwhelming portion of a certain class is out to maximize their gains at the expense of everyone else. If you don't have a citation, your argument is invalid. My responses to this will be minimal, as we're considerably off-topic.

Which is why people in your position latch onto phrases like class warfare. As long as you can show one member of the class who doesn't participate you act like you've disproved the concept in general.

If you need a cite for every sweet deal lobbyists have sought just to agree that the lobbying class is getting a sweeter deal than the rest of us, you're being intentionally obtuse.

Re: Esther Dyson vs Bill Campbell: 2002 − 2012

#68

Post by wnight »

mangodrunk wrote: post #52
olefoo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is problematic; more so because it is true. Households that make more than $500,000 a year pay less in taxes as a percentage of their earnings than households that make $50,000 a year. They also benefit disproportionately from the protections our society offers and suffer less from the economic uncertainty that has become the bane of middle-class existence in the last two decades. Now I am certain you can find mor…

They are still paying more for the same services. What if I went into a restaurant with you and the charge 10% of the amount of money you have in your wallet if it's less than $1,000 and 1% if it's more or equal. You have $50 so you pay $5 but I have $1,000 so I pay $10. How is that fair to me? We got the exact same meal. If anything it's unfair to the person who pays the most regardless of the percentage. We all ben…

What's the chance though, that the rich person in this scenario got rich way by doing what the poor person did but better/faster? Pretty low I think.

Likely they applied for a patent on some obvious technology, or invested in a company that did, like Amazon, and are essentially being given that poor person's tax money to support these government monopoly grant.

Ditto anyone rich from resource extraction. Our laws give the resources to the people who currently own the land, despite that our countries really hold all land in trust for future generations (see the right of eminent domain). You can be rich off public resources simply because you siphoned them off via a tiny chunk of land you hold while turning a blind eye to any environmental problems you were causing.

When the rich actually, in general, contribute a tenth as much or work a tenth as hard (mentally or physically) as the poor, dollar for dollar, what you said may be valid. And there are some who do, but in general, riches come from exploitation, and until this is corrected it's got to be handled at another level (like income taxes, etc).

Re: Esther Dyson vs Bill Campbell: 2002 − 2012

#69

Post by gwern »

bh42222 wrote: post #60
dredmorbius wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've got to mull this one over a bit. After several decades of study, I'm just starting to really grok money and finance. Notable WRT resources curse / Dutch disease is the Norwegian counterexample: http://ideas.repec.org/p/ssb/dispap/377.html

Norway had a strong law and order foundation before they hit oil.

True, but the article the other day on Norway said that they squandered the oil up until the 1970s? when they brought in a foreigner to advise them on how to set up their current successful system. The law and order helped them recover from their mistakes, yes, but it didn't stop them from making them and if the oil had run out before they recovered...?

Re: Esther Dyson vs Bill Campbell: 2002 − 2012

#70

Post by gwern »

nirvana wrote: post #19

I found this one on bit coins: http://longbets.org/611/ Nobody has taken the other side of it. I'm skeptical (but intrigued) by bit coins, but I wouldn't take the other side of this bet, simply because bit coins have just started out and aren't yet a "fully mature form of money". That is to say, its a lot easier for a penny stock, or any other cheap commodity, to double (or outperform by 2 orders of magnitude) a glob…

One of the problems with that prediction, I found when recording it on PredictionBook ( http://predictionbook.com/predictions/2972 - I do this for most LBs. There aren't that many) is that it's not clear what is being increased relative to what.
Post reply on HN