6 ms·

I actually think it's quite well written. It's not out there to dispute PG's central point. It's written to dispute the idea that Silicon Valley's engineering/b

I actually think it's quite well written. It's not out there to dispute PG's central point. It's written to dispute the idea that Silicon Valley's engineering/business/vc minds have demonstrated skill at building anything more than an economically better future for themselves and those within the system. If it achieves that it seeks to invalidate PG's expertise. (From which much of his authority is derived. A concept familiar to Holly Wood as she is a sociologist.) It also criticizes his breadth of knowledge in the subject area, something an academic would be in a position to comment on. (I'd love to hear from an economist or another social scientist on whether PG's suppositions reflect the broader literature.) Getting back to the article's main attack- It does so by making a logical, if emotion filled, attack. Venture capitalism is still capitalism. Participants work to, primarily, their own economic benefit rather than the benefit of society. (Yes, it's the worst system except for all the rest, but it still doesn't make the most long term beneficial allocations. See: poor funding for fundamental science research.) Moreover the article criticizes PG (citing his lack of perspective) for promoting a "bootstraps" ideology. It tries to illustrate that the ideology is flawed in two ways: 1. The people who could most benefit don't necessarily have the personal capital (time, knowledge, etc.) to effectively run a startup. 2. It implies that there is only so much problem space that can be effectively addressed at any given time. This is written in the style of a qualitative sociology monograph. I find it quite compelling, however, I'm not surprised that the crowd here doesn't share my view.

vasilipupkin 11y ago
Plenty of paragraphs that are utter nonsense. Example: "First of all, over 95% of startups fail. Every venture capitalist knows this. Those pesky things, for the most part, just eat money and more often than not actually destroy wealth. But the second reason why you should not allow yourself to think that startups create wealth is because of how they are funded." This is nonsense that displays utter lack of understanding of startups, venture capital, economics, finance. To refute it, I would have to start with an Econ 101 lecture, followed by a lecture on basic statistics and probability distributions. In short, it's just incoherent nonsense
- genericresponse 11y ago
  I'd love to hear it, because it took me a quick Google search to find numbers for startup failure from 80%-95% cited. (Much higher than the 48.8% I found for small business failure rate.) Moreover, I'd be interested if anyone has actually done a comprehensive study on total value (long-term economic and short term investor profits) added/lost from startups. I wouldn't be surprised if we found something that looks net/net negative or even pretty small.[1] (That is startups globally, not just VC funded or SV startups.) If startups are engines of wealth re-allocations rather than drivers of long term economic benefit. Well, then silicon valley is just as bad as Wall Street. [1] We're quick to count the successes, but struggle to count the failures. More than that, many startups, as the author points out, are entertainment companies that don't add much economically. Finally, how much money is churned out of investable capital into acqui-hires? How much of that delivers a meaningful return vs. defending a market position?
  - vasilipupkin 11y ago
    Well, the startups that don't fail generate financial returns that far outweigh lost capital from faulures. But value isn't just returns to investors, it's value for customers and employees which even failed startups generate But more importantly, you don't get to make claims that you can't substantiate and then ask others to prove to you they are false. Do you think Zeus is real? No? Well, prove to me he isn't. If you claim startups don't create value without actual evidence to back that statement up - that's a nonsensical way to converse
    - genericresponse 11y ago
      My evidence is not high quality, but it's evidence. Just because I don't have higher quality evidence at hand doesn't make it true. The sky is blue. You can disagree, but where I sit it looks blue. I claimed my point and my evidence centers on failure rate and personal observation. You can disagree or choose to maintain your own anecdotal/limited evidence. Neither hypothesis is proven invalid until clear high quality evidence is provided. I find your strawman distasteful bordering on offensive.

vasilipupkin 11y ago

Plenty of paragraphs that are utter nonsense. Example: "First of all, over 95% of startups fail. Every venture capitalist knows this. Those pesky things, for the most part, just eat money and more often than not actually destroy wealth. But the second reason why you should not allow yourself to think that startups create wealth is because of how they are funded." This is nonsense that displays utter lack of understanding of startups, venture capital, economics, finance. To refute it, I would have to start with an Econ 101 lecture, followed by a lecture on basic statistics and probability distributions. In short, it's just incoherent nonsense

genericresponse 11y ago
I'd love to hear it, because it took me a quick Google search to find numbers for startup failure from 80%-95% cited. (Much higher than the 48.8% I found for small business failure rate.) Moreover, I'd be interested if anyone has actually done a comprehensive study on total value (long-term economic and short term investor profits) added/lost from startups. I wouldn't be surprised if we found something that looks net/net negative or even pretty small.[1] (That is startups globally, not just VC funded or SV startups.) If startups are engines of wealth re-allocations rather than drivers of long term economic benefit. Well, then silicon valley is just as bad as Wall Street. [1] We're quick to count the successes, but struggle to count the failures. More than that, many startups, as the author points out, are entertainment companies that don't add much economically. Finally, how much money is churned out of investable capital into acqui-hires? How much of that delivers a meaningful return vs. defending a market position?
- vasilipupkin 11y ago
  Well, the startups that don't fail generate financial returns that far outweigh lost capital from faulures. But value isn't just returns to investors, it's value for customers and employees which even failed startups generate But more importantly, you don't get to make claims that you can't substantiate and then ask others to prove to you they are false. Do you think Zeus is real? No? Well, prove to me he isn't. If you claim startups don't create value without actual evidence to back that statement up - that's a nonsensical way to converse
  - genericresponse 11y ago
    My evidence is not high quality, but it's evidence. Just because I don't have higher quality evidence at hand doesn't make it true. The sky is blue. You can disagree, but where I sit it looks blue. I claimed my point and my evidence centers on failure rate and personal observation. You can disagree or choose to maintain your own anecdotal/limited evidence. Neither hypothesis is proven invalid until clear high quality evidence is provided. I find your strawman distasteful bordering on offensive.