3 ms·

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 dis

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
Failure rate is in no way any evidence of whether or not startups create value. Failure rate of drug discovery is also high, would you say drug discovery doesn't create value? I'm sorry if you feel offended but I'm not trying to offend you personally, I'm just pointing out that it is a nonsensical way to converse, to offer up claims that make no sense outside of personal observation
- genericresponse 11y ago
  I'm not claiming that failure rate is the sole value destruction mechanism. Rather that it is one. The other, perhaps more pernicious, mechanism is solving problems with little to no long term social benefit. (i.e. much entertainment) Your point about drug discovery helps illustrate the second item. If most of the drugs being pursued were cosmetic in nature, we could challenge the long term benefit of drug discovery. I appreciate the apology, but that's part of my frustration. My claims do have some grounds for validity and consideration. They have a rational basis.
  - vasilipupkin 11y ago
    I don't see the rational basis. You keep repeating it exists but at no point have you explained how it follows that a failure rate of startups in any way whatsoever to any degree at all leads to them not creating any value. You have simply assumed this link - that's nonsensical In fact, simple economics teaches us that a high failure rate is a good thing. Low failure rate would be consistent with very low risk projects that tend to be about some form of rent seeking or regulatory arbitrage. High failure rate means people are actually working on things that are hard to do. That's very valuable
  - Natsu 11y ago
    If a new drug to cure something is discovered, we have a new drug no matter how many other startups fail and people who might have died are cured by it. This is completely independent of what other people are doing, or whether other people have, say, failed music startups / failed websites that fail at whatever rate. I'd say that startups can create wealth though, as 'value' is either tied to currency or not objective at all, and funny business with numbers isn't the most important thing in life.

vasilipupkin 11y ago

Failure rate is in no way any evidence of whether or not startups create value. Failure rate of drug discovery is also high, would you say drug discovery doesn't create value? I'm sorry if you feel offended but I'm not trying to offend you personally, I'm just pointing out that it is a nonsensical way to converse, to offer up claims that make no sense outside of personal observation

genericresponse 11y ago
I'm not claiming that failure rate is the sole value destruction mechanism. Rather that it is one. The other, perhaps more pernicious, mechanism is solving problems with little to no long term social benefit. (i.e. much entertainment) Your point about drug discovery helps illustrate the second item. If most of the drugs being pursued were cosmetic in nature, we could challenge the long term benefit of drug discovery. I appreciate the apology, but that's part of my frustration. My claims do have some grounds for validity and consideration. They have a rational basis.
- vasilipupkin 11y ago
  I don't see the rational basis. You keep repeating it exists but at no point have you explained how it follows that a failure rate of startups in any way whatsoever to any degree at all leads to them not creating any value. You have simply assumed this link - that's nonsensical In fact, simple economics teaches us that a high failure rate is a good thing. Low failure rate would be consistent with very low risk projects that tend to be about some form of rent seeking or regulatory arbitrage. High failure rate means people are actually working on things that are hard to do. That's very valuable
- Natsu 11y ago
  If a new drug to cure something is discovered, we have a new drug no matter how many other startups fail and people who might have died are cured by it. This is completely independent of what other people are doing, or whether other people have, say, failed music startups / failed websites that fail at whatever rate. I'd say that startups can create wealth though, as 'value' is either tied to currency or not objective at all, and funny business with numbers isn't the most important thing in life.