3 ms·
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 prob
by 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 agoI 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 agoIf 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.