4 ms·

I look at it like this: up front capital requirements are more of an artificial barrier to your success. It doesn't matter how good you are: if you don't have

by jsankey 16y ago

I look at it like this: up front capital requirements are more of an artificial barrier to your success. It doesn't matter how good you are: if you don't have the money, you can't get started. Removing this artificial barrier is a good thing: it makes the market closer to a meritocracy. Although anyone can stick up a website, not anyone can make a good one. But if you've got the skill, there's nothing standing in your way.

apsec112 16y ago
"up front capital requirements are more of an artificial barrier to your success" This isn't necessarily true. In markets requiring a high degree of sales skill, like enterprise software, ability to raise capital is highly correlated to business success. However, I will agree that it is true in some cases. "Removing this artificial barrier is a good thing: it makes the market closer to a meritocracy." It's a good thing for Internet users. The point is that it's not necessarily a good thing for founders. "But if you've got the skill, there's nothing standing in your way." If you have arbitrarily good skill, there's nothing standing in your way. This is not a good argument for whether you should go into the startup industry, anymore than "if you're Michael Jordan, there's nothing standing in your way" in the sports industry or "if you're Harrison Ford, there's nothing standing in your way" in the movie industry. Most people aren't Michael Jordan or Harrison Ford.
- jsankey 16y ago
  Well, I don't see why a person without the requisite skills should expect to succeed. Sorry, if you're no good at basketball, don't expect to play in the NBA. So, by all means, if you're no good at creating websites, it's not a good idea to start one. But I'm thankful that there aren't any arbitrary walls standing in the way for those people that do have what it takes.
  - apsec112 16y ago
    False dichotomy. There is a linear continuum of skill, from "completely unskilled" all the way up to "world-class rockstar". In some fields, eg. medicine, if you have median skill for people in the field, you'll do pretty well. In other fields, including programming, sports, movie acting, and math, if you have median skill you'll never get anywhere. Your argument was, "If you have world-class rockstar skill, you don't need to worry about succeeding". This is, in fact, true. However, this does not apply to the 99.9999% of us who do not have world-class rockstar skill. And it does not refute my argument that, given lower capital requirements, there is going to be more competition, making it more difficult for the 99.9999% of us without world-class rockstar skill.
    - jsankey 16y ago
      You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not at all suggesting that you need "world-class rockstar skill" to succeed. You do need some skill (I suspect less than you think), and the more you have the more likely you are to succeed. And that's the way it should be - success determined by skill rather than your ability to raise capital. That's why I think low capital requirements are an advantage. Not because they make it easier to succeed in some theoretical sense, but because they make things more fair. I'll take the level field with more competition, as it rewards talent and effort.

by jsankey 16y ago

apsec112 16y ago

"up front capital requirements are more of an artificial barrier to your success" This isn't necessarily true. In markets requiring a high degree of sales skill, like enterprise software, ability to raise capital is highly correlated to business success. However, I will agree that it is true in some cases. "Removing this artificial barrier is a good thing: it makes the market closer to a meritocracy." It's a good thing for Internet users. The point is that it's not necessarily a good thing for founders. "But if you've got the skill, there's nothing standing in your way." If you have arbitrarily good skill, there's nothing standing in your way. This is not a good argument for whether you should go into the startup industry, anymore than "if you're Michael Jordan, there's nothing standing in your way" in the sports industry or "if you're Harrison Ford, there's nothing standing in your way" in the movie industry. Most people aren't Michael Jordan or Harrison Ford.

jsankey 16y ago
Well, I don't see why a person without the requisite skills should expect to succeed. Sorry, if you're no good at basketball, don't expect to play in the NBA. So, by all means, if you're no good at creating websites, it's not a good idea to start one. But I'm thankful that there aren't any arbitrary walls standing in the way for those people that do have what it takes.
- apsec112 16y ago
  False dichotomy. There is a linear continuum of skill, from "completely unskilled" all the way up to "world-class rockstar". In some fields, eg. medicine, if you have median skill for people in the field, you'll do pretty well. In other fields, including programming, sports, movie acting, and math, if you have median skill you'll never get anywhere. Your argument was, "If you have world-class rockstar skill, you don't need to worry about succeeding". This is, in fact, true. However, this does not apply to the 99.9999% of us who do not have world-class rockstar skill. And it does not refute my argument that, given lower capital requirements, there is going to be more competition, making it more difficult for the 99.9999% of us without world-class rockstar skill.
  - jsankey 16y ago
    You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not at all suggesting that you need "world-class rockstar skill" to succeed. You do need some skill (I suspect less than you think), and the more you have the more likely you are to succeed. And that's the way it should be - success determined by skill rather than your ability to raise capital. That's why I think low capital requirements are an advantage. Not because they make it easier to succeed in some theoretical sense, but because they make things more fair. I'll take the level field with more competition, as it rewards talent and effort.