5 ms·

comment says "metaphoric" debt. Surely you can agree that the principals of a company owe (in the sense of being socially obligated) a debt of thanks and gratit

by mark212 10y ago

comment says "metaphoric" debt. Surely you can agree that the principals of a company owe (in the sense of being socially obligated) a debt of thanks and gratitude to investors for taking a risk on them in the first place?

hoodoof 10y ago
No. The relationship is wrong if you feel indebted to your investors and like they deserve thanks. They are partners in the business. Presumably the CEO did all they could to succeed and behaved in an ethical and honorable manner. If they did so, then investors have been well served. I will agree however that anyone who ever chooses to do business with you in any context deserves thanks. On that basis, thanks is deserved.
- twblalock 10y ago
  > The relationship is wrong if you feel indebted to your investors and like they deserve thanks. They are partners in the business. Plus, they knew the risks. There is no reason to feel sorry for early-stage investors who lose money unless some kind of fraud was perpetrated on them.
  - Benjamin_Dobell 10y ago
    Do you feel sorry for an athlete who hurts themselves? Do you feel sorry for wife of a stuntman who dies in an accident? Do you feel sorry for those with a gambling addiction? I can understand why you wouldn't at all feel sorry for an investor to the same extent as my examples above; presumably the investor hasn't ruined their life. However, my point is knowing the risks doesn't preclude someone from receiving empathy/sympathy.
    - twblalock 10y ago
      > I can understand why you wouldn't at all feel sorry for an investor to the same extent as my examples above; presumably the investor hasn't ruined their life. However, my point is knowing the risks doesn't preclude someone from receiving empathy/sympathy. I was not writing about a general case of risktaking: I was writing specifically about investors. If I had been writing about athletes, stuntmen, gamblers, or any other kind of people, I would have written something that took into account the different contexts in which such people take risks. I really don't see what you are trying to accomplish by changing the focus from a specific case to a general case.
twblalock 10y ago
> Surely you can agree that the principals of a company owe (in the sense of being socially obligated) a debt of thanks and gratitude to investors for taking a risk on them in the first place? Investors don't take on risk for the sake of the company they invest in. They take on risk because they think they will make money for themselves, and they would screw over the CEO and all of the employees, and other investors, in a heartbeat if they could get a good exit. The investors got an ownership stake in an early-stage company with a high risk of failure and a corresponding high potential reward. The company got money to fund operations. Both parties got what they signed up for, and there is no imbalance in gratitude owed.

by mark212 10y ago

hoodoof 10y ago

No. The relationship is wrong if you feel indebted to your investors and like they deserve thanks. They are partners in the business. Presumably the CEO did all they could to succeed and behaved in an ethical and honorable manner. If they did so, then investors have been well served. I will agree however that anyone who ever chooses to do business with you in any context deserves thanks. On that basis, thanks is deserved.

twblalock 10y ago
> The relationship is wrong if you feel indebted to your investors and like they deserve thanks. They are partners in the business. Plus, they knew the risks. There is no reason to feel sorry for early-stage investors who lose money unless some kind of fraud was perpetrated on them.
- Benjamin_Dobell 10y ago
  Do you feel sorry for an athlete who hurts themselves? Do you feel sorry for wife of a stuntman who dies in an accident? Do you feel sorry for those with a gambling addiction? I can understand why you wouldn't at all feel sorry for an investor to the same extent as my examples above; presumably the investor hasn't ruined their life. However, my point is knowing the risks doesn't preclude someone from receiving empathy/sympathy.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    > I can understand why you wouldn't at all feel sorry for an investor to the same extent as my examples above; presumably the investor hasn't ruined their life. However, my point is knowing the risks doesn't preclude someone from receiving empathy/sympathy. I was not writing about a general case of risktaking: I was writing specifically about investors. If I had been writing about athletes, stuntmen, gamblers, or any other kind of people, I would have written something that took into account the different contexts in which such people take risks. I really don't see what you are trying to accomplish by changing the focus from a specific case to a general case.

twblalock 10y ago

> Surely you can agree that the principals of a company owe (in the sense of being socially obligated) a debt of thanks and gratitude to investors for taking a risk on them in the first place? Investors don't take on risk for the sake of the company they invest in. They take on risk because they think they will make money for themselves, and they would screw over the CEO and all of the employees, and other investors, in a heartbeat if they could get a good exit. The investors got an ownership stake in an early-stage company with a high risk of failure and a corresponding high potential reward. The company got money to fund operations. Both parties got what they signed up for, and there is no imbalance in gratitude owed.