4 ms·

All this needs is a "This is good for Bitcoin." and we've reached full success-fail.

by ajamesm 10y ago

JBReefer 10y ago
It's actually a core and well supported part of capitalism - people hire more when firing is easy, lenders are more willing to lend in industries with repo men, etc. It's kind of morbid, but rich ecosystems like the Amazon mostly exist because dead stuff is rapidly recycled. The economy is no different: slowing down the cycle is incredibly distortionary.
- ajamesm 10y ago
  Yeah, private equity is a natural response to business failing in the wake of a bubble, but bubbles themselves are market distortions caused by insane valuations. Highlighting the value of reclamation just draws the heat off of the irrationality of the tech bubble. Amazon isn't a rich ecosystem, it's oligarchic. And, indeed, any systemic failure in a capitalist economy gets explained away by saying that some cadre of vultures will exploit arbitrage until the gap closes. No one really questions the systemic failures per se. The economy happily creates this surplus in full anticipation of it being scrapped and fed to vultures. Banks repossess cars and capitalists think "working as intended" instead of "there's so many delinquent car loans that there's an industry of repo men and maybe that's significant." This criticism extends similarly to the tech bubble.
  - ch4s3 10y ago
    >Amazon isn't a rich ecosystem, it's oligarchic. I think the gp meant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_rainforest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_rainforest
    - ajamesm 10y ago
      facepalm Thanks.
      - ch4s3 10y ago
        The context mixes the metaphor and the pun(intentional or not).
  - geofft 10y ago
    Right, this line of reasoning sounds vaguely like the broken-window fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window That is, if people being fired from these miserable startups is good for the economy, wouldn't them not having worked there at all have been even better?
    - TJ-14 10y ago
      Thats true if we already had a way of knowing they would fail but we don't. Startups are how you try new ideas to find the good ones. Do having them work there and fail creates informational value.
      - mathattack 10y ago
        This is exactly the point. It's very hard to know which ideas will work, and which teams are best suited for the task. The beauty of the VC model is that it starts companies on the cheap. Many companies fail, and those people can go chase either the companies that won, or new startups. It's much better than a world where you have a couple monopolies with grand strategic plans that don't actually get anything done. The East Coast Monopoly mindset was why Xerox PARC had money to create things, but never got anything done with them.
- mason240 10y ago
  Creative destruction.
- ianai 10y ago
  So you're says no we need a good reaper for the industries riddled with monopolies?
- milesrout 10y ago
  People do not hire more when firing is easy.
  - mahyarm 10y ago
    Employers are more willing to hire risky people if it's easy to fire them. If it is not, large vetting processes are required and hiring people reduces. Because making a mistakes costs so much. It's even worse for small businesses where one bad hire you cannot fire can bankrupt the company. It's a reason why young people find it hard to get full time permanent jobs and are instead hired as temps instead.
    - milesrout 10y ago
      >Employers are more willing to hire risky people if it's easy to fire them. No they aren't. This is a nice theory, but it simply does not hold up in reality. Stop repeating it as gospel. >If it is not, large vetting processes are required and hiring people reduces. People vet their employees either way. >It's a reason why young people find it hard to get full time permanent jobs and are instead hired as temps instead. No it isn't. This reasoning was used to justify the 90 day trial period in NZ and it did NOT lead to more jobs.

All this needs is a "This is good for Bitcoin." and we've reached full success-fail.

by ajamesm 10y ago

All this needs is a "This is good for Bitcoin." and we've reached full success-fail.

It's actually a core and well supported part of capitalism - people hire more when firing is easy, lenders are more willing to lend in industries with repo men, etc. It's kind of morbid, but rich ecosystems like the Amazon mostly exist because dead stuff is rapidly recycled. The economy is no different: slowing down the cycle is incredibly distortionary.

ajamesm 10y ago
Yeah, private equity is a natural response to business failing in the wake of a bubble, but bubbles themselves are market distortions caused by insane valuations. Highlighting the value of reclamation just draws the heat off of the irrationality of the tech bubble. Amazon isn't a rich ecosystem, it's oligarchic. And, indeed, any systemic failure in a capitalist economy gets explained away by saying that some cadre of vultures will exploit arbitrage until the gap closes. No one really questions the systemic failures per se. The economy happily creates this surplus in full anticipation of it being scrapped and fed to vultures. Banks repossess cars and capitalists think "working as intended" instead of "there's so many delinquent car loans that there's an industry of repo men and maybe that's significant." This criticism extends similarly to the tech bubble.
- ch4s3 10y ago
  >Amazon isn't a rich ecosystem, it's oligarchic. I think the gp meant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_rainforest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_rainforest
  - ajamesm 10y ago
    facepalm Thanks.
    - ch4s3 10y ago
      The context mixes the metaphor and the pun(intentional or not).
- geofft 10y ago
  Right, this line of reasoning sounds vaguely like the broken-window fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window That is, if people being fired from these miserable startups is good for the economy, wouldn't them not having worked there at all have been even better?
  - TJ-14 10y ago
    Thats true if we already had a way of knowing they would fail but we don't. Startups are how you try new ideas to find the good ones. Do having them work there and fail creates informational value.
    - mathattack 10y ago
      This is exactly the point. It's very hard to know which ideas will work, and which teams are best suited for the task. The beauty of the VC model is that it starts companies on the cheap. Many companies fail, and those people can go chase either the companies that won, or new startups. It's much better than a world where you have a couple monopolies with grand strategic plans that don't actually get anything done. The East Coast Monopoly mindset was why Xerox PARC had money to create things, but never got anything done with them.
mason240 10y ago
Creative destruction.
ianai 10y ago
So you're says no we need a good reaper for the industries riddled with monopolies?
milesrout 10y ago
People do not hire more when firing is easy.
- mahyarm 10y ago
  Employers are more willing to hire risky people if it's easy to fire them. If it is not, large vetting processes are required and hiring people reduces. Because making a mistakes costs so much. It's even worse for small businesses where one bad hire you cannot fire can bankrupt the company. It's a reason why young people find it hard to get full time permanent jobs and are instead hired as temps instead.
  - milesrout 10y ago
    >Employers are more willing to hire risky people if it's easy to fire them. No they aren't. This is a nice theory, but it simply does not hold up in reality. Stop repeating it as gospel. >If it is not, large vetting processes are required and hiring people reduces. People vet their employees either way. >It's a reason why young people find it hard to get full time permanent jobs and are instead hired as temps instead. No it isn't. This reasoning was used to justify the 90 day trial period in NZ and it did NOT lead to more jobs.