4 ms·
I feel like you've missed my point. There are a limited number of good opportunities to invest in, so it's not like investors get to unilaterally set the terms
by acjohnson55 8y ago
I feel like you've missed my point.
There are a limited number of good opportunities to invest in, so it's not like investors get to unilaterally set the terms of these deals. They have to compete with each other, at least on the most attractive deals. A savvy founder turns down money on bad terms.
- annabellish 8y agoI got your point, I just don't agree with it! I think that's a consistent logical position to take, but I don't think it's undeniably _ethical_ because of that.
- acjohnson55 8y agoI guess I'm missing what it is to disagree with. Are you arguing that people with good ideas should simply be entitled to the capital to pull them off, to avoid the need to compete in capital markets?
- annabellish 8y agoI mean, sure, that'd be great. I think it'd need one heck of a societal overhaul to achieve, though. If we wanna keep it in terms of a capitalist market, the problem is that investors are essentially selling a service just like anyone else, but because wealth inequality is where it is, there's relatively little competition in that "market". Thus, what you get is very high "prices" for relatively poor "service". This is a problem. In an ideal free market, investors are just another kind of business, and would compete both on price and their offering such that everyone was getting a good deal and everything moved along efficiently. In the real world, investment is a very concentrated market, meaning that the deals are shoddy and inefficient.