5 ms·

>I find it strange to see such animosity against "the rich" on an forum dedicated to startups from a company that has helped created billions in market cap and

>I find it strange to see such animosity against "the rich" on an forum dedicated to startups from a company that has helped created billions in market cap and mint several new billionaires in the process. There is a huge difference between someone becoming so wealthy that they and the next 5 generations of their heirs don't need to do any real work for the rest of their lives, and someone figuring out a way to create a sustainable organization that provides real value to lots of people. It is more than reasonable to want to encourage society to favor the latter over the former.

manigandham 8y ago
How do you think people become wealthy in the first place? It's almost always connected to providing value to lots of people. These ranks change all the time as wealth is created and lost. Very few stay rich through generations, but even then it's always invested in something, like businesses that benefit others. These same wealthy people are the LPs that fund the VCs that fund the SV startups. It's a cycle.
- omegaworks 8y ago
  > It's almost always connected to providing value to lots of people. Actually, accumulated wealth to that extent is almost always connected to anti-competitive practices and monopolizing a space to such an extent that people have no other choice then to do business with you.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    All corporations trend toward monopoly as it provides the greatest efficiency and value to all involved, until it crests the peak of innovation and starts falling into decay. It makes no difference if you want to focus on businesses instead of family names. It's just another cycle of rise and fall that you can easily see by looking at the Fortune 500.
    - hedvig 8y ago
      Some of us aren't resigned to the idea that it has to be that way though.
      - manigandham 8y ago
        What way? That things are in a constant cycle? Are you suggesting that there be some perfect steady state of companies that are neither too big nor too small and nobody can ever gain or lose in life?
  - refurb 8y ago
    I can think of far more examples of very successful companies that got that way by offering something people wanted than companies who used anti-competitive tactics to push a sub-standard product.
- ionised 8y ago
  > How do you think people become wealthy in the first place? It's almost always connected to providing value to lots of people. I find that hard to believe, honestly. It seems like the biggest gains are to be made in rent-seeking, milking your customers, monopolising and forming cartels and just outright fraud.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    You don't have to believe, let's look at facts. Do you have any examples of what you're describing? Meanwhile in our lifetimes we've seen Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Stripe, Atlassian, Uber, Airbnb, and dozens more create massive value, and that's just in the software/tech industry.
    - ionised 8y ago
      Amazon didn't pay their workers a living wage for a long time, having them subsidised with taxpayer money and used their position to be be able to sell at a loss to destroy competition. Plus their dubious tax arangements. Facebook is Facebook. I find their business model, their dark patterns, and their lies to people and politicians to be an example of what I'm talking about. Uber basically skirted the laws of every city they operated in as if they had immunity. Not to mention all the other scandals the compan has been involved in or responsible for. As for the other companies I don't know enough of their inner workings over the years, but I'm not convinced they are squeaky clean at all.
      - manigandham 8y ago
        You seem to skip straight to the end without realizing these companies did not even exist a few decades ago. They grew to their size because they provide value. I've already said previously that companies tend toward monopolies and that's when problems begin, but that's on govt antitrust to handle properly. Whether it does is another issue, but it doesn't erase the fact that people have gone from 0 to B by creating companies from nothing and making a large impact of society.

manigandham 8y ago

How do you think people become wealthy in the first place? It's almost always connected to providing value to lots of people. These ranks change all the time as wealth is created and lost. Very few stay rich through generations, but even then it's always invested in something, like businesses that benefit others. These same wealthy people are the LPs that fund the VCs that fund the SV startups. It's a cycle.

omegaworks 8y ago
> It's almost always connected to providing value to lots of people. Actually, accumulated wealth to that extent is almost always connected to anti-competitive practices and monopolizing a space to such an extent that people have no other choice then to do business with you.
- manigandham 8y ago
  All corporations trend toward monopoly as it provides the greatest efficiency and value to all involved, until it crests the peak of innovation and starts falling into decay. It makes no difference if you want to focus on businesses instead of family names. It's just another cycle of rise and fall that you can easily see by looking at the Fortune 500.
  - hedvig 8y ago
    Some of us aren't resigned to the idea that it has to be that way though.
    - manigandham 8y ago
      What way? That things are in a constant cycle? Are you suggesting that there be some perfect steady state of companies that are neither too big nor too small and nobody can ever gain or lose in life?
- refurb 8y ago
  I can think of far more examples of very successful companies that got that way by offering something people wanted than companies who used anti-competitive tactics to push a sub-standard product.
ionised 8y ago
> How do you think people become wealthy in the first place? It's almost always connected to providing value to lots of people. I find that hard to believe, honestly. It seems like the biggest gains are to be made in rent-seeking, milking your customers, monopolising and forming cartels and just outright fraud.
- manigandham 8y ago
  You don't have to believe, let's look at facts. Do you have any examples of what you're describing? Meanwhile in our lifetimes we've seen Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Stripe, Atlassian, Uber, Airbnb, and dozens more create massive value, and that's just in the software/tech industry.
  - ionised 8y ago
    Amazon didn't pay their workers a living wage for a long time, having them subsidised with taxpayer money and used their position to be be able to sell at a loss to destroy competition. Plus their dubious tax arangements. Facebook is Facebook. I find their business model, their dark patterns, and their lies to people and politicians to be an example of what I'm talking about. Uber basically skirted the laws of every city they operated in as if they had immunity. Not to mention all the other scandals the compan has been involved in or responsible for. As for the other companies I don't know enough of their inner workings over the years, but I'm not convinced they are squeaky clean at all.
    - manigandham 8y ago
      You seem to skip straight to the end without realizing these companies did not even exist a few decades ago. They grew to their size because they provide value. I've already said previously that companies tend toward monopolies and that's when problems begin, but that's on govt antitrust to handle properly. Whether it does is another issue, but it doesn't erase the fact that people have gone from 0 to B by creating companies from nothing and making a large impact of society.