4 ms·

That makes no difference when the assertion is "invest in technology that is a good for everyone, such as healthcare." It's such a vague statement to be complet

That makes no difference when the assertion is "invest in technology that is a good for everyone, such as healthcare." It's such a vague statement to be completely useless. Define "good" and tell me which companies are doing that in healthcare so I can invest in them.

ashtonkem 7y ago
You’re stretching to find a unreasonable interpretation of the above assertion. Theranos was a fraudulent company that never had a product to sell; trying to hold them up as an example of how even healthcare isn’t safe is ridiculous.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  I wouldn't say that healthcare is unsafe. I'm skeptical of the original comment's entire thesis, that identifying companies in a socially useful space is a good investment strategy.
  - ashtonkem 7y ago
    Debatable. But Theranos is certainly not a counter argument to the thesis.
- lalos 7y ago
  With hindsight you are able to claim this but it was highly controversial to even criticize Theranos back in the day. The book outlines how hard and how long it took to open the can of worms.
  - ashtonkem 7y ago
    It was controversial to say that in public, sure. I have sympathy for that. But the nominally sophisticated investors drank their own cool aid and didn’t take the most basic due diligence steps at multiple points in this journey. They absolutely were in a position to know better, and got greedy.
- isoskeles 7y ago
  Surely you understand the fact that Theranos was a fraudulent company, that was able to receive funding from investors, means the same thing could happen again. I'm sure there are dozens or hundreds of better examples of companies we've never heard of that simply went under because they were not profitable. In any case, the blanket assertion that healthcare companies should be invested in and they are "good" is stupid and should be scoffed at. Saying otherwise is ridiculous.

ashtonkem 7y ago

You’re stretching to find a unreasonable interpretation of the above assertion. Theranos was a fraudulent company that never had a product to sell; trying to hold them up as an example of how even healthcare isn’t safe is ridiculous.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
I wouldn't say that healthcare is unsafe. I'm skeptical of the original comment's entire thesis, that identifying companies in a socially useful space is a good investment strategy.
- ashtonkem 7y ago
  Debatable. But Theranos is certainly not a counter argument to the thesis.
lalos 7y ago
With hindsight you are able to claim this but it was highly controversial to even criticize Theranos back in the day. The book outlines how hard and how long it took to open the can of worms.
- ashtonkem 7y ago
  It was controversial to say that in public, sure. I have sympathy for that. But the nominally sophisticated investors drank their own cool aid and didn’t take the most basic due diligence steps at multiple points in this journey. They absolutely were in a position to know better, and got greedy.
isoskeles 7y ago
Surely you understand the fact that Theranos was a fraudulent company, that was able to receive funding from investors, means the same thing could happen again. I'm sure there are dozens or hundreds of better examples of companies we've never heard of that simply went under because they were not profitable. In any case, the blanket assertion that healthcare companies should be invested in and they are "good" is stupid and should be scoffed at. Saying otherwise is ridiculous.