4 ms·
Fact is that under the current system, once you make it to the top there are a whole myriad of ways for you to rake in more money than the average person will e
by ibeckermayer 6y ago
Fact is that under the current system, once you make it to the top there are a whole myriad of ways for you to rake in more money than the average person will ever see in their entire lives, year over year, while producing next to zero genuine value for society. In this case, the SPAC can be seen as regulatory arbitrage that’s taking advantage of the Tower of Babel of regulations around raising money from non-accredited (read, non-millionaire/politically-connected) investors.
This fact is what makes the typical framing of the “should billionaires exist?” debate so asinine. Do “Billionaires Build” [1] as PG claims they do? Sure, some do, and in particular the ones he comes into contact with. But under the current system, it’s also often the case that Billionaires Built, and now Billionaire Grifts; Billionaire Lobbies; sometimes Billionaire Basically Never Did Shit Besides Wield Political Influence. And this applies to lesser-yet-still-extremely-high degrees of wealth, too.
Even if your average Trump supporter or socialist college protestor can’t detail the precise mechanism of this injustice, they can smell the stench emanating from this swamp of undue privilege. The recent wallstreetbets uprising was a more knowledgeable reaction against this breed of arbitrary self-dealing.
[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/ace.html http://www.paulgraham.com/ace.html
- kelnos 6y agoNon-accredited investors do not sponsor SPACs. Sure, they can get in after the SPAC goes public (since it's publicly traded just like every other public company), but I see this as a way for retail investors to get in on sorta-IPOs if they want to (which they otherwise cannot do). If people are investing in random companies they heard about on Twitter or RobinHood's trending list, whether it's a SPAC or company that went public in the traditional manner doesn't matter much. But if people actually do their homework and do at least some cursory research into the companies they invest in[0], then SPACs give them an option they didn't really have before[1], that they might want to make an educated bet on. Or not! It's up to them. [0] Hell, most people (myself included) shouldn't even be investing in individual companies, at least not without money they are fully prepared to lose (or at best just grow slower than inflation). [1] Well, SPACs aren't new, so they had that option for a long time, but they weren't quite as popular as they are now, so there's more variety.
- ibeckermayer 6y agoI wasn't suggesting that non-accredited investors sponsor SPACs.