4 ms·
At some point, each person decides how much value something provides to themselves or others and acts accordingly. You put a lot of value in the items that you
by hvs 15y ago
At some point, each person decides how much value something provides to themselves or others and acts accordingly. You put a lot of value in the items that you list, others put value in things like Airbnb. To claim that because Airbnb doesn't "push humanity forward" (by whatever measure you imagine that to be) that it is somehow a waste of money is a bit much. For one thing, $100MM sounds like a lot of money, but in the big picture of "pushing humanity forward" it is almost nothing. Secondly, as a society, we aren't going to put 100% of our wealth into those items, or any other list that one person considers "important". So why is it so terrible that it is going to something that provides many people real value (as they define it for themselves)?
- kinkora 15y agoI wasn't referring to AirBnB specifically but the gist of my comment is I don't see how an AirBnB clone can justify $90m worth of capital. So maybe my usage of the term "pushing humanity forward" may be a lil bit grandiose but i certainly didn't mean giant leaps straight off. For example, i consider Google/Wikipedia to be an invention that "pushed humanity forward" because it raised the collective IQ of the human race (with access to it of course) by a few notches. Both companies certainly didn't need $90m worth of capital initially to start off but benefitted from a few angel investments. What i probably should have said is that the $90m could have better been allocated to things that are more worthwhile to humanity and not investing in just another "clone" of something. But I guess kristofferR is right. At the end of the day, the only thing most investors care about is making money and since it is their money, it is fully in their right to choose what they want to invest in.