3 ms·

Which is just as stupid as if the republicans are so concerned about sustainablily, why haven't they made a peep about or made attempts to ban the VC model that

Which is just as stupid as if the republicans are so concerned about sustainablily, why haven't they made a peep about or made attempts to ban the VC model that American startups operate under?

jcampbell1 6y ago
Because they look through their rose tinted glasses and think the US is leading the world in smartphones, electric cars, pharma, and internet companies. They don’t see the problems that you see.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
The money the VCs are swinging around on was put in their care voluntarily (you invest in the VC fund) or voluntarily by proxy (you invest in a fund that invests partially or wholly in vc stuff) whereas public coffers are kept full by threat of violence and therefore need to be treated with more respect. When you take someone's money by threat of violence under the premise that doing so is a net positive for society you have a much greater obligation to pursue that result and sustainability is one of many considerations when it comes to whether or not something is a net positive for society.
- mattmanser 6y ago
  And explain to me how private debt, and wealth, isn't also enforced by a threat of violence? Why I can't just walk into a store and take a car? Also a threat of violence. Why can't I just tell the bank to shove it when I've moved in? Threat of violence. When big business poisons a river, or puts forced arbitration clauses in their contracts, or mistreats their workers, more threats of violence should you try and seek redress. You're a hypocrite, picking and choosing your argument to suit your position. The same thing will happen to you if you don't pay your taxes or don't pay back your credit card debt. And the extremely unlikely end result, jail, is exactly the same for both public and civil debt. And that's the trouble with these stupid arguments. Not only are they childish extremes, anyone using them are all just massive hypocrites who want to pillage the commons for their own gain and have the rules always work in their favour, conveniently different when it comes to reining in monopolies, or using their excessive wealth to force others out of business, it all depends on which side they stand to gain most money out. Then they just flip their argument on its head to justify their privileged position, which is maintained by a threat of violence.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    Debt isn’t enforced by violence in the US. You can’t end up in jail for failing to pay credit card debt. Setting aside that obvious gaff, you’re comparing individuals being prevented from stealing people’s property to the government being allowed to. It doesn’t really make any sense.
kortilla 6y ago
> VC model that American startups operate under? Because it’s not tax payer money being squandered. How is that so hard to grasp? Rich people run out of money making stupid bets. The federal government does not.

Which is just as stupid as if the republicans are so concerned about sustainablily, why haven't they made a peep about or made attempts to ban the VC model that American startups operate under?

jcampbell1 6y ago

Because they look through their rose tinted glasses and think the US is leading the world in smartphones, electric cars, pharma, and internet companies. They don’t see the problems that you see.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

The money the VCs are swinging around on was put in their care voluntarily (you invest in the VC fund) or voluntarily by proxy (you invest in a fund that invests partially or wholly in vc stuff) whereas public coffers are kept full by threat of violence and therefore need to be treated with more respect. When you take someone's money by threat of violence under the premise that doing so is a net positive for society you have a much greater obligation to pursue that result and sustainability is one of many considerations when it comes to whether or not something is a net positive for society.

mattmanser 6y ago
And explain to me how private debt, and wealth, isn't also enforced by a threat of violence? Why I can't just walk into a store and take a car? Also a threat of violence. Why can't I just tell the bank to shove it when I've moved in? Threat of violence. When big business poisons a river, or puts forced arbitration clauses in their contracts, or mistreats their workers, more threats of violence should you try and seek redress. You're a hypocrite, picking and choosing your argument to suit your position. The same thing will happen to you if you don't pay your taxes or don't pay back your credit card debt. And the extremely unlikely end result, jail, is exactly the same for both public and civil debt. And that's the trouble with these stupid arguments. Not only are they childish extremes, anyone using them are all just massive hypocrites who want to pillage the commons for their own gain and have the rules always work in their favour, conveniently different when it comes to reining in monopolies, or using their excessive wealth to force others out of business, it all depends on which side they stand to gain most money out. Then they just flip their argument on its head to justify their privileged position, which is maintained by a threat of violence.
- kortilla 6y ago
  Debt isn’t enforced by violence in the US. You can’t end up in jail for failing to pay credit card debt. Setting aside that obvious gaff, you’re comparing individuals being prevented from stealing people’s property to the government being allowed to. It doesn’t really make any sense.

kortilla 6y ago

> VC model that American startups operate under? Because it’s not tax payer money being squandered. How is that so hard to grasp? Rich people run out of money making stupid bets. The federal government does not.