5 ms·

A founder with the choice of taking YC money also is free to make the decision not to take YC money. What's the problem besides some abstract argument of moral

A founder with the choice of taking YC money also is free to make the decision not to take YC money. What's the problem besides some abstract argument of moral superiority?

aaomidi 5y ago
Think out of the box for a second, is this really the only possible choices we have here? Or are billionaires using and designing the system to create more opportunities to make $$$ at the expense of others work.
- infamouscow 5y ago
  Have you visited IndieHackers.com? They are demonstrating you don't need funding to create amazing things.
  - losvedir 5y ago
    Thanks for letting me know about this site. I hadn't seen it before! I don't suppose I could beg an invite from you...?
    - infamouscow 5y ago
      Unfortunately I don't have any invite codes, but I'm sure another reader on HN could help you out :)
- krona 5y ago
  You're using corporatism to argue against capitalism. They're not the same thing.
- splistud 5y ago
  It's not out of the box thinking. The problem is that you want to throw one of the values out of the calculation box. You want billionaires to provide capital because there is 'no other way to get a startup going (paraphrasing)' but you don't want to assign a value to that (as in, the workers are what is creating the value).
andrepd 5y ago
Yes, indeed if you assume that the current system for allocating capital is good then you conclude that the current system for allocating capital is good. If you apply a bit more critical thinking you can start to question whether the fact that a small proportion of people have a monopoly on the ownership, allocation, and creation of capital, and are therefore able to extract rent from loaning it out without providing any value themselves, whether that is a good thing at all.
- sershe 5y ago
  The "small monopoly" in this thread is Paul Graham, who created his capital himself. First-a, he deserves what he has (as far as you can make such a statement in a complex society). He provided some value, got paid for it, he now takes a risk helping others do the same. The only difference between him and me consuming X, providing X+Y value, and using the Y to buy tiny parts of public companies to have some claim on their profits is scale. First-b, and yes, if someone came and took away my Y for "fairness", I would start working less to just make what I consume. And I mostly /like/ my job, unlike most people. Second-a, after critically thinking about it, I actually believe it's better for people like him to allocate capital, instead of either some "democratic process", or even worse some semi-elected bureaucrats. I wish we could have people like Bezos, Buffett, Graham, etc. run MANY MORE things (generally speaking, not attached to a particular implementation). We have all of history to indicate who does things better. Second-a-a, even if we were to say "free market is bad in this area, no free market is allowed [e.g. healthcare or housing]" (to be clear, I disagree with that, but let's say we did) I would prefer to install a conventionally-defined-self-made billionaire from another industry to run said area, instead of a govt bureaucracy like we do now. Third, as others have mentioned you don't have to take his money, you can bootstrap (and then get rich and loan money just like him). Second-b, combining second-a and third in a more narrow scope, do you think either voters or bureaucrats would fund startups (and, do it better than the likes of VCs)? It has happened, but rarely and almost always in response to an existential threat. Viaweb FAQ says they were financed by angels to the tune of $2m 90ies-dollars. What are the alternative sources of funding you envision in the "fairer" allocation structure for such startups, be it Tesla, Google, or Viaweb, given their success rate?
- infamouscow 5y ago

A founder with the choice of taking YC money also is free to make the decision not to take YC money. What's the problem besides some abstract argument of moral superiority?

aaomidi 5y ago

Think out of the box for a second, is this really the only possible choices we have here? Or are billionaires using and designing the system to create more opportunities to make $$$ at the expense of others work.

infamouscow 5y ago
Have you visited IndieHackers.com? They are demonstrating you don't need funding to create amazing things.
- losvedir 5y ago
  Thanks for letting me know about this site. I hadn't seen it before! I don't suppose I could beg an invite from you...?
  - infamouscow 5y ago
    Unfortunately I don't have any invite codes, but I'm sure another reader on HN could help you out :)
krona 5y ago
You're using corporatism to argue against capitalism. They're not the same thing.
splistud 5y ago
It's not out of the box thinking. The problem is that you want to throw one of the values out of the calculation box. You want billionaires to provide capital because there is 'no other way to get a startup going (paraphrasing)' but you don't want to assign a value to that (as in, the workers are what is creating the value).

andrepd 5y ago

Yes, indeed if you assume that the current system for allocating capital is good then you conclude that the current system for allocating capital is good. If you apply a bit more critical thinking you can start to question whether the fact that a small proportion of people have a monopoly on the ownership, allocation, and creation of capital, and are therefore able to extract rent from loaning it out without providing any value themselves, whether that is a good thing at all.

sershe 5y ago
The "small monopoly" in this thread is Paul Graham, who created his capital himself. First-a, he deserves what he has (as far as you can make such a statement in a complex society). He provided some value, got paid for it, he now takes a risk helping others do the same. The only difference between him and me consuming X, providing X+Y value, and using the Y to buy tiny parts of public companies to have some claim on their profits is scale. First-b, and yes, if someone came and took away my Y for "fairness", I would start working less to just make what I consume. And I mostly /like/ my job, unlike most people. Second-a, after critically thinking about it, I actually believe it's better for people like him to allocate capital, instead of either some "democratic process", or even worse some semi-elected bureaucrats. I wish we could have people like Bezos, Buffett, Graham, etc. run MANY MORE things (generally speaking, not attached to a particular implementation). We have all of history to indicate who does things better. Second-a-a, even if we were to say "free market is bad in this area, no free market is allowed [e.g. healthcare or housing]" (to be clear, I disagree with that, but let's say we did) I would prefer to install a conventionally-defined-self-made billionaire from another industry to run said area, instead of a govt bureaucracy like we do now. Third, as others have mentioned you don't have to take his money, you can bootstrap (and then get rich and loan money just like him). Second-b, combining second-a and third in a more narrow scope, do you think either voters or bureaucrats would fund startups (and, do it better than the likes of VCs)? It has happened, but rarely and almost always in response to an existential threat. Viaweb FAQ says they were financed by angels to the tune of $2m 90ies-dollars. What are the alternative sources of funding you envision in the "fairer" allocation structure for such startups, be it Tesla, Google, or Viaweb, given their success rate?
infamouscow 5y ago