4 ms·
This is a bunch of rhetoric dressed up as logic hidden by using long paragraphs. If you break it down and remove the repetition it is basically saying: 1. the
by ritzaco 4y ago
This is a bunch of rhetoric dressed up as logic hidden by using long paragraphs. If you break it down and remove the repetition it is basically saying:
1. the other guy made some argument
2. but he was just too ignorant to understand why his argument was wrong
3. I am smart and I do SENSEMAKING
4. therefore other guy's argument is wrong
As far as I can tell, the actual first argument is something along the lines of
1. many founders raise capital and waste it because it's not "their money" so they part ways with it more easily
2. this leads to failed businesses
3. therefore founders should not raise money
and the counter argument is
1. some businesses need upfront capital and the returns only come later
2. some founders can raise capital and use it effectively, instead of wasting it, even though it isn't "their money"
3. therefore founders should raise money
which are both good arguments and in no way contradict each other. I have seen founders do both, and it's true that some money is raised when it was not needed, and some money is raised and then squandered, and some money is raised and used effectively to generate massive returns. That's why it's called "venture" capital.
- FlyingAvatar 4y agoThanks for writing this. This was my sentiment as well. I feel that the anecdotes about cash flow are somewhat interesting, but the whole 'proving an argument' narrative is unsubstantiable fluff. The cash flow strategies are things which can be leveraged in specific situations, but are generally not global truths that most early stage startups can action on.
- ms7892 4y ago[dead]
- ShittyKickflips 4y agoI agree with you, got same feeling from reading. When i hear question should I raise only right answer is: it depends, what is your context? But I guess it is hard to sound smart this way :)
- Inhibit 4y agoSmart or not it's hard to make ad revenue (or get readers, whatever the author's going for) with a concise summary or a context heavy conversation.
- oasisbob 4y ago> This is a bunch of rhetoric dressed up as logic hidden by using long paragraphs Rhetoric is the classical art of persuasion. Were you trying to say "empty rhetoric" or to describe the argument as being poor? Describing a poor argument as "rhetoric" is like calling an old unreliable car "engineered". Logos is part of rhetoric, not aside it.
- weakfortress 4y ago[dead]
- concordDance 4y agoThat might be what you think that word means, but it doesn't match the common usage (at least in my experience), nor the clear intent of the parent.
- oasisbob 4y agoRhetoric is commonly introduced this way in college composition courses. Here's a good approachable introduction: https://pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu/csu-fyw-rhetoric/chapter/rhetorical-strategies-building-compelling-arguments/ https://pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu/csu-fyw-rhetoric/chapter... Typically when I hear the word rhetoric used in the way you're defending, as a pejorative autoantonym, it's by political talking-heads trying to dismiss an argument of an opponent.
- concordDance 4y agoWhat would you say is the ratio between usage in the official meaning and usage in the manner of the great grandparent? I would expect 1 to 10 at least.
- kardianos 4y agoNo, his argument is that you should not say "new companies should not go into debt". His financial advice is "don't think about the amount or the debt, but think about the cash flow analysis." He goes on to state that many new companies won't need to go into debt to be successful along the terms the founds define them. You are presenting a straw-man argument. He even says, it isn't that the argument is wrong, but that there are better (more complete) frames to examine this problem. Your point (4) is literally false.
- lumost 4y agoWhen I work with my own money, I’m often overly cautious. I’m currently agonizing over whether to drop 1k on cloud credits to see if something is viable. If such a decision on 1k took a week in a real startup which blocked a whole team at 10k/head… then there wouldn’t be much startup in the future. Founders waste money because they need to move fast. Sometimes the need for speed also means that they do seemingly foolish things, you can be right or fast - sometimes being slow is wrong.
- sicp-enjoyer 4y agoThe other weird part of this article is it's presented as the author's unique (or uncommon) business/startup insight, when cash flow analysis is the fundamental of finance.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]