23 ms·

it's a compelling idea imo, if one considers the many ills wrought by organizations which outlive their usefulness and turn to parasitism but we must also heav

it's a compelling idea imo, if one considers the many ills wrought by organizations which outlive their usefulness and turn to parasitism but we must also heavily penalize hollow businesses, which exist mainly to funnel preexisting wealth to founders/employees before evaporating a similar concept could be fruitful in material technology as well, where ephemeral doesn't mean "obsolete in 2 years so we can sell you a new one", but rather "can be dis/reassembled into something else when one chooses, or, if disposed of, will biodegrade into ecologically benign constituents"

vasco 3y ago
> but we must also heavily penalize hollow businesses, which exist mainly to funnel preexisting wealth to founders/employees before evaporating What does this mean? Isn't all wealth that can be used to purchase goods or services "pre-existing" and by definition going to the owners of companies if they manage to make a profit? I might be missing something because it seems you just described all businesses so I wouldn't know who you're advocating to penalize or how we'd distinguish them from the businesses that aren't "hollow". I can come up with some scenarios that maybe you'd have a problem with, but it's not clear which ones, or why?
- pixodaros 3y ago
  One of the names for this is 'control fraud' and its very common. To pick an exotic example, people in the United States create software companies to impress rich fools, borrow their money on promises that it will get really big, and pay themselves and their friends generous wages which they keep even if the company collapses. People who run this scam often spend money very fast (they call it a 'burn rate') to impress investors about how big they will be one day even if it hurts their ability to create a proffitable business within the next five to ten years! Foreigners and their wacky scams!
- walleeee 3y ago
  on one side of the spectrum you have Theranos, all manner of predatory financial instruments, need I go on? while on the other extreme you have a cabbage in your garden, which we call a "primary producer" for good reason: it's a fully automated business which for a bit of tending will yield you dinner sure, we're surfing an energy gradient, all of us children of the sun's benevolent surfeit, wealth already exists, fine. is there a definitive, one-size-fits-all criterion here? no, but you get the picture
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    To be fair to theranos, there were very intelligent people trying to do something incredible and had an actual product they wanted to make. If they had been able to do accomplish even some of what Holmes claimed they could, they would have had a real impact. Unfortunately the business was run by a set of sociopaths supervised by a board of geriatrics with no experience in the industry.
    - walleeee 3y ago
      agreed, and this > the business was run by a set of sociopaths supervised by a board of geriatrics with no experience in the industry ...is far too often the case, so if one is gifted and fortunate enough to choose who one works for, one lesson might be: put serious effort and consideration into the decision
      - dghlsakjg 3y ago
        Also, if Kissinger is involved, it’s a bad idea. That’s been true for half a century
ilyt 3y ago
> but rather "can be dis/reassembled into something else when one chooses, That doesn't happen often enough to matter. Not everyone is/want to be a maker. or would even bother even if it is simple > or, if disposed of, will biodegrade into ecologically benign constituents" That should already be a thing. Hell, add the utilization to product price that then can be paid to recycling company on utilization. That way products actually cheap/easy to recycle would also be cheaper
b2c0412 3y ago
"outlive their usefulness and turn to parasitism" or to become shell companies that keep promising a future or self-deluding that there will be one

vasco 3y ago

> but we must also heavily penalize hollow businesses, which exist mainly to funnel preexisting wealth to founders/employees before evaporating What does this mean? Isn't all wealth that can be used to purchase goods or services "pre-existing" and by definition going to the owners of companies if they manage to make a profit? I might be missing something because it seems you just described all businesses so I wouldn't know who you're advocating to penalize or how we'd distinguish them from the businesses that aren't "hollow". I can come up with some scenarios that maybe you'd have a problem with, but it's not clear which ones, or why?

pixodaros 3y ago
One of the names for this is 'control fraud' and its very common. To pick an exotic example, people in the United States create software companies to impress rich fools, borrow their money on promises that it will get really big, and pay themselves and their friends generous wages which they keep even if the company collapses. People who run this scam often spend money very fast (they call it a 'burn rate') to impress investors about how big they will be one day even if it hurts their ability to create a proffitable business within the next five to ten years! Foreigners and their wacky scams!
walleeee 3y ago
on one side of the spectrum you have Theranos, all manner of predatory financial instruments, need I go on? while on the other extreme you have a cabbage in your garden, which we call a "primary producer" for good reason: it's a fully automated business which for a bit of tending will yield you dinner sure, we're surfing an energy gradient, all of us children of the sun's benevolent surfeit, wealth already exists, fine. is there a definitive, one-size-fits-all criterion here? no, but you get the picture
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  To be fair to theranos, there were very intelligent people trying to do something incredible and had an actual product they wanted to make. If they had been able to do accomplish even some of what Holmes claimed they could, they would have had a real impact. Unfortunately the business was run by a set of sociopaths supervised by a board of geriatrics with no experience in the industry.
  - walleeee 3y ago
    agreed, and this > the business was run by a set of sociopaths supervised by a board of geriatrics with no experience in the industry ...is far too often the case, so if one is gifted and fortunate enough to choose who one works for, one lesson might be: put serious effort and consideration into the decision
    - dghlsakjg 3y ago
      Also, if Kissinger is involved, it’s a bad idea. That’s been true for half a century

ilyt 3y ago

> but rather "can be dis/reassembled into something else when one chooses, That doesn't happen often enough to matter. Not everyone is/want to be a maker. or would even bother even if it is simple > or, if disposed of, will biodegrade into ecologically benign constituents" That should already be a thing. Hell, add the utilization to product price that then can be paid to recycling company on utilization. That way products actually cheap/easy to recycle would also be cheaper

b2c0412 3y ago

"outlive their usefulness and turn to parasitism" or to become shell companies that keep promising a future or self-deluding that there will be one