2 ms·

The only reason people might hate it is because it has no proof or defense of the argument. Its a narrative that would require so many steps that its hard to im

The only reason people might hate it is because it has no proof or defense of the argument. Its a narrative that would require so many steps that its hard to imagine being true. How about a simpler reason. During the mortgage crisis/recession the fed rate dropped to historical lows. Cheap money is good for startups. The economy was doing well for a decade and towards the end of that decade rates started to creep up and we got hit by a black swan, a pandemic. Rates crashed again + stimulus money and incredibly strong consumer spending and we now have high inflation. The rates go back up and its less attractive for startups/tech companies.

yterdy 3y ago
You're right, it's a holistic rather than analytical argument. I would at least say that part of the "proof" is in the fact that it's trying to explain what's in the article it's responding to, which we've taken to be true on its face. That's the mechanical action, but I agree that it's difficult to show the intent I accuse tech boards ad C-suites of. All a bit circumstantial, innit? >Cheap money is good for startups. We're talking about MEGAMAN (E stands for "Everyone else that fits the definition in my head"). Big, relatively established corporations. I would also counter that real income didn't budge after the GFC, so saying that "the economy was doing well" is stretching things.
randomdata 3y ago
> stimulus money and incredibly strong consumer spending Seems like you are ultimately operating on the same theory: That tech was used to keep the "Great Financial Crisis" money away from the broader economy in order to prevent an inflationary spiral. It is unlikely that it was fully pre-meditated in exacting detail, but it is clear that the money 'printed' was directed to interests that would not spend it on bread, so to speak. The pandemic stimulus changed that. It saw 'printed' money flow to regular average Joes who would spend it on bread, and thus consumer inflation took hold. That is what earlier stimulus packages were trying to avoid.

yterdy 3y ago

You're right, it's a holistic rather than analytical argument. I would at least say that part of the "proof" is in the fact that it's trying to explain what's in the article it's responding to, which we've taken to be true on its face. That's the mechanical action, but I agree that it's difficult to show the intent I accuse tech boards ad C-suites of. All a bit circumstantial, innit? >Cheap money is good for startups. We're talking about MEGAMAN (E stands for "Everyone else that fits the definition in my head"). Big, relatively established corporations. I would also counter that real income didn't budge after the GFC, so saying that "the economy was doing well" is stretching things.

randomdata 3y ago

> stimulus money and incredibly strong consumer spending Seems like you are ultimately operating on the same theory: That tech was used to keep the "Great Financial Crisis" money away from the broader economy in order to prevent an inflationary spiral. It is unlikely that it was fully pre-meditated in exacting detail, but it is clear that the money 'printed' was directed to interests that would not spend it on bread, so to speak. The pandemic stimulus changed that. It saw 'printed' money flow to regular average Joes who would spend it on bread, and thus consumer inflation took hold. That is what earlier stimulus packages were trying to avoid.