3 ms·

Won't blowing money like this redistribute it quickly, taking care of the "inequality"? It looks like this is a good way to take wealth from people who have acc

Won't blowing money like this redistribute it quickly, taking care of the "inequality"? It looks like this is a good way to take wealth from people who have accumulated it (the investors) and disperse it widely. I can't make your argument make any sense.

chasing 2y ago
Burn a billion dollars. Artificially pump the market value of your company by 10 billion dollars. Pizza company gets a few hundred dollars for free. "Haha, we pulled one over on the man!" Go public or sell. Founders and initial investors (likely already wealthy) get billions. Other people take the hit. No, this does not distribute wealth down. It's a ploy to gin up enough excitement that people who are already wealthy can expand that wealth dramatically with weak business offerings while leaving other people (smaller investors, employees, customers, other businesses, the government, the public at large) to hold the bag. Not every start-up is like this, but a lot of 'em sure are!
- throwaway59148 2y ago
  [dead]
- lotsoweiners 2y ago
  Who the hell cares? When I pay for things I have no interest in thinking about where things are trickling or not. If ten years later DoorDash/other delivery services still have people willing to pay for the service and people willing to deliver the orders for what they are being paid, then the business seems reasonably viable to me.
blargey 2y ago
Any “redistribution” is in the form of wages, so it’s income based in the exact opposite direction of what people want from wealth redistribution, or think of when they say “wealth redistribution”. C suite gets giant cuts, office workers get medium-large cuts based on career, gig workers just have a new type of low-wage part-time labor to fill their hours with. Money technically changes hands, but calling the existence of a company with status-quo wages “wealth redistribution” is really taking the term too literally.

chasing 2y ago

Burn a billion dollars. Artificially pump the market value of your company by 10 billion dollars. Pizza company gets a few hundred dollars for free. "Haha, we pulled one over on the man!" Go public or sell. Founders and initial investors (likely already wealthy) get billions. Other people take the hit. No, this does not distribute wealth down. It's a ploy to gin up enough excitement that people who are already wealthy can expand that wealth dramatically with weak business offerings while leaving other people (smaller investors, employees, customers, other businesses, the government, the public at large) to hold the bag. Not every start-up is like this, but a lot of 'em sure are!

throwaway59148 2y ago
[dead]
lotsoweiners 2y ago
Who the hell cares? When I pay for things I have no interest in thinking about where things are trickling or not. If ten years later DoorDash/other delivery services still have people willing to pay for the service and people willing to deliver the orders for what they are being paid, then the business seems reasonably viable to me.

blargey 2y ago

Any “redistribution” is in the form of wages, so it’s income based in the exact opposite direction of what people want from wealth redistribution, or think of when they say “wealth redistribution”. C suite gets giant cuts, office workers get medium-large cuts based on career, gig workers just have a new type of low-wage part-time labor to fill their hours with. Money technically changes hands, but calling the existence of a company with status-quo wages “wealth redistribution” is really taking the term too literally.