3 ms·
> If you never take big swings and big risks and are happy with small wins and stable growth you'll never win the big prize. You don't win the big price either
by vjk800 2y ago
> If you never take big swings and big risks and are happy with small wins and stable growth you'll never win the big prize.
You don't win the big price either by taking the big swings. I mean, some people do, but they are so few that they can be considered a rounding error.
Maybe the economy wins when one-in-a-million business unicorn appears, but I don't make any of my other life choices by considering the global economy either, so why would consider it here?
- motorest 2y ago> On the one hand, sure. On the other hand this relentless focus on "hyper-scale" or bust is what has pushed the US startup scene to where it is and probably why it is so far ahead of the rest of the world. I don't agree. I think this is specious reasoning fueled by a mix of cargo cult mentality and survivorship bias. Just because a hand full of startups made it all the way through to a unicorn status, and some where bought out for undisclosed reasons,that means nothing on whether an idea is or can be hiper-scalable. To make matters worse, this reeks of short-term mentality that serves no purpose whatsoever other than find yet another angle to put together a kind of pump and dump scam.
- robertlagrant 2y agoI don't think any of this is the case, and you haven't really said why. Focusing on winning big is absolutely not survivorship bias. Everyone in the 100m is aiming to be the fastest human on earth, but only one will win. That's not survivorship bias. Throwing fallacy names as insults is still just insults.
- realce 2y agoThe 100m is not a sustainable model for a nation or world's economy. Everyone needs to eat, not just the single individual who runs fastest.
- robertlagrant 2y agoThat doesn't seem in any way relevant to the point about survivorship bias. Nor to the US, whose system has if anything produced far too much food for its citizens.
- realce 2y ago> That doesn't seem in any way relevant to the point about survivorship bias. To me, it seems exactly like the point of view that someone who wins the 100m would have. > Nor to the US, whose system has if anything produced far too much food for its citizens. Where people still starve, where people are still homeless, where people still live in poverty. What's your point here?
- robertlagrant 2y ago> To me, it seems exactly like the point of view that someone who wins the 100m would have. That's just your own assumption. Who cares what any of us imagines anyone else thinks? It's not really relevant.
- realce 2y ago> Who cares what any of us imagines anyone else thinks? Since you're responding and we're having a conversation about each other's opinions, I'd say it actually is relevant.
- robertlagrant 2y agoI'm not imagining what you think; I'm just responding to what you write.
- palmfacehn 2y agoValue creation isn't a zero sum game. Increased productivity benefits everyone. Whether it hyperscales or not, genuinely profitable businesses add value to the economy. This in turn creates more opportunities for everyone willing to participate.
- motorest 2y ago> Everyone in the 100m is aiming to be the fastest human on earth, but only one will win. This is a mental model of how things actually work that is fundamentally wrong and out of touch with reality. In any free market economy you have multiple competing businesses operating in the same market. The world is not a 100m race. Second place can still turn an fantastic profit and make everyone rich.