4 ms·
> Second what you are saying also goes to the heart of the issue of job creation. People talk about startups creating jobs. But there is only so much purchasing
by infinite8s 14y ago
> Second what you are saying also goes to the heart of the issue of job creation. People talk about startups creating jobs. But there is only so much purchasing power in the economy. A startup offering a product or service that is charging is going to take purchasing power away from a consumer or business that is most likely already spending that money somewhere. The only net gains sometimes are only if a country can take jobs from another country or a state or region can take jobs from another state or region or city.
That's the flawed zero-sum perception of economics, and history has proved that wrong. If it was true we'd still be living in caves and providing everything for ourselves.
- eli_gottlieb 14y agoIt's flawed over all space and time, yes, but it's true in a recession when total economic output (or at least, total economic output as available to the bottom 99% of the population) is shrinking.
- kls 14y agoIn sense larrys is right, but your observations is correct as well, at any given time there is only so much wealth in a society and the division of that wealth will happen any way you assemble it. But to your point, there are periods of innovation that create new and novel wealth that expands the pool for everybody. But after that innovation period is over, consolidation and efforts to streamline happen. IBM is in that streamlining period in portions of their business while in others (Watson for example) they are very much in the innovation phase.
- travem 14y agoI think Clayton Christensen covers this well when he discusses empowering, sustaining and efficiency innovation. The following for a brief introduction http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765617333/The-new-church-of-finance.html?pg=all http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765617333/The-new-church-...