2 ms·

It's quite extreme and overly simplistic... The danger, as always, is that there is some truth to what you say, but that truth is stretched and blurred in vari

by swombat 17y ago

It's quite extreme and overly simplistic... The danger, as always, is that there is some truth to what you say, but that truth is stretched and blurred in various direction so as to be mostly meaningless. Almost every high-reward human endeavour, from drug dealing to movie stardom or stock trading, generates large amounts of competition. That's one of the main reasons a free market is a productive way to allocate resources - it places high rewards on things of high value, and allows anyone to compete, so that more people will provide these high-value things, thus driving their price back down. In that way, your suggestion is true. However, there are three implicit assumptions in your thesis that are very, very shaky. The first and least harmful is the idea that "being a pawn" is somehow implicitly bad. You haven't established that at all. There is no absolute "bad", so you must be implying that it is worse than something else. I'd be curious as to what that thing is, in your mind. Perhaps, if you dig, you might find that actually, being an entrepreneur (pawn or not) is quite a good deal, better than most others. The second false premise is that there is some kind of specific group of people who are deciding this, manipulating this system for their benefit. There is no such group. Or rather, there is - this group is all of us. We all benefit from a system which encourages innovation and competition and rewards it. There is no conspiracy to exploit entrepreneurs by somehow making them compete against all odds. Nobody sat down and thought "I wonder if I can get all these useful idiots to start lots of innovative businesses so that... what?" The third misconception is the idea that entrepreneurs are somehow being manipulated by this system beyond their understanding. If anything, I'd say it's the opposite. Entrepreneurs set out to shape the system around them to provide them with rewards. The fact that some types of businesses have high failure rates (I still don't really believe those 95% business failure rates... I strongly suspect very shoddy statistics that have a very poor definition of "success") doesn't mean that somehow most entrepreneurs are being suckered into starting business. I think you need to rethink this idea from the ground up, carefully examining your assumptions as you go along, and maybe talking to some entrepreneurs too. You will, I believe, find it has no substance in reality.

CyberFonic 17y ago
Agree with swombat's carefully worded response. Would like to add a couple of points. Entrepreneurs volunteer and are not forced to be "pawns". They are the inventors. People in general are content with the status quo, entrepreneurs on the hand are "unreasonable", they see better ways of doing things. It is through this process of optimisation that society has progressed. Trying anything new and/or different is inherently risky and thus there is the ever present chance of failure. But failing to fail is worse, it means that you haven't tried hard enough. Probably the most mistaken concept of entrepreneurship is that they do it for money. That is what bankers and VC's do. They don't have any vision of their own, instead they fund the visions of others. Entrepreneurs do things to OPTIMISE, the money is merely the consequence of getting it right, in other words, people are prepared to pay money for the convenience, benefit, VALUE of the entrepreneurs' innovation. Columbus wasn't told by his Queen to discover another route to India, he asked for money to embark on discovering a new route to India and failed ... he discovered a new land instead, created an avenue for trade. That is the typical failure of entrepreneurs, they dream big and fail by achieving something greater. Anyone who sets out to be an entrepreneur solely to make money has failed before he has even started.
TriinT 17y ago
Thank you very much for your insightful response. Having worked for a couple of hi-tech startups, I am a little bit acquainted with the entrepreneurial world. Since both startups failed after a few painful years, I am also acquainted with failure and burn-out. No complaints. I knew how slim the odds were ;-) I am fully aware that my thesis is quite ludicrous indeed. It may be a metaphor, but it is also an overly far-fetched one. All in all, I entirely agree with everything you wrote. Allow me to explain where this heretic thought of mine comes from: I come from Europe. My country is literally dominated by interest groups. With the end of European imperialism, my home country declined both in influence and affluence, as many others. Most people still live in the grandiose and glorious past, and haven't realized the world has changed. The country no longer produces much, and there's no longer an empire to supply the home land with resources at an affordable price. Some "bright politicians" (pun intended) thought of a solution: to create a clone of Silicon Valley in their land. As a result, there are tons of government-funded "innovation agencies" whose goal is to pro-actively promote entrepreneurship. Moreover, successful entrepreneurs show up on TV as rock stars. The old bankers inherited their wealth from their families. These guys are self made men, and since the country hasn't had many of those, they are admired. There really is an effort to promote entrepreneurship, as it is perceived as the one and only salvation to the impending economic debacle. I would not call it a conspiracy (what an over-charged word!), but everyone in positions of power is promoting the idea that the country needs startups. Politicians, business leaders, distinguished academics. The meme is that starting a business is almost a patriotic duty!! Serve your country!! Found a company! No joke. Overall, I believe this is good because the country needs to renew itself. However, I think the risks are being left out of the propaganda. These people are luring kids with the promise of fame, a comfortable lifestyle, and a meaningful career. Most of the kids being "brain-washed" will fail, though they haven't yet realized it. Of course, the rich kids are still going into politics, law, management consulting and banking. It's the middle-class kids who are being lured into this. Again, I know this is an over-stretched metaphor, but to me it looks a tiny bit like those war-time recruiting ads for the military where they emphasize the "adventure", but minimize the grim survival statistics. Once again, thanks for your input. It did put things in perspective :-)
- johnnybgoode 17y ago

by swombat 17y ago

CyberFonic 17y ago

Agree with swombat's carefully worded response. Would like to add a couple of points. Entrepreneurs volunteer and are not forced to be "pawns". They are the inventors. People in general are content with the status quo, entrepreneurs on the hand are "unreasonable", they see better ways of doing things. It is through this process of optimisation that society has progressed. Trying anything new and/or different is inherently risky and thus there is the ever present chance of failure. But failing to fail is worse, it means that you haven't tried hard enough. Probably the most mistaken concept of entrepreneurship is that they do it for money. That is what bankers and VC's do. They don't have any vision of their own, instead they fund the visions of others. Entrepreneurs do things to OPTIMISE, the money is merely the consequence of getting it right, in other words, people are prepared to pay money for the convenience, benefit, VALUE of the entrepreneurs' innovation. Columbus wasn't told by his Queen to discover another route to India, he asked for money to embark on discovering a new route to India and failed ... he discovered a new land instead, created an avenue for trade. That is the typical failure of entrepreneurs, they dream big and fail by achieving something greater. Anyone who sets out to be an entrepreneur solely to make money has failed before he has even started.

TriinT 17y ago

Thank you very much for your insightful response. Having worked for a couple of hi-tech startups, I am a little bit acquainted with the entrepreneurial world. Since both startups failed after a few painful years, I am also acquainted with failure and burn-out. No complaints. I knew how slim the odds were ;-) I am fully aware that my thesis is quite ludicrous indeed. It may be a metaphor, but it is also an overly far-fetched one. All in all, I entirely agree with everything you wrote. Allow me to explain where this heretic thought of mine comes from: I come from Europe. My country is literally dominated by interest groups. With the end of European imperialism, my home country declined both in influence and affluence, as many others. Most people still live in the grandiose and glorious past, and haven't realized the world has changed. The country no longer produces much, and there's no longer an empire to supply the home land with resources at an affordable price. Some "bright politicians" (pun intended) thought of a solution: to create a clone of Silicon Valley in their land. As a result, there are tons of government-funded "innovation agencies" whose goal is to pro-actively promote entrepreneurship. Moreover, successful entrepreneurs show up on TV as rock stars. The old bankers inherited their wealth from their families. These guys are self made men, and since the country hasn't had many of those, they are admired. There really is an effort to promote entrepreneurship, as it is perceived as the one and only salvation to the impending economic debacle. I would not call it a conspiracy (what an over-charged word!), but everyone in positions of power is promoting the idea that the country needs startups. Politicians, business leaders, distinguished academics. The meme is that starting a business is almost a patriotic duty!! Serve your country!! Found a company! No joke. Overall, I believe this is good because the country needs to renew itself. However, I think the risks are being left out of the propaganda. These people are luring kids with the promise of fame, a comfortable lifestyle, and a meaningful career. Most of the kids being "brain-washed" will fail, though they haven't yet realized it. Of course, the rich kids are still going into politics, law, management consulting and banking. It's the middle-class kids who are being lured into this. Again, I know this is an over-stretched metaphor, but to me it looks a tiny bit like those war-time recruiting ads for the military where they emphasize the "adventure", but minimize the grim survival statistics. Once again, thanks for your input. It did put things in perspective :-)

johnnybgoode 17y ago