On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Bob Evans <b...@fiberinternetcenter.com> wrote: > I think he means to say the rich get richer on the other side of the > investment by playing the shorting and the buying of stock in the gambling > marketplace. As the stock itself can create a new currency.... so they > make more money playing with that than the actually investment. They are > on the inside hence the saying the rich get richer. > Thank You > Bob Evans > CTO
Ah! So there's two types of value being discussed; network value, vs dollar value. While dollar value is being made, and the rich are getting richer, the value of the network resources may indeed be destroyed. Unfortunately, it's very hard to steer behaviour when the incentives are not aligned with the desired outcome, and in these cases, the incentive (get richer) is often at odds with what the technical community might desire. As much as we might wish it to be otherwise, the primary job of public companies is to make money, not create network value--at least, as long as the majority of your voting shares are held by investors rather than technologists. I look at companies like Google, Alibaba, and Facebook as interesting anomalies because they've structured their corporate ownership in a way that doesn't cede control over to the institutional investors the way the vast majority of public companies have. It remains to be seen if that separation allows them to prioritize creating network value above making money. (I suspect Google sidestepped the question when picking their motto--"Don't be evil" doesn't define the nature of evil; for investors, not doing everything possible to make a profit might be seen as 'evil'. ) Thanks! Matt > > > > >> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Kiriki Delany <kir...@streamguys.com> >> wrote: >>> [...] >>> >>> Bottom line, is the industry needs to be increasing value, because the >>> flip >>> side.... working for no profit, surviving off investment only... there's >>> no >>> end-game. You see this cycle time and time again as market share is >>> grabbed, >>> then underperforming companies are rolled up. In this process value is >>> destroyed. >>> >>> Ultimately this is also why it's extremely damaging for investors to >>> constantly invest in companies that don't make a profit, and don't >>> provide a >>> successful economical model for the services/products provided. These >>> companies largely live on investor money, lose money, and in their wake >>> destroy value for the entire industry. Of course the end-game for the >>> investors is to make money... I'm always surprised how strong >>> investment/gambles are for non-profitable companies. I guess there is no >>> end >>> to those with too much money that have to place that money somewhere. As >>> the >>> rich get richer, there will only be more dumb money cheapening the value >>> proposition. After all, who needs value when you have willing investors. >> >> >> I'm confused. If these companies largely live on investor money, >> lose money, and destroy value...how is it that a scant two sentences >> later, the rich are getting richer, and there is _more_ dumb money? >> >> I would posit the rich get richer because they *do* >> see value in the investments they make. That is, >> value is being created in these deals...just not for >> everyone. >> >> Matt >> > >
