5 ms·

This seems like the problem with capitalism. You start with a company that is providing a great service using 25 people. But it does well so throwing money at i

This seems like the problem with capitalism. You start with a company that is providing a great service using 25 people. But it does well so throwing money at it can make it better (and worth more), right? But not everything has to be worth a lot of money. You could just keep being a great community and double digit employees.

Gigachad 3y ago
Reddit was profitable way back. Capitalism would have allowed it to continue on in this state perpetually. Spez got greedy and wanted more money though.
- realitythreek 3y ago
  Exactly, this was what I was trying to say. Being sustainable can be enough, it doesn’t have to be the next Meta.
- danaris 3y ago
  I think this is where it's helpful to draw a line between regular capitalism and the late-stage hypercapitalism we've descended into these days. My rule of thumb is that it's the difference between "we provide a service or make a product, and if we do it well, then we make money" and "we make money, as much as possible, however possible, and if we have to provide a service or make a product to do it, that's a necessary evil".
  - coldpie 3y ago
    I wonder if another way to phrase the distinction would be whether the company's primary goal is to sell a product or service for a profit; or to manage financial instruments, such as a stock price or IPO or debt to some VCs or other investors.
    - Sylamore 3y ago
      It's not a perfect method, but it seems private company (with no intent to IPO and not a VC funded startup) vs public company seems to be a pretty good indicator of what a companies priorities tend to be.
seiferteric 3y ago
The counterpoint to this is something like Craigslist which has not changed much since its inception and I think is perfect for what it is, but has been overtaken by Facebook marketplace.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  My understanding is that Craigslist is still making a tidy profit, and it's owners do well. Sure, they might not need to testify in front of congress or buy all their neighbors land so they can have privacy, but most people consider that a plus.
time0ut 3y ago
Isn't the underlying issue one of misaligned incentives, control over resources, and sheer incompetence? This particular expression may be a capitalist flavor, but I am skeptical any economic system prevents or corrects for this.
skizm 3y ago
Forcing hyper/non-sustainable growth and then trying to IPO before the crash-and-burn phase is just SOOO much more profitable for everyone involved than continuing to run a good product that is profitable. If your company is bringing in $100M in profit and you own 10% of the company, it will take you 100 years to make $1B. If you IPO at a $10B valuation and own 10% of the company...
- tacocataco 3y ago
  I would work 3 years, save 2 of the 3 million, and retire on my $60-80k a year passive income.

Gigachad 3y ago

Reddit was profitable way back. Capitalism would have allowed it to continue on in this state perpetually. Spez got greedy and wanted more money though.

realitythreek 3y ago
Exactly, this was what I was trying to say. Being sustainable can be enough, it doesn’t have to be the next Meta.
danaris 3y ago
I think this is where it's helpful to draw a line between regular capitalism and the late-stage hypercapitalism we've descended into these days. My rule of thumb is that it's the difference between "we provide a service or make a product, and if we do it well, then we make money" and "we make money, as much as possible, however possible, and if we have to provide a service or make a product to do it, that's a necessary evil".
- coldpie 3y ago
  I wonder if another way to phrase the distinction would be whether the company's primary goal is to sell a product or service for a profit; or to manage financial instruments, such as a stock price or IPO or debt to some VCs or other investors.
  - Sylamore 3y ago
    It's not a perfect method, but it seems private company (with no intent to IPO and not a VC funded startup) vs public company seems to be a pretty good indicator of what a companies priorities tend to be.

seiferteric 3y ago

The counterpoint to this is something like Craigslist which has not changed much since its inception and I think is perfect for what it is, but has been overtaken by Facebook marketplace.

mrguyorama 3y ago
My understanding is that Craigslist is still making a tidy profit, and it's owners do well. Sure, they might not need to testify in front of congress or buy all their neighbors land so they can have privacy, but most people consider that a plus.

time0ut 3y ago

Isn't the underlying issue one of misaligned incentives, control over resources, and sheer incompetence? This particular expression may be a capitalist flavor, but I am skeptical any economic system prevents or corrects for this.

skizm 3y ago

Forcing hyper/non-sustainable growth and then trying to IPO before the crash-and-burn phase is just SOOO much more profitable for everyone involved than continuing to run a good product that is profitable. If your company is bringing in $100M in profit and you own 10% of the company, it will take you 100 years to make $1B. If you IPO at a $10B valuation and own 10% of the company...

tacocataco 3y ago
I would work 3 years, save 2 of the 3 million, and retire on my $60-80k a year passive income.