Is Venture Capital Good? (feat. Travis Kimmel) - Episode 154
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 07. 2024
- Cas Piancey and @bennettftomlin are joined by Travis Kimmel to discuss the purpose and role of venture capital.
This video was recorded on May 9th, 2024.
Read more: cryptocriticscorner.com/2024/...
Additional episodes mentioned in this episode:
Episode 48 - The US Dollar, Inflation, and Recession (Feat. Travis Kimmel)
• The US Dollar, Inflati...
Episode 8 - Coinbase Media and Why Venture Capitalism Hates Journalism
• Coinbase Media and Why...
Additional resources:
Other places to find Crypto Critics' Corner
Website: cryptocriticscorner.com/
Discord: / discord
Bluesky: bsky.app/profile/cryptocritic...
Mastodon: mstdn.social/@CryptoCriticPod
Twitter: / cryptocriticpod
Instagram: / cryptocriticpod
TikTok: vm.tiktok.com/TTPdPN2hK9/
Bennett's CZcams: @bennettftomlin
Bennett's D&D CZcams: @BTDND
Bennett's BlueSky: bsky.app/profile/bft.wtf
Cas' BlueSky: bsky.app/profile/caspiancey.b...
Bennett's Mastodon: mstdn.social/@bennetttomlin
Bennett's Twitter: / bennetttomlin
Cas' Twitter: / caspiancey
Bennett's Newsletter: TheFUDLetter.com/
Cas' Blog: / thecaspiancey
Bennett's Blog: bennettftomlin.com/
Timestamps:
#crypto #cryptocurrency #podcast #podcasts #listenable #venturecapital #vc
I have two main problems with the point of views/arguments presented here:
1. Travis Kimmel's presentation seems idealistic to me, describing how the ideas of Adam Smith/capitalism from 250 years ago should materialize in the world, rather than analyzing the material present. E.g. even if we give powerful people (and that's just the kind of people who have millions/billions of $ to fund ventures) more free reign and don't help them when they fail, they may create some innovative companies but why should the interests behind those innovations align with the public interest? I don't find the "invisible hand" notion convincing. The most profitable innovations may well be addictive pain killers, content optimizations for addictiveness to maximize ad revenue, etc.
I don't find it convincing to define capitalism as some set of ideas of an ideal free market with aligned interests and to then argue how we fail to materialize that because of state intervention and that we should have less of that. Instead, I would look at the patterns of what we see the people with a lot of capital do in the real world to pursue their interests and define the system that they created, maintain and exploit as capitalism as historical materialists did.
2. Besides the question of whether there is alignment with public interest wrt the objectives of innovation, there is also the question of which kind of probability distribution is desirable. E.g. even if the expected outcome of a free reign/creative destruction cycle is greater than with some policy based on a precautionary principle it isn't necessarily preferable. Classically rational decision makers are modeled as maximizing expected utility and that utility function usually expresses risk aversion. And the risk premiums that follow from that may be very different between a billionaire playing with their monopoly money and the average member of the populace who hasn't hedged that well against their employer/pension fund/health/housing cost being creatively destroyed.
In a society that has for a long time reached the capacity to provide for the material needs of its every member, how much more risk can be justified by the promise to maybe invent marginally shinier gadgets?
Also @ 45:20 : It's pretty funny that the first name in the response to this question is Peter Thiel.
I think what drives me the craziest is this argument of "capitalism not bad, we just do bad capitalism." Im glad the self-avowed capitalist guest recognizes the centralising power of the corporation but then he goes on to claim capitalism is about small and local but excuse me, what?! For all of capitalist history the system tends toward centralising power because thats what power does. Liberetarians and the like always go in for this idealized market capitalism but that is an unstable fixed point if it exists at all. A winner emerges and feeds back to win even harder, the frontier encloses and the players consolidate, the system of profits-first incentives capture of markets and those who police it. That is the stable fixed point. All the "bad capitalism" doesn't come about because we lost our way or something, it is the inevitable end point, or at least until a cataclysmic failures comes about.
I always thought that the Pentagon budget, which now stands at about 1 trillion dollars, was a way to get the public to fund high technology industry.
a big chunk of military spending is pretty much technology and science spending. the only reason scientists or universities get grant money is because somewhere down the line the government (read: the military) thinks there is some practical use. at best it becomes the internet, at worst it becomes a nuke
Capitalism died in 2008 when the banks and Wall street were bailed out, we just have not come to terms with it yet.
We need a new system.
Fun fact. Cicero invented capitalism, but his system also had morals as an integral part.
Also. One of the cornerstones of a free market is free movement of labor. That is not happening, so there is no free market.
2008? Haha try 1963
I want to object to something you said at 37:00. The NTSB is not a regulatory body. They investigate incidents and issue recommendations, but the recommendations are non-binding. They do not make any rules.
Cas and Bennett, I greatly appreciate your content, particularly for hosting guests with diverse viewpoints. The presence of debate is sorely lacking from this platform.. One of the key points that had me nodding was the distinction Travis made between capitalists and free market absolutists. The extreme and loud perspectives of the latter often overshadow more moderate discussions, which is detrimental to a balanced discourse. It's crucial not to overlook the numerous benefits that markets have facilitated.
However, as someone in the tech industry, I believe we are in dire need of more robust regulation. I concur with Cas that some of the most problematic voices in venture capital tend to dominate the narrative excessively. We need regulations that preserve the advantages Travis highlighted while mitigating the negative outcomes Cas discussed. This conversation has reinforced my belief that such regulation is not only necessary but also feasible. For instance, imposing a cap on fund sizes could be a practical measure that tempers the excesses of venture capital without undermining its effective elements. This dialogue has underscored how realistic and constructive conversations can yield potential courses forward when moderated voices lead the discussion.
The problem with his argument is that patches don’t fix rules. They help to change the rules to benefit the rich because we don’t live in a capitalist society by and large, we live in a representative oligarchy.
Good discussion. Thanks guys!
ngl i died a little inside when he said “i love capitalism”
why?
me too
The guest is just…not a very good capitalist. He recognizes all of the bad things that capitalism ultimately becomes, but fails to recognize those late stage outcomes as capitalism.
Yes. Yes it 100% is
Everybody examining what Kimmel has to say as intellectual is misunderstanding other dynamics at play.
The free market economy open to financialisation, for which modern capitalism is predicated upon are massively beneficial to groups of people for whom borders are no boundary for inter ethnic cooperation.
A socialist society where the governemnt oversees finances, will utltimately be a tougher nut to crack from the perspective of international finance. From an ethnic perspective, some interest groups benefit more from one arrangement versus others.
This outlook can be taken to its extreme with Ayn Rand, once seen through the lense of ethnic ingroup preference, the commitment to the ideology of capitalism begins to make sense.
Is this Travis from Colorado? That guy is really cool.
Why does he like capitalism?
How about i just make slightly more money than i spend...and keep doing that...
yessss we eating good today boys
I vomited when I heard creative destruction, Schumpeter bad
Cas lost this argument. Saying it with love.
nop