WeWork founders banned meat from their office meals can they really accept to be owned by this fund?
Once the SoftBank money stops flowing does the chamath described Ponzi scheme stop causing the whole thing Venture backed growth story to unravel?
https://www.businessinsider.com/softbank-talks-invest-15-bil...
https://www.cbinsights.com/research/wework-real-estate-earni...
But Softbank is a poor example given how the invest almost entirely in late stage companies, mostly with real profitable business models, who would otherwise easily find plenty of funding in traditional less risky capital markets (who don't share the same critique but push the same never-ending growth pressure and often far worse backroom financial trickery).
This is very distinct from the dotcom boom... or you know acutal Ponzi schemes... which were entities which raised countless millions on zero-value organizations. He's probably right in some ways but lost me in his exaggerated/radical positioning which he seems fond of.
Also true that later stage companies have working business models (though they are typically not profitable a tradeoff they willingly make for growth). See the comment above on plenty of funding post SoftBank round. I've also observed that their valuation forces founders to do subsequent down rounds.
The Ponzi scheme argument (not perfect) is the gains are all paper valuations that are based on growth continuing or more investment being piled in. Once that stops the whole thing crumbles. After Softbank with a $100B fund, where else does the funding come from? IPO?
Hmm, so should we call this sort of thing a "Ponzi Scheme" or a "money laundering scheme"? That is given that Softbank is a way to recycle the Saudi Billions while other schemes involve Russia oligarchs or Chinese money itching to leave it's homeland?
Saudi Arabia's only serious pressing concern economically, is building a non-oil-based, sustainable economy before the oil growth era stagnates or reverses course. They have rapid population growth (50% in 15 years), the clock is ticking against their ability to sustain a future with 50 or 60 million people.
It's not enough to just replace oil in the equation as it is today for their economy, they have to figure out how to do it for twice as many people. They need to figure out how to build out a $1.5 trillion non-oil economy within 30 or 40 years.
But then what about buying German cars, some of which were started by Hitler (such as VW)?
One of your examples is ongoing, the other is not.
One could change the future, the other can't change anything except other car markers margins.
One could be justified, the other can not.
I could make a much longer list, but I hope you get the gist.
But I guess the kingdom is still permeated with Sunni Islam and they are willing to bomb the crap out of Yemen so it won’t fall into Shiite Houthis’ hands.
They executed an American permanent resident journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, in one of their consulates on foreign soil within the last two weeks, and failed at the cover up [1].
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/middleeast/saudi-khashoggi-de...
What if Jamal Khashoggi was a Ruhollah Khomeini of Saudi Arabia [0]?
That is, what if it was not about wahhabism but about self preservation?
Goldberg: What do you mean you don’t know about it?
MbS: What is Wahhabism?
Goldberg: You’re the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. You know what Wahhabism is.
MbS: No one can define this Wahhabism.
Goldberg: It’s a movement founded by Ibn abd al-Wahhab in the 1700s, very fundamentalist in nature, an austere Salafist-style interpretation—
MbS: No one can define Wahhabism. There is no Wahhabism.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/mo...