Hacker News Reader

Comment by blunte | Hacker News Reader

I don't know why people still believe that someone with a winning (money making) system is going to share that with others. If a system works that well, nobody is going to sell instructions on how to do it. Maybe they'll share the knowledge with a few friends or family, but they sure won't sell it.

To sell "how to get rich" information clearly implies that the seller is not getting rich. If they were, and even if they were exceptionally generous and wanted to share the knowledge, they wouldn't bother charging money for it.

View on HN

I'm not defending get-rich-quick scheme peddles, but charging for lessons in how to make money doesn't prove the lessons are bad. Nobody says this kind of thing about how new software textbook of the week must be wrong be wrong because sharing it hurts the author's employability and they're charging for the book so it must not be a desire to share.

There are plenty of ways to make money that aren't zero sum competitive markets. Some people want to share what they know and aren't hurt by it. But writing that stuff up costs time and energy, so charging for it makes sense.

There is the concept of franchises like McDonalds which seems to go against your point.

Franchises don’t sell a way to get rich quick. They sell a job.

Plus you need at least $500k min cash on hand before you can start.

Running a franchise seems neither quick nor easy and usually requires a large upfront investment.

And since the franchisee is representing the franchise's brand they have incentive to help the franchisee succeed and only accept franchisees that are likely to succeed.

Not to mention the franchise collects commission on the franchisee's ongoing sales, not just a lump sum up front and say "you're on your own, have fun." It's quite a different ballgame altogether.

To expand, it makes sense in situations where the "expert" is unable to scale up any farther (lack of capital or labor come to mind) or cannot expand farther without assuming an uncomfortable amount of risk. The second possibility should set off alarm bells for small investors. (Case in point: many McDonald's franchisees struggle to break even while the McDonald's corporation rakes in a steady income.)

If someone really is "retired but wants to help people", I would expect to see the core educational content available for free (or near distribution cost) with the option to pay for one-on-one coaching/consulting services.

Renaissance Technologies (the hedge fund) is the classic example of someone who "has a winning system". Funnily enough, they don't share it, indeed, they guard it zealously.

Aren't those the guys running the meta-ponzi, where they juice the PR / founder funds with returns from sucker funds, but they do the transfers entirely through clever trading that has so far been sufficient to hide from regulatory action?

You're thinking of Renaissance Capital, maybe, which is a different company AFAIK. I don't know anything about them except that they have a confusingly similar name to Simons' firm and that he does not appear associated.

No, I don't believe I am thinking of Renaissance Capital.

Oh, I see what you're saying. Yes, possibly, no idea. Renaissance Capital is also in the business of providing liquidity to the founders of companies so extra confusing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com