Comment by bumby | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bumby | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> it's not the VCs' responsibility

You make some valid points, but I really dislike the above comment. When used it seems like a convenient way to diffuse responsibility, often to selfish ends.

There's lots of examples where this type of single-minded attitude isn't acceptable.

- A civil engineer cannot just have making money be the sole pursuit when designing or building a bridge

- A doctor cannot just have making money be the only goal when treating a patient

- A government worker cannot be only concerned on how to maximize their individual gains when awarding contracts

- A financial adviser is expected to act in their client's best interest, rather than their own

We're used to expecting certain levels of ethical behavior from some professions acting within a larger societal framework. I don't know why investing is so often left off the hook in this regard. Maybe it's naive, but I think we'd be better of if people told themselves it WAS their responsibility when making these decisions.

Leveling society's playing field is a far different scale of responsibility than a civil engineering designing a safe bridge or a doctor looking out for their patient. Societal level problems need societal level organizations to solve, such as governments.

We should be voting for policies that strengthen the nation as a whole. A VC giving up a few % point in return in exchange for betting on poorer people is not going to change anything, other than that VC losing investors. We want to fix families? Well let's guarantee parents have time home with their children, let's guarantee they have sick leave and parental leave and vacation leave to spend with their families. Let's provide more transit and infrastructure and education to communities that need it.

It will require a transfer of wealth.

To be clear, I'm not saying it's VC's job to create a solution of that scale. My position was that it's a weak position to wash one's hand of any responsibility because their stance is that they have a singularly focused job.

I would hope, for instance, that Boeing software engineers wouldn't take the stance that their job is to code to requirements and the safety engineers job to make sure the requirements are safe. I would hope everyone has the onus to look at the greater landscape for the impacts of their decisions rather than using a myopic view to skirt responsibility because it's convenient or easy.

Most VCs I've met do have some kind of value system other than making money that permeates their investment decisions, it's just usually one that is easier to align or at least doesn't run contrary to their business interests, like making large systems more efficient or spreading access to goods and services traditionally restricted to the rich by driving down costs.

Socioeconomic mobility is really much easier to pull on with policy and the education system.

Some people do work on trying to democratize entrepreneurship though, like YC with startup school, or Stripe with Atlas.

They do it by spreading information and reducing barriers, not by giving money to higher risk people though, since that's easier to align with their place in the system.

Yes, sorry. I didn't mean to imply that VCs, on the whole, don't have a more nuanced decision process. I meant that I dislike when ethically questionable decisions are protected by the 'ends justify the means' argument. In this case, where maximizing profit is the only end that gets any weight.

It's similarly strange to me when I hear people like Jim Cramer advocate investing in tobacco companies even if you find their business practices abhorrent because the point of the investment 'game' is to maximize profit. In his case, his solution was to take those profits and donate to a cancer charity. It just seems like a strange set of psychological hoops to jump through to avoid cognitive dissonance. It comes across that excelling at the 'game' is ultimately what's valued more than the ethics of the business decision. Again, maybe naive or poorly placed, but it seems the most moral choice is to make sure all the decisions align with your values, not creating strange workarounds so you can have your cake and eat it too.

> They do it by spreading information and reducing barriers, not by giving money to higher risk people though, since that's easier to align with their place in the system.

And it is mostly misguided. The barrier to entry and availability of information is what have already changed. It is everything else that hasn't. Or it has, but in the wrong way. By charging a premium for housing, education and contacts instead of taking it out of the equation. Some day all this friction is going to have consequences.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com