Why "Start-ups" Will Destroy Us
petovera.com
petovera.com
Yes we lust for new things, which is why the author can afford a computer to write his article on; yes we lust for profit, that is why joining a start-up and taking up the huge risk is something one is willing to do; yes we make old businesses obsolete, but that just frees people to join other companies which are capable of creating stuff, not sucking up resources.
The only thing start-ups forces people to do is to think and adapt. And if they aren't willing to do so, they have nobody but them-self to complain about.
And no start-up can create a bubble, those bubbles come from the insane recklessness of the FEDs dollar printing and the resulting super low interest rates because there is too few productive places to invest ones money.
We need more start-ups, not fewer; We need more economic activity, not less and we need more people with ability, not clones who will never amount to anything.
Theoretically, the unemployed workers can adapt to the "new economy" and re-establish themselves. Empirically, however, that's not happening.
Startups are more likely to aid the jobless via welfare (from tax revenue) than by actually employing people.
But that is beside the point: job creation isn't the goal of any business nor is it the responsibility of any business to hire a certain amount of people, and the country as such doesn't need to put a large number of people to work - people are responsible for their own life and if they are not willing to do that (and you may very well be right about that I don't know), that is their own problem.
The guy who wrote the "article" and I use it in quotes because it means different things to different people, actual journalists spend time and effort crafting a story and thinking about the various sides, where as this sort of "article" is spit out partially considered with an expected lifetime of minutes, never to provide another insight later on ...
More experienced folks seem to grasp that business creation is good. They also understand that businesses start and then evolve in response to market forces. And lets not forget that businesses are the expression of the people who it employs.
Question for you though: which do you think creates more wealth for the most people:
Short-term greed or long term greed?
I am not advocating a blind greed simply to get as much as possible damn the consequences but a rational greed based on the understanding that it is better to have than it is to not have.
How or what would you define as "rational greed"? If you have an example that would be best since we wouldn't have to discuss in hypotheticals :)
Startups are too often get-rich-quick schemes whose founders want to work hard for 3 years, then cash out and spend the rest of their time on 'speeches and beaches'.
The truth is that in reality there's usually less planning than there later seems to have been. Things that turn out big were often small and tentative initially.
I agree with your last 2 statements completely though.
"Speeches and beaches" -- my man, such a desire is a wholly lazy and narcissistic dream.
However, pay attention to what the ingredients of that seed are.
That is why there are "startups" (the type I described in the article) and then there are Startups.
Lots of people would love to turn their companies into large going concerns.
PS: Really hideous website, offensively so given the title (or whatever it is) "The Difference between good and great web design".
PPS: Sentence #2, which starts with the word "this", I think you mean "think". Think hard about that for a minute.