Hacker News Reader

Comment by frithsun | Hacker News Reader

I believe a lot of this was driven by fed rate shenanigans creating far more investment wealth than there were organic opportunities for investing it. All of these market-distorting startup deals were just symptoms of that broader systemic monetary policy error.

While the mom and pop taxi companies and others impacted by it have my sympathy and support, all the regulatory alternatives other than waiting until they achieve a monopoly and then breaking them up seem to cause as many problems as they aim to solve.

View on HN

> > I believe a lot of this was driven by fed rate shenanigans creating far more investment wealth than there were organic opportunities for investing it. All of these market-distorting startup deals were just symptoms of that broader systemic monetary policy error.

The Fed is not distorting anything. It's an anomaly that you can "invest with Uncle Sam" , for the longest time if you wanted to see your money grow you had to take it from your fellow American somehow.

The ability to passively invest with the government is alienating, unsatisfying and creates growth problems to the country that allows it because it subtracts participants from the creative destruction process.

Interesting perspective, thank you for that, but the issue is not merely driving bond rates to zero. The money created by central banks also flows into VC funds and the stock markets via various indirect paths and from there into the startup ecosystem.

That's a problem of trust, money flows to startups because the so called capital allocators don't trust themselves with such amount of money, otherwise they'd be investing all into companies where they are at the helm.

The whole family office concept is something new, back in the day if someone had money they'd just invest in themselves by expanding their own business.

Classic zero sum thinking with no evidence or even an overarching thesis on the neutrality of money.

You need to back this up with some serious economic citations

> > Classic zero sum thinking

All the stuff that gives the most satisfaction is zero sum.

Only one team wins the Super Bowl, only one NBA team wins the Finals and only one franchise gets to claim the World Series.

You can see it when you look at investors, even the notorious ones, they are rich but mentally they are not stoked or feeling as powerful as athletes who won such trophies.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Like having children or helping another person.

Totally 0 sum.

> Based on the NFL's collective bargaining agreement, players on the winning team in Super Bowl LVII will receive $157,000 apiece. Players on the losing team receive $82,000 per player. [...]

https://www.kare11.com/article/sports/nfl/superbowl/how-much...

To say nothing of pay and fame - presumably translating to better marketing deals and salaries from improved negotiation positions for simply getting as far as the Super Bowl. Absent other conditions (e.g. worries about exacerbating injuries), chances are you'd show up even if you know you'll lose, and not just out of spite and wanting to make the other guys work for it - but because you'll gain from it, which is a bit counter to the whole "zero sum" thing. Plenty of sport where new records are exciting even when it's simply beating the previous ones.

To be fair, we really don't know what would have happened if the entire financial system collapsed in 2008.

This was the Faustian bargain we made. For us, I think it would be hard to argue this was a raw deal as opposed to living the last 15 years dealing with a depression or who knows what.

Once on this path we will just keep kicking the can down the road and let the unborn pay of it eventually.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com