Hacker News Reader

Comment by realitythreek | Hacker News Reader

This seems like the problem with capitalism. You start with a company that is providing a great service using 25 people. But it does well so throwing money at it can make it better (and worth more), right?

But not everything has to be worth a lot of money. You could just keep being a great community and double digit employees.

View on HN

Forcing hyper/non-sustainable growth and then trying to IPO before the crash-and-burn phase is just SOOO much more profitable for everyone involved than continuing to run a good product that is profitable.

If your company is bringing in $100M in profit and you own 10% of the company, it will take you 100 years to make $1B. If you IPO at a $10B valuation and own 10% of the company...

I would work 3 years, save 2 of the 3 million, and retire on my $60-80k a year passive income.

The counterpoint to this is something like Craigslist which has not changed much since its inception and I think is perfect for what it is, but has been overtaken by Facebook marketplace.

My understanding is that Craigslist is still making a tidy profit, and it's owners do well. Sure, they might not need to testify in front of congress or buy all their neighbors land so they can have privacy, but most people consider that a plus.

Reddit was profitable way back. Capitalism would have allowed it to continue on in this state perpetually. Spez got greedy and wanted more money though.

Exactly, this was what I was trying to say. Being sustainable can be enough, it doesn’t have to be the next Meta.

I think this is where it's helpful to draw a line between regular capitalism and the late-stage hypercapitalism we've descended into these days.

My rule of thumb is that it's the difference between "we provide a service or make a product, and if we do it well, then we make money" and "we make money, as much as possible, however possible, and if we have to provide a service or make a product to do it, that's a necessary evil".

I wonder if another way to phrase the distinction would be whether the company's primary goal is to sell a product or service for a profit; or to manage financial instruments, such as a stock price or IPO or debt to some VCs or other investors.

It's not a perfect method, but it seems private company (with no intent to IPO and not a VC funded startup) vs public company seems to be a pretty good indicator of what a companies priorities tend to be.

Isn't the underlying issue one of misaligned incentives, control over resources, and sheer incompetence? This particular expression may be a capitalist flavor, but I am skeptical any economic system prevents or corrects for this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com