For most people, passive income is a bit of extra pocket change that requires minimal effort to earn to supplement a main source of income. For Steve Ballmer, it’s $1 billion.
Not GP, but I’d love to see them replaced entirely with crowdfunding. So the public would pay based on our expected benefit from new structures, instead of paying people who own structures. Much of the initial investment is just paying off someone else’s mature investment.
Rather than just capping profits with a number, we should be addressing the problems that cause it to exist at all. We’re already voting on people who vote on bailouts; might as well just cut out the middlemen who “provide” capital.
How would you crowd fund a company that isn’t promising a specific set of products? Normally the way we do crowd funding is to offer essentially a pre sale of a product. Sure sometimes people just put forward cash because they really want the product to exist but it isn’t the norm
But for a company that will be a service provider what incentive exists to fork over potentially millions of dollars? In a crowd funding scheme you expect no profit share so why would you invest in them?
Compared to in this case buying a percentage of a company early on to provide them with capital on the basis that you may make money in the future
Also those bailouts while somewhat distasteful were played back to the government with interest
The initial cost would be significantly lower because there’d be no previous owner to pay. Property values right now include the net present value of all expected future rents. The incentive to participate in the crowdfund is that the increased likelihood of the event happening is worth more to you than your share of money invested (like any other assurance contract).
Compared to buying a percentage of the company, it eliminates unearned rent; nobody is getting paid more than it costs to bring the factor into production.
Not all of them, no. Especially in 2020 many were forgiven. If it was a profitable endeavor (counting opportunity cost vs just investing elsewhere), then the private sector would have done it using collateral. And we’re still paying for those bailouts today [gestures at prices].
I’m confused, you want to have people crowd fund R&D to increase the odds a product goes to market. And then expect no profit on the back of that investment? After the potentially huge initial cost does the company then sell the product at cost? Or do they make a profit now?
Can you give an example of a bailout you disagree with? Pretty much all bailouts I’m aware of recoup their costs
Also the reason private equity doesn’t bail out these companies is that unlike a government they may not be able to weather a significant period where they aren’t getting a large cash flow, as they need to stay afloat as well. A government on the other hand is better prepared to recoup costs over time, and will do so if it means that depositors funds are safe. They are much more likely to let a hedge fund just fold as the participants are capable of withstanding such losses
Good luck moving literally all R&D to universities I guess
I don’t think all research should be in private hands. But I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume we could move businesses to a crowd funding model and then somehow convince universities to do all of that R&D
Not GP, but I’d love to see them replaced entirely with crowdfunding. So the public would pay based on our expected benefit from new structures, instead of paying people who own structures. Much of the initial investment is just paying off someone else’s mature investment.
Rather than just capping profits with a number, we should be addressing the problems that cause it to exist at all. We’re already voting on people who vote on bailouts; might as well just cut out the middlemen who “provide” capital.
How would you crowd fund a company that isn’t promising a specific set of products? Normally the way we do crowd funding is to offer essentially a pre sale of a product. Sure sometimes people just put forward cash because they really want the product to exist but it isn’t the norm But for a company that will be a service provider what incentive exists to fork over potentially millions of dollars? In a crowd funding scheme you expect no profit share so why would you invest in them?
Compared to in this case buying a percentage of a company early on to provide them with capital on the basis that you may make money in the future
Also those bailouts while somewhat distasteful were played back to the government with interest
The initial cost would be significantly lower because there’d be no previous owner to pay. Property values right now include the net present value of all expected future rents. The incentive to participate in the crowdfund is that the increased likelihood of the event happening is worth more to you than your share of money invested (like any other assurance contract).
Compared to buying a percentage of the company, it eliminates unearned rent; nobody is getting paid more than it costs to bring the factor into production.
Not all of them, no. Especially in 2020 many were forgiven. If it was a profitable endeavor (counting opportunity cost vs just investing elsewhere), then the private sector would have done it using collateral. And we’re still paying for those bailouts today [gestures at prices].
I’m confused, you want to have people crowd fund R&D to increase the odds a product goes to market. And then expect no profit on the back of that investment? After the potentially huge initial cost does the company then sell the product at cost? Or do they make a profit now?
Can you give an example of a bailout you disagree with? Pretty much all bailouts I’m aware of recoup their costs Also the reason private equity doesn’t bail out these companies is that unlike a government they may not be able to weather a significant period where they aren’t getting a large cash flow, as they need to stay afloat as well. A government on the other hand is better prepared to recoup costs over time, and will do so if it means that depositors funds are safe. They are much more likely to let a hedge fund just fold as the participants are capable of withstanding such losses
R&D used to be done at universities for the benefit of all. It still often is.
Why should it all be in private hands?
Good luck moving literally all R&D to universities I guess
I don’t think all research should be in private hands. But I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume we could move businesses to a crowd funding model and then somehow convince universities to do all of that R&D