Raising money in any form is a capitalist endeavor either in the source of the money or the use of the money. Capitalism is an economic system, not a social system.
The founders of Kickstarter wanted to create a company that achieved social outcomes -- hence the wokeism of pretending to be anti-capitalist, the whole B Corp nonsense, and the merry-go-round of CEOs each dedicated to the social outcome rather than being a responsible company.
The financial model for Kickstarter is easy -- provide a platform for the underserved creative to raise money and take a slice. When you "take a slice" you are a capitalist.
If you want to do "good" works then make a lot of money and fund your social objectives with your own money not the money of the company which is owned by its shareholders.
Kickstarter was the innovator and has now missed the wave. It is going nowhere.
I think smart people kind of understand that intuitively but forget the “love of” part of the phrase. For dumb people, they start actually believing that money itself is evil and it becomes a mental prison. Leading to making excuses for unwise financial decisions and ultimately to envy and resentment of financially successful people. It’s why victimhood sells so well. It’s why they end up embracing socialism since it’s really just that they ultimately end up wanting to take other peoples money.
Attitude about capital. I had a support call with efirstbank. During the call it came up I was depositing rent for an office building. The Rep thought I was retired, I think Scrooge McDuck came into her mind... I explained flooded lobbies, leaking roofs, tenants that have issues with each other but it fell on deaf ears. AND SHE WORKS AT A BANK. If we don't make money the bank fails.
And as to art. With the underutilized Architecture degree, I wanted to product my own art. Now that mean an investment of several million dollars of my own and the bank’s money. I didn’t take any government tax credits (in fact in Boulder, they make you cut your veins to build --- it’s not the correct art) it was all me. As hoped, my art sold because someone appreciated the product.. and the design and function were part of the buyer’s decision making, and it was at the right price. Still Vitruvius after 2000 years: firmitas, utilitas, and venustas. Artists are particularly fooled by the need to sell one’s art. On this project the excavator’s son was going to Berkley Music in the fall. Looking particularly grumped on the mini-excavator, I advised “Music is a fickle business, but unlike you peers, you can jump on a machine and make $70 an hour” I don’t think he was particularly impressed. It’s my understanding he was successful in his music career ---so someone paid him for his skills, and he turned his labor and investment into capital.
Back to Attitude. On the above project I was there at 7 at night shoveling “Squeegee” to clear the waste pipe for the plumber showing up the next morning. There was no one to whom to delegate the task. It was about the time the whole “You didn’t build that” trope was about. I was thinking to myself, sweating, that I would hit anyone with my shovel who walked up to me that night and lectured me about not building this house.
Why do they think it’s all luxury? Yes. I enjoyed creating the home, which made the effort worthwhile. It’s not all about the money, it’s about the enjoyment of creation, the camaraderie on the jobsite, and other dopamine hits. But you have to make a buck to progress to the next project.
One of the amazing things about architecture is that it is not only your art, but your engineering skills to solve all the unforeseen real problems with "design and function." FYI I can't change a light bulb without a two trips to Home Depot and one to the ER.
Actually the biblical quotes are not about money being the root of evil but the LOVE of money. Ie money for its own sake.
People who build companies and corporations see money as a means too an end. Building the business, making it more successful. They wanted the money but wanted the business first.
Timothy 6:10 ESV
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.
Most of the other quotes state it's the LOVE of money not the money itself.
One of the thinks Bill Ackman mentioned in his VERY long interview with Lex Fridman was needing to figure out if management was in their position just for themselves, or were there for the company. If the former, it mean a new management team could turn the company around. Are you there for the money, or for the company?
I would say the best position is both. Not the money or the company but both the company AND the money. If the company grows the money should grow. If I do the work to help a company grow I want the money also. Too many people want the latter but don't want to do the former. Or they want the former but don't want to share the latter.
If you do the work you should get the money. If you want the money you should do the work.
Money is a byproduct if building and managing a great company. It's what you use to keep score, and pay shareholders for taking the risk on your company. If there are no shareholders, it's you and your employees.
Yes... it I implied otherwise forgive my description. Very good point. As a young guy, I didn't ask for money at times I should have. No one respects your ability or advice without paying you! This is a big topic, and I am thinking of the situation where if the narcissist is getting the job done, then fine. EXCEPT you must be careful of long and short term incentives. If they manage to the next quarterly and not for the long term you could be cutting your throat. Years ago I read an HBR article that said the best indicator of long term profitability (and that's what you want.. the long term annuity) is customer sat. You can't do that if you fire all of your good people with institutional knowledge for the short term hit.. Stock options should be spread out over 5/10/15 years AFTER the CEO has left....
Very true. Same obviously applies to politics. If you are only focused on the next election that's fine for you, not so much for everyone else. I think they are all narcissist to a large extent, both political and business. You show me a political narcissist, I'll show you a business one. And vice versa. The question is how do they manage it? If they can control it, Gates, Jobs, it works out well. Others like Shockley, not so much. Not sure on you time line. I think 15 might be too long for some people. 2/5/7/11 spread might be better. Have to give it some thought. Might depend on what the company makes or does.
I don't think unbridled capitalism always works. I think competition and open markets almost always work (unless someone cheats, like dumping steel to kill another county's industry). Sometimes you get a monopoly that uses it's power to crush potential competitors in the cradle. Google is getting there. Competition leads to improvement and profit, often for the winners as well as the also rans. As to philanthropy, contrast Dr Ruth Gottsman's gift to Einstein medical school with the money spent by philanthropies controlled by Soros and tech oligarchs. Want more and better physicians? Getting med students into practice without a zillion in debt to pay off opens the way for a lot of students. And it makes primary care a more affordable option. The Gottsman's wealth is based on wise investing with Warren Buffet. What a difference Gottsman will make. Meanwhile, the Soros DAs continue to instill chaos everywhere they have jurisdiction.
When a CEO says they have no interest in making a profit that is a public proclamation of a willingness to self-destruct. What an absurd statement.
So many of the failures of companies in the last decade to decade and a half can be traced to allowing a corporate culture to grow like a fungus, that contributed to a morphing of misplaced priorities. At what point does upper management not realize that without profits you don't survive? This would seem like a relatively simple concept to most people.
It's funny, I've known the name "Kickstarter" for years, but knew little about them--for good reason apparently. It confirms my experience starting more than two decades ago where entrepreneurs and funders (amongst others) were hectoring about "doing well by doing good," i.e., socially-responsible business (or investing), which has all the earmarks of a PR campaign--all surface fluff and no substance.
I did a quick search, and the top results show up articles form McKinsey, Harvard Business School and London Business School (of course). Beyond pointing out these happy-talk reports are filled with the latest in trendy phrasemaking consultant-speak, they're an exercise in public relations communications to get the public/customers/employees to "buy-in" to the firm's good works--whatever it is, however it is explained. Just make sure you include the words "sustainable" and "sustainability." LOL.
You can't serve two masters. Either you're in business to make a profit, first and last. Or your venture has some other purpose and objective. The first endeavors to earn a return on its invested capital. The second consumes donated capital pursuing its purpose and objective.
Correct but if you don't eventually share with the shareholders you won't have any after a while. A lot of tech companies did not pay dividends for a long time, but most of them changed. I think they had too.
Berkshire still doesn't but that's because of Buffet's reputation.
A lot of tech companies when starting offered a choice of stock options or cash. The people who took the stocks made out, for the most part, better than the ones who took the cash. But it was a gamble. From what I've read it was the younger ones that took the options, older employees took the cash. Most, as they matured started to pay dividends. Meteoric rises only last for so long. Sooner or later it's "show me the money" and Trust in God, all others pay cash.
Love your work, but I'm a Grammar Nazi. The phrase is "rein in" (as to restrain a horse), and not "reign in" which I suppose may me to use legality. to do something?
And having managed a small business or two, I can assure you that not only do most (98%?) of your employees not understand the necessity of profit, they also (at least 50%) apparently that all revenue is profit and they should get more of the total revenue.
Agree, especially at the aggregate economy level. What is the best way for a no longer high flyer to transition to a steady ongoing low-growth business, something like the neighborhood hardware store? It's not hard to find useful businesses/products that get shut down as they get caught up in a larger growth push. Things as varied as orphan drugs, the new Wile E Coyote/Roadrunner movie, Harmony remote controls, etc.
Raising money in any form is a capitalist endeavor either in the source of the money or the use of the money. Capitalism is an economic system, not a social system.
The founders of Kickstarter wanted to create a company that achieved social outcomes -- hence the wokeism of pretending to be anti-capitalist, the whole B Corp nonsense, and the merry-go-round of CEOs each dedicated to the social outcome rather than being a responsible company.
The financial model for Kickstarter is easy -- provide a platform for the underserved creative to raise money and take a slice. When you "take a slice" you are a capitalist.
If you want to do "good" works then make a lot of money and fund your social objectives with your own money not the money of the company which is owned by its shareholders.
Kickstarter was the innovator and has now missed the wave. It is going nowhere.
Go woke, go broke.
JLM
www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com
The love of money is the root of all evil. Not money itself, which is just a tool. BTW…
That is the clarity many people need to understand. Thx for posting.
I think smart people kind of understand that intuitively but forget the “love of” part of the phrase. For dumb people, they start actually believing that money itself is evil and it becomes a mental prison. Leading to making excuses for unwise financial decisions and ultimately to envy and resentment of financially successful people. It’s why victimhood sells so well. It’s why they end up embracing socialism since it’s really just that they ultimately end up wanting to take other peoples money.
I suspect that most of the Carnegies and Fords and such were more interested in things than simple love of monsy.
The lust for power over other people is the root of all evil.
Attitude about capital. I had a support call with efirstbank. During the call it came up I was depositing rent for an office building. The Rep thought I was retired, I think Scrooge McDuck came into her mind... I explained flooded lobbies, leaking roofs, tenants that have issues with each other but it fell on deaf ears. AND SHE WORKS AT A BANK. If we don't make money the bank fails.
And as to art. With the underutilized Architecture degree, I wanted to product my own art. Now that mean an investment of several million dollars of my own and the bank’s money. I didn’t take any government tax credits (in fact in Boulder, they make you cut your veins to build --- it’s not the correct art) it was all me. As hoped, my art sold because someone appreciated the product.. and the design and function were part of the buyer’s decision making, and it was at the right price. Still Vitruvius after 2000 years: firmitas, utilitas, and venustas. Artists are particularly fooled by the need to sell one’s art. On this project the excavator’s son was going to Berkley Music in the fall. Looking particularly grumped on the mini-excavator, I advised “Music is a fickle business, but unlike you peers, you can jump on a machine and make $70 an hour” I don’t think he was particularly impressed. It’s my understanding he was successful in his music career ---so someone paid him for his skills, and he turned his labor and investment into capital.
Back to Attitude. On the above project I was there at 7 at night shoveling “Squeegee” to clear the waste pipe for the plumber showing up the next morning. There was no one to whom to delegate the task. It was about the time the whole “You didn’t build that” trope was about. I was thinking to myself, sweating, that I would hit anyone with my shovel who walked up to me that night and lectured me about not building this house.
Why do they think it’s all luxury? Yes. I enjoyed creating the home, which made the effort worthwhile. It’s not all about the money, it’s about the enjoyment of creation, the camaraderie on the jobsite, and other dopamine hits. But you have to make a buck to progress to the next project.
One of the amazing things about architecture is that it is not only your art, but your engineering skills to solve all the unforeseen real problems with "design and function." FYI I can't change a light bulb without a two trips to Home Depot and one to the ER.
Actually the biblical quotes are not about money being the root of evil but the LOVE of money. Ie money for its own sake.
People who build companies and corporations see money as a means too an end. Building the business, making it more successful. They wanted the money but wanted the business first.
Timothy 6:10 ESV
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.
Most of the other quotes state it's the LOVE of money not the money itself.
One of the thinks Bill Ackman mentioned in his VERY long interview with Lex Fridman was needing to figure out if management was in their position just for themselves, or were there for the company. If the former, it mean a new management team could turn the company around. Are you there for the money, or for the company?
I would say the best position is both. Not the money or the company but both the company AND the money. If the company grows the money should grow. If I do the work to help a company grow I want the money also. Too many people want the latter but don't want to do the former. Or they want the former but don't want to share the latter.
If you do the work you should get the money. If you want the money you should do the work.
Money is a byproduct if building and managing a great company. It's what you use to keep score, and pay shareholders for taking the risk on your company. If there are no shareholders, it's you and your employees.
Yes... it I implied otherwise forgive my description. Very good point. As a young guy, I didn't ask for money at times I should have. No one respects your ability or advice without paying you! This is a big topic, and I am thinking of the situation where if the narcissist is getting the job done, then fine. EXCEPT you must be careful of long and short term incentives. If they manage to the next quarterly and not for the long term you could be cutting your throat. Years ago I read an HBR article that said the best indicator of long term profitability (and that's what you want.. the long term annuity) is customer sat. You can't do that if you fire all of your good people with institutional knowledge for the short term hit.. Stock options should be spread out over 5/10/15 years AFTER the CEO has left....
Very true. Same obviously applies to politics. If you are only focused on the next election that's fine for you, not so much for everyone else. I think they are all narcissist to a large extent, both political and business. You show me a political narcissist, I'll show you a business one. And vice versa. The question is how do they manage it? If they can control it, Gates, Jobs, it works out well. Others like Shockley, not so much. Not sure on you time line. I think 15 might be too long for some people. 2/5/7/11 spread might be better. Have to give it some thought. Might depend on what the company makes or does.
I don't think unbridled capitalism always works. I think competition and open markets almost always work (unless someone cheats, like dumping steel to kill another county's industry). Sometimes you get a monopoly that uses it's power to crush potential competitors in the cradle. Google is getting there. Competition leads to improvement and profit, often for the winners as well as the also rans. As to philanthropy, contrast Dr Ruth Gottsman's gift to Einstein medical school with the money spent by philanthropies controlled by Soros and tech oligarchs. Want more and better physicians? Getting med students into practice without a zillion in debt to pay off opens the way for a lot of students. And it makes primary care a more affordable option. The Gottsman's wealth is based on wise investing with Warren Buffet. What a difference Gottsman will make. Meanwhile, the Soros DAs continue to instill chaos everywhere they have jurisdiction.
Unbridled capitalism includes competition and open markets
When a CEO says they have no interest in making a profit that is a public proclamation of a willingness to self-destruct. What an absurd statement.
So many of the failures of companies in the last decade to decade and a half can be traced to allowing a corporate culture to grow like a fungus, that contributed to a morphing of misplaced priorities. At what point does upper management not realize that without profits you don't survive? This would seem like a relatively simple concept to most people.
It's funny, I've known the name "Kickstarter" for years, but knew little about them--for good reason apparently. It confirms my experience starting more than two decades ago where entrepreneurs and funders (amongst others) were hectoring about "doing well by doing good," i.e., socially-responsible business (or investing), which has all the earmarks of a PR campaign--all surface fluff and no substance.
I did a quick search, and the top results show up articles form McKinsey, Harvard Business School and London Business School (of course). Beyond pointing out these happy-talk reports are filled with the latest in trendy phrasemaking consultant-speak, they're an exercise in public relations communications to get the public/customers/employees to "buy-in" to the firm's good works--whatever it is, however it is explained. Just make sure you include the words "sustainable" and "sustainability." LOL.
You can't serve two masters. Either you're in business to make a profit, first and last. Or your venture has some other purpose and objective. The first endeavors to earn a return on its invested capital. The second consumes donated capital pursuing its purpose and objective.
Correct but if you don't eventually share with the shareholders you won't have any after a while. A lot of tech companies did not pay dividends for a long time, but most of them changed. I think they had too.
Berkshire still doesn't but that's because of Buffet's reputation.
A lot of tech companies when starting offered a choice of stock options or cash. The people who took the stocks made out, for the most part, better than the ones who took the cash. But it was a gamble. From what I've read it was the younger ones that took the options, older employees took the cash. Most, as they matured started to pay dividends. Meteoric rises only last for so long. Sooner or later it's "show me the money" and Trust in God, all others pay cash.
Love your work, but I'm a Grammar Nazi. The phrase is "rein in" (as to restrain a horse), and not "reign in" which I suppose may me to use legality. to do something?
And having managed a small business or two, I can assure you that not only do most (98%?) of your employees not understand the necessity of profit, they also (at least 50%) apparently that all revenue is profit and they should get more of the total revenue.
Agree, especially at the aggregate economy level. What is the best way for a no longer high flyer to transition to a steady ongoing low-growth business, something like the neighborhood hardware store? It's not hard to find useful businesses/products that get shut down as they get caught up in a larger growth push. Things as varied as orphan drugs, the new Wile E Coyote/Roadrunner movie, Harmony remote controls, etc.