Page 1 of 4
The New Admin Has Venture Plans
Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:59 pm
by MSimon
http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles ... 7949387991
Not well defined at this point. But something is up.
President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner recently declared a need to regulate venture capital firms on the grounds they pose systemic risk to our economy. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Venture capital is focused almost entirely on new technologies of small startup companies, the failure of which assuredly has no effect on the larger economy.
Not only does venture capital in Silicon Valley and elsewhere pose no systemic risk, it provides an essential engine of value-added innovation, invention and job creation. Perhaps more than any other differentiating attribute of American capitalism, venture capital makes our model the envy of the world.
So why would the Obama administration say they want to regulate venture capital firms? Some suggest that it may be an end run in the undeclared war on wealth because venture capital can create enormous fortunes outside of taxable income. But there are several other plausible answers.
It is unwise to attribute to malice alone that which can be attributed to malice and stupidity.
Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:46 pm
by Professor Science
I believe you have misstated that very important adage MSimon. Paranoia does not behoove you.
Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 8:56 pm
by MSimon
Professor Science wrote:I believe you have misstated that very important adage MSimon. Paranoia does not behoove you.
Actually I did not misstate it. I revised it. It is called Simon's Law. After the inventor.
You can find it by searching - Simon's Law M. Simon - It comes up #1. Out of 12.6 million on Google. Heh.
And you know from experience that malice has a lot of built in stupidity. So in that respect it may be somewhat redundant.
Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:43 am
by KitemanSA
MSimon wrote:And you know from experience that malice has a lot of built in stupidity. So in that respect it may be somewhat redundant.
Exactly what I had been thinking.
Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:08 am
by chrismb
MSimon wrote:And you know from experience that malice has a lot of built in stupidity. So in that respect it may be somewhat redundant.
I would suggest the inverse is the case;
Stupidity has a lot of built in malice - malice for knowledge, logic and understanding.
Particularly, stupidity by those who have influence in office certainly has embedded malice, for such positions demand that one familiarises oneself with extant knowledge and then evolves it, whereas a demonstration of stupidity reveals a lazy and negligent absence of such committment to learning and thinking, which would then suggest an arguably malicious intent to remain ignorant so one cannot be blamed (nor sense self-loathing) for not knowing.
Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:48 am
by MSimon
chrismb wrote:MSimon wrote:And you know from experience that malice has a lot of built in stupidity. So in that respect it may be somewhat redundant.
I would suggest the inverse is the case;
Stupidity has a lot of built in malice - malice for knowledge, logic and understanding.
Particularly, stupidity by those who have influence in office certainly has embedded malice, for such positions demand that one familiarises oneself with extant knowledge and then evolves it, whereas a demonstration of stupidity reveals a lazy and negligent absence of such committment to learning and thinking, which would then suggest an arguably malicious intent to remain ignorant so one cannot be blamed (nor sense self-loathing) for not knowing.
You should separate the incapable from the unwilling. And since one can never be sure I give people the benefit of the doubt. For at least 50 nanoseconds. Sometimes longer.
But I will say this: I have met stupid people who were not malicious. I have never observed the reverse.
Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 7:18 am
by chrismb
MSimon wrote:I will say this: I have met stupid people who were not malicious. I have never observed the reverse.
I concede your point, I was rather thinking of people in office, and was perhaps giving credit where it isn't due - that people in office are wittingly stupid rather than congenitally so else they should/could not have attained that status. But contemplating that thought, yes, there does appear to be indications that I am wrong!!!
Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:27 pm
by pfrit
MSimon wrote:But I will say this: I have met stupid people who were not malicious. I have never observed the reverse.
Every been to a beauty pagent?
Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 3:25 pm
by KitemanSA
pfrit wrote:Every been to a beauty pagent?
Are you equating competitive with malicious?
Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 3:40 pm
by pfrit
KitemanSA wrote:pfrit wrote:Every been to a beauty pagent?
Are you equating competitive with malicious?
Exact opposite. Most of the nicest people that I have met were idiots (Medically speaking, IQ < 90). It takes a certain amount of smarts to become really nasty.
Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 4:14 pm
by MSimon
pfrit wrote:KitemanSA wrote:pfrit wrote:Every been to a beauty pagent?
:? :? Are you equating competitive with malicious?
Exact opposite. Most of the nicest people that I have met were idiots (Medically speaking, IQ < 90). It takes a certain amount of smarts to become really nasty.
Up to a point. Where the malicious have problems is "and then what?". That is where they get really stupid.
Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 4:59 pm
by Helius
pfrit wrote:KitemanSA wrote:pfrit wrote:Every been to a beauty pagent?
Are you equating competitive with malicious?
Exact opposite. Most of the nicest people that I have met were idiots (Medically speaking, IQ < 90). It takes a certain amount of smarts to become really nasty.
90 approaches normal range. Idiot was a technical term to mean an IQ of less than 20. Moron's and Imbeciles had mental ranges up to 49 and 69 respectively. Above 69 is considered somewhat "deficient".
Not a fan of IQ, since most folks are dumber'n a sack of hammers about some things, while being a savant about others.
Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 5:16 pm
by pfrit
Helius wrote: 90 approaches normal range. Idiot was a technical term to mean an IQ of less than 20. Moron's and Imbeciles had mental ranges up to 49 and 69 respectively. Above 69 is considered somewhat "deficient".
Not a fan of IQ, since most folks are dumber'n a sack of hammers about some things, while being a savant about others.
I stand corrected. Change my remark to Imbecile and < 70. My facetious point remains the same.
Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:55 pm
by Roger
Not a surprising reaction. But I remember Libs claiming Bush was going to declare marshal law and toss us in camps. And likely thats what this is, knee jerk whining just like the Libs.
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:09 am
by MSimon
Roger wrote:Not a surprising reaction. But I remember Libs claiming Bush was going to declare marshal law and toss us in camps. And likely thats what this is, knee jerk whining just like the Libs.
Roger,
The drying up of Venture Capital is serious. It is real (at least if you can believe anecdotal comments on the 'net).
Sarbanes-Oxley hammered VC. This latest threat may be the last straw. Now it may not materialize. But until the landscape appears out of the fog every one is walking cautiously to avoid going over a cliff.
Look at comment #9 here:
http://pajamasmedia.com/edgelings/2009/ ... nd-losers/
Simon