Kind of right but of course it's not just a filter to make sure the right kind of people get funded.

But it is a bet that only matters if it pays 100 or 1000x. If it's not paying that it's as good as 0. That's why, most of the times, vc money does not benefit the company, unless it manages to have that insane level of growth. It's also frequently not in the best interest of the founder.

It’s pure credentialism and institutionalism.

Not a coincidence that folks with Ivy League degrees get showered with money, while kids from state schools end up doing all the drudge work that keeps infrastructure running.

VC is a poison pill. It’s not there to drive innovation but to filter down who has access to opportunities. Their ideas about what works or doesn’t are bad, and largely driven by the culture they are apart of. They worship elitism and credentials, but will the respect for those who are willing to do the work. It’s inherently extractive. They add nothing. Want to kill a business? Take VC money.

Its an excellent way to cash out of a mediocre idea. Also an excellent way to elevate a mediocre idea from a regional/niche/insider scam to a national stage.

Like most elements of our meritocracy

This comment doesn't even pass the smell test.

If every company that took VC money failed, VCs wouldn't make any money.

The reality is MOST VC investments fail, but the few who make it are home runs. This is how they make money. The risk/reward of your company was just not a favorable investment for them. Whether it's because you went to an Ivy League or not is irrelevant.

Without VCs, many of those homeruns would never be able to get off the ground and the US economy would be significantly less dynamic

Kind of need a valid replacement.

Edit The amount of downvotes versus provision of a valid replacement is telling

I agree.

Like, more people should ask themselves, what is the function of a society? Is it to merely deliver wealth to the ruling class? Is it to create endless growth for corporations? Is it to maintain the status quo at all costs?

No, when all is said and done, the core fundamental of society should be the following, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" meaning, if you are able to be a good teacher/ doctor/ engineer/ farmer/ programmer/ writer etc etc then do that. Do what you do well. Society requires all of the above to function effectively. However, on the other hand, as a reward or payment for this, you should be guaranteed all the things that a human needs, like housing, education, medical care, heat, food, water, transport, electricity, internet access etc.

Make sure everyone has at least what they need, so that people can then focus on what they want and like.

Now, the above lacks nuance and is probably a huge over simplification, but I truly believe modern society should be more in line with this philosophy. But it's not. It is largely designed to send wealth and profit to the 1% and everyone else be damned. And there is no good justifiable reason for it.

Elon Musk bought Twitter for 43 billion. His standard of living didn't change not one iota after the transaction. All he's done is piss people off and drive away staff and users alike since then. He doesn't need 43 billion. Heck, he doesn't even need 1 billion. How many people could be given a home, an education, a clean bill of health with that money. It sickens me to think about it.

But then, if you mention socialism or communism or Marx or Engels, then suddenly, you are the devil incarnate. Like, we don't need to be saluting statues of Lenin or or adding a hammer and sickle to flags, but maybe just implementing legislation that undoes that money siphon from the working class and ensures people have what they need isn't such an evil idea ffs.

Anyhow, feel free to downvote, just my thoughts.

What we have now is barely capitalism.

We have some of the most naked and predatory methods of rent seeking imaginable. How on earth is this "barely" capitalism? It is quintessential capitalism. A near-perfect engine of consolidation, profit-seeking, and value growth.

Back in the day, companies actually competed

Competition isn't the goal of existing capitalist enterprises. It raises unit costs and dilutes profit. Competition is only a means by which a large enterprise temporarily undercuts a smaller local enterprise, until it is starved of revenue and fails. To quote Peter Thiel, "Monopoly is the condition of every successful business."

If there’s no competition, markets can’t work.

The purpose of markets is to marry nodes in the supply chain at an auction rate. But once the marriages are made, the market no longer serves a purpose. Markets are only a transitory vehicle leading to full vertical integration of the supply chain.

Once you've achieved a vertical monopoly, your business model pivots to maximizing margins by raising prices and lowering costs. That's how you maximize profits. And maximizing profits is the only real goal of a private business enterprise.

you need a robust safety net so people aren’t destitute when some idiot like Musk drives a company into the ground

You don't want a robust safety net in a capitalist system. Safety nets create a subsidy for unemployment - functionally a wage floor, beyond which people would prefer to be unemployed. Without the threat of poverty hanging over a worker's head, you won't get the lowest possible wage rate for their labor. This drives up costs and cuts into profits, which is antithetical to the goals of a capitalist enterprise.

Musk driving his business into the ground serves the end goals of a capitalist system overall (even if it marginally inconveniences Musk and his lenders in the moment). The failure of his firm releases workers into the unemployment pool and allows competitors to hire them at a discount - potentially displacing existing workers who command a higher salary. While Musk's business flounders, the overall auto market prospers. The profit generated in an individual vehicle sale rises, as supply of vehicles contracts - driving prices up - and cost of labor falls - driving unit costs down.

This is good for the surviving pool of capitalists. Its even good for Musk, over the long term, as a higher rate of profit means more cheap money in the investment pool that he can borrow from in order to pursue his next project.

What do you think other word processors do today? Libreoffice?

No true scotsman would say such a thing.

Don't forget if you can get them to ipo, open a family office and setup some equity swaps with the bank to short over the float of the company without having to report it and rake in profit as they collapse from your untenable growth targets as well while letting the ip get gobbled up by your big chips and find the next sucker pitching his 'big idea'.

Couldn't agree more. My takeaway from three years working at a VC is that investors are fucking idiots, and lying to get investment is basically normal.

That’s a bit myopic. VC is just a fancy word for large financial backer.

You can basically credit the entire age of discovery (America, Australia, etc.) to “VC” in the form of kings and wealthy elite financing voyages.

I think modern VC goes awry when they become defacto decision makers for the venture in question.

Except for funding the majority of the companies that exist, you mean

Venture capital isn't "loaning money" though. The structure of the deal is fundamentally different from the terms you'd get from the bank. The bank wants principal + interest. VC wants people in your boardroom and a share of the company itself.

IDK if this difference seems subtle, but it's massive when it comes to the outcome of any company that currently makes a decent product and then gets tainted by the VC poison.

And yes, I agree that a standard loan is perfectly okay. Without that share of the company on the table, the lender can't steer the company off a cliff to increase its profits.