Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Discussion Why you cannot have a startup that is "Based"

mNFwTJ3wz9

mNFwTJ3wz9

This system is contradicting of failing, and yet -
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 17, 2019
Posts
9,519

How would a "Based" startup have any advantage?

They would basically be far more efficient and more productive. No foids = no workplace issues. etc. etc.

The problems?

Some random soys on twitter would destroy the reputation of your company. This would not generally effect anything under proper capitalism, but under this new model of survive by losing money and acquiring funding, you would get absolutely destroyed by soyposts on twitter.

Jerome Chang, the owner of Blankspaces, in Los Angeles, told me, “My average rate was five hundred and fifty dollars per desk per month, and I was just scraping by. Then WeWork arrived, and I had to drop it to four hundred and fifty, and then three hundred and fifty. It eviscerated my business.” Rebecca Brian Pan, who founded a co-working company named Covo, said, “No one could make money at these prices. But they kept lowering them so that they were cheaper than everyone else. It was like they had a bottomless bank account that made it impossible for anyone else to survive.”

Other observers argued that the S-1 laid bare a basic truth: WeWork’s dominant position in the co-working industry wasn’t a result of operational prowess or a superior product. Instead, WeWork had beaten its rivals because it had access to a near-limitless supply of funds, much of which it had squandered on expensive furniture, flamboyant perks, and promotions luring customers with below-market rents.

thanks to the prodigious bets made by today’s V.C.s, “money-losing firms can continue operating and undercutting incumbents for far longer than previously.” In the traditional capitalist model, the most efficient and capable company succeeds; in the new model, the company with the most funding wins. Such firms are often “destroying economic value”—that is, undermining sound rivals—and creating “disruption without social benefit.”

Article somewhat calls out the problem with (((financial bullshit))).

It was clear to everyone he was selling something too good to be true. He never pretended to be sensible, or down to earth, or anything besides a crazy optimist. But you can blame the venture capitalists.” Neuner went on, “When you get involved in the startup world, you meet all these amazing entrepreneurs with fantastic ideas, and, over time, you watch them get pushed by V.C.s to take too much money, and make bad choices, and grow as fast as possible. And then they blow up. And, eventually, you start to realize: no matter what happens, the V.C.s still end up rich.” ♦
 
The same theme again. It's not so much what you know but who you know.
 
Scam economy. That's all we have left now.
 

Similar threads

CosmicSerialKiller
Replies
21
Views
358
unionistcel
unionistcel
Clavicus Vile
Replies
16
Views
379
Rapistcel
Rapistcel
Castaway
Replies
11
Views
698
WorthlessSlavicShit
WorthlessSlavicShit
DeathSigil
Replies
9
Views
285
DeathSigil
DeathSigil
Dollfucker
Replies
15
Views
764
Jackdenswell
J

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top