2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[Hootiefish]

Originally Posted by Boo

I thought you were suspended?

I got 24 hours for calling the year 2020 the c-word. Apparently I’m not supposed to post here again, but I didn’t get in trouble for anything associated with this thread specifically, I just used a bad word in the thread.

If I get the big boot, so be it, I guess.

[tier1dc]

Originally Posted by Clark

I thought Trump went to the hospital by helicopter?

His joyride. You know he's talking about his little spin around Walter Reed gates.

[Clark]

Originally Posted by tier1dc

His joyride. You know he's talking about his little spin around Walter Reed gates.

No joke, I read a post on Twitter and the author alleged Trump knew he had Covid during the debate and was trying to spread it to Biden and kill him. hahahahaha

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by mike1498

Okay for starters, any VC firm will tell you that a high amount of start ups fail. This is not something I think lower income people should be investing in. Obviously they are free to do what they want, but they're better off just buying a lottery ticket. VC firms can handle a bunch of bad eggs because they just need 10-20% of the millions of dollars they invest to be successful. Lower income people can't create a portfolio a venture capitalist can.

Usually startups want something along with capital. 3000 people offering 1k isn't anything more than capital. These people don't offer anything strategic and are just bodies. In the early stages, most successful start ups find a good business partner. Also with all those shares, you still need at least 1-2 big investors. What investor is going to want to get involved in a company that is currently only valued at 1 million but already has 3000 investors? You can't apply the logic of stocks with startups. Stocks work because they are shares of an already established business plan. That doesn't mean they won't fail, it just means they have a better track record.

I'd be curious if you could find me a venture capital book either written by the entrepreneur or the VC that suggests the idea of having 3000 investors in the early stages. It's too much up keep for the current level of the company.

They absolutely can build a diversified portfolio of small scale VC investments, whether at $10k, $1k or even $100 each. A similar principle applies to crowdfunding companies, but in this case micro VC allows for small contributors to have a financial stake in start-ups.

You’re maybe looking at things primarily from the perspective of the wealthy VC, not the start-up. If the budding company decides they want large scale VC’s to be involved in their initial fundraising efforts, that’s their decision but it’s unfair to act as though the only way to build a successful business is through partnering with deep-pocketed investors.

If a start-up already has a synthesized vision and is only in need of capital investment, whether the money comes from an angel investor or 3000 small time VC’s with sub-10k contributions makes little difference.

I’m unclear what you mean by too much upkeep for an early stage company.

Typed from my phone so possible errors in this post.

[Alvarez09]

Originally Posted by Clark

No joke, I read a post on Twitter and the author alleged Trump knew he had Covid during the debate and was trying to spread it to Biden and kill him. hahahahaha

I don't think he would try to kill him.....but I don't put it past him to know he had it and not back out of the debate to avoid looking weak.

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

They absolutely can build a diversified portfolio of small scale VC investments, whether at $10k, $1k or even $100 each. A similar principle applies to crowdfunding companies, but in this case micro VC allows for small contributors to have a financial stake in start-ups.

You’re maybe looking at things primarily from the perspective of the wealthy VC, not the start-up. If the budding company decides they want large scale VC’s to be involved in their initial fundraising efforts, that’s their decision but it’s unfair to act as though the only way to build a successful business is through partnering with deep-pocketed investors.

If a start-up already has a synthesized vision and is only in need of capital investment, whether the money comes from an angel investor or 3000 small time VC’s with sub-10k contributions makes little difference.

I’m unclear what you mean by too much upkeep for an early stage company.

Typed from my phone so possible errors in this post.

I'm actually reading "Venture Deals" by Brad Feld right now. Although Brad Feld was a VC, the book is coauthored with his entrepreneur friend who explains from the side of the entrepreneur. I'd say it's as fair as possible from both sides with even the likes of Fitbit CEO, Twitter CEO and a couple other initial entrepreneurs.

We like to think all funding is created equal which it is not. Obviously the earlier the investment, the greater the stake because you take on more risk. In the beginning you'll start off with your angel investor, but eventually you'll need more capital. Unless you plan on never becoming a multimillion dollar company (which I assume the goal is) you will eventually need an investor who is investing hundreds of thousands of dollars up to millions. He is not going to want to deal with 3000 investors. It doesn't make sense. It's also easier to get capital from one person. You know how much time it would take to get the millions you could get from one investor from hundreds of thousands of investors? By the time you need the money your company will be dead. The book says basically the only two things that matter is control and economics. Regardless of your belief, eventually they will need a big investor. They are not going to deal with 3000 already investors. At that point, shares are probably very diluted. There is a reason it's hard to get into private markets in a CAPITALIST society. Because you really aren't needed unless you're pockets are deep. I can not think of a benefit of having 3000 investors from either side. When your company becomes successful, you would need 3000 people to sign off when you sell the company.

The running joke is how lawyers are the worst part of the process. Imagine 3000.

Also here's another thing to think about. You're invested in Apple (I know that's a corporation but it's easier to think of this terms of shares). Do you feel more comfortable with the guy at the top who is making the day to day decisions to have the most shares in the company or have every investor equally invested? If you start a startup with 3000 people, who is involved in management? Someone always needs to manage a company. I'm not saying it has to be 1 person but it can't be 3000. There's just too much conflicting management.

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by mike1498

I'm actually reading "Venture Deals" by Brad Feld right now. Although Brad Feld was a VC, the book is coauthored with his entrepreneur friend who explains from the side of the entrepreneur. I'd say it's as fair as possible from both sides with even the likes of Fitbit CEO, Twitter CEO and a couple other initial entrepreneurs.

We like to think all funding is created equal which it is not. Obviously the earlier the investment, the greater the stake because you take on more risk. In the beginning you'll start off with your angel investor, but eventually you'll need more capital. Unless you plan on never becoming a multimillion dollar company (which I assume the goal is) you will eventually need an investor who is investing hundreds of thousands of dollars up to millions. He is not going to want to deal with 3000 investors. It doesn't make sense. It's also easier to get capital from one person. You know how much time it would take to get the millions you could get from one investor from hundreds of thousands of investors? By the time you need the money your company will be dead. The book says basically the only two things that matter is control and economics. Regardless of your belief, eventually they will need a big investor. They are not going to deal with 3000 already investors. At that point, shares are probably very diluted. There is a reason it's hard to get into private markets in a CAPITALIST society. Because you really aren't needed unless you're pockets are deep. I can not think of a benefit of having 3000 investors from either side. When your company becomes successful, you would need 3000 people to sign off when you sell the company.

Structurally the 3000 investors still own minority stakes in the company, and no controlling interest.

Again, I’m not sure why you’re contending that a private company eventually needs a single high-dollar investor in order to succeed. After an initial round of funding (especially if significant), a company could

There are specific instances in which your theory applies, but you will also not find theory on micro investments and crowdfunding written by those following the traditional VC entrepreneurial investment model.

Yes, there are structural changes that would take place in order to accommodate micro VC, although from my understanding the greatest barrier is actually regulations that only allow for formal VC investments above a certain dollar value.
I think I remember it being something like $300k is needed in order to form an official VC partnership, but don’t quote me on the figure or which regulatory barriers still exist preventing crowdfunding VC investment.

Shares don’t apply until a company is publicly traded, so in this case whatever legally binding documents put in place for micro VCs would be able to be transferred to another micro VC or sold back to the company majority owners seeking to sell (if that were the case).

Again I welcome corrections on legalities, but when discussing theory my assertions still apply that micro investment could supplant many circumstances of traditional VC funding.

*typed From my phone. Errors likely

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

Structurally the 3000 investors still own minority stakes in the company, and no controlling interest.

Again, I’m not sure why you’re contending that a private company eventually needs a single high-dollar investor in order to succeed. After an initial round of funding (especially if significant), a company could

There are specific instances in which your theory applies, but you will also not find theory on micro investments and crowdfunding written by those following the traditional VC entrepreneurial investment model.

Yes, there are structural changes that would take place in order to accommodate micro VC, although from my understanding the greatest barrier is actually regulations that only allow for formal VC investments above a certain dollar value.
I think I remember it being something like $300k is needed in order to form an official VC partnership, but don’t quote me on the figure or which regulatory barriers still exist preventing crowdfunding VC investment.

Shares don’t apply until a company is publicly traded, so in this case whatever legally binding documents put in place for micro VCs would be able to be transferred to another micro VC or sold back to the company majority owners seeking to sell (if that were the case).

Again I welcome corrections on legalities, but when discussing theory my assertions still apply that micro investment could supplant many circumstances of traditional VC funding.

*typed From my phone. Errors likely

So let me be clear. You are saying in an early rounds of funding, you believe most people would be okay with low equity stake and no management in a very high risk investment? The entrepreneur would be the only one running the company? What does the entrepreneur have to lose if he wants to start another venture tomorrow? Like I also said before, that's 3001 lawyers. Is it even worth it to me to hire a lawyer if I'm only into the company for 1k and minimal stake?

Are you talking like a kickstarter? That's different than a VC. Investors don't get anything besides usually one unit of the product if the donate enough.

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by mike1498

So let me be clear. You are saying in an early rounds of funding, you believe most people would be okay with low equity stake and no management in a very high risk investment? The entrepreneur would be the only one running the company? What does the entrepreneur have to lose if he wants to start another venture tomorrow? Like I also said before, that's 3001 lawyers. Is it even worth it to me to hire a lawyer if I'm only into the company for 1k and minimal stake?

Are you talking like a kickstarter? That's different than a VC. Investors don't get anything besides usually one unit of the product usually if the donate enough.

Crowdfunding companies like Kickstarter, people are willing to donate with the knowledge that they will never have equity in the start-up projects.
Many of those projects operate on a low scale because there is zero equity so it isn’t a true investment.

In micro VC, investors receive a legal stake in the company knowing full well they are taking risk, like any other investment. They could sell their stake contracts to other individuals, and would mostly operate only as financiers.
Each start-up creates its own structure for micro stakeholders.

Micro VCs would have the responsibility of deciding which companies to invest in therefore would be unlikely to throw money at a start-up without proper company framework and financial investment from the entrepreneur.

The entrepreneur could also sell off their own stake in their project to micro investors willing/interested in taking more active roles in the start-ups.
Why would an entrepreneur quit on a well-funded project they’ve sunken time, energy and financial investment in? They would still be stakeholders in their own companies of course.

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

Crowdfunding companies like Kickstarter, people are willing to donate with the knowledge that they will never have equity in the start-up projects.
Many of those projects operate on a low scale because there is zero equity so it isn’t a true investment.

In micro VC, investors receive a legal stake in the company knowing full well they are taking risk, like any other investment. They could sell their stake contracts to other individuals, and would mostly operate only as financiers.
Each start-up creates its own structure for micro stakeholders.

Micro VCs would have the responsibility of deciding which companies to invest in therefore would be unlikely to throw money at a start-up without proper company framework and financial investment from the entrepreneur.

The entrepreneur could also sell off their own stake in their project to micro investors willing/interested in taking more active roles in the start-ups.
Why would an entrepreneur quit on a well-funded project they’ve sunken time, energy and financial investment in? They would still be stakeholders in their own companies of course.

I had to look up micro VC's because I've never heard of thousands of people investing in seed rounds. On Wikipedia, it just says venture capital funds that invest in seed stages. It doesn't say anything about thousands of people investing. Can you give me an example of one that actually exists that has thousands of investors in the seed rounds?

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by mike1498

I had to look up micro VC's because I've never heard of thousands of people investing in seed rounds. On Wikipedia, it just says venture capital funds that invest in seed stages. It doesn't say anything about thousands of people investing. Can you give me an example of one that actually exists that has thousands of investors in the seed rounds?

I read the wiki article a minute ago. It draws some similarities to what I’m referring to but not quite.

I just pulled these articles from the web that more in the vein of my posts:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i...owdfunding.asp

https://www.findevgateway.org/interv...cial-inclusion

I think I said this before, but there are still regulatory hurdles and structural issues needing development to properly implement and make accessible microinvesting for the mainstream.

This is an older article published either in 2013 or 2014 discussing the early stage analysis of crowdfunding investment solutions.

https://caia.org/aiar/access/article-882

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

I read the wiki article a minute ago. It draws some similarities to what I’m referring to but not quite.

I just pulled these articles from the web that more in the vein of my posts:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i...owdfunding.asp

https://www.findevgateway.org/interv...cial-inclusion

I think I said this before, but there are still regulatory hurdles and structural issues needing development to properly implement and make accessible microinvesting for the mainstream.

This is an older article published either in 2013 or 2014 discussing the early stage analysis of crowdfunding investment solutions.

https://caia.org/aiar/access/article-882

Let me ask you the next question then. Do you think people who need UBI should be investing in EXTREMLY illiquid assets? I mean I guess it does exist to some extent but I think there's a reason it doesn't exist mainstream.

[Alvarez09]

Originally Posted by mike1498

Let me ask you the next question then. Do you think people who need UBI should be investing in EXTREMLY illiquid assets? I mean I guess it does exist to some extent but I think there's a reason it doesn't exist mainstream.

I think that it would give people more disposable income to do so and take that risk. I am not 100% sure what would be the cutoff for UBI though so that is a valid point, but if you invest in one start up at 500-1000 a year it shouldn't be too much of a burden.

THis has veered off topic a lot, but in general I think a large chunk of money that would go to people for UBI would go back into the economy in one way or the other, and I think you could argue likely a much larger chunk of money would make its way into the economy than what happens when we give tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy, unless you consider stock buybacks truly being money working its way into the economy.

Again, for me it comes down to that I would rather give the poor that money than the mega rich who have shown that they will not reinvest most of that money.

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by Alvarez09

I think that it would give people more disposable income to do so and take that risk. I am not 100% sure what would be the cutoff for UBI though so that is a valid point, but if you invest in one start up at 500-1000 a year it shouldn't be too much of a burden.

THis has veered off topic a lot, but in general I think a large chunk of money that would go to people for UBI would go back into the economy in one way or the other, and I think you could argue likely a much larger chunk of money would make its way into the economy than what happens when we give tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy, unless you consider stock buybacks truly being money working its way into the economy.

Again, for me it comes down to that I would rather give the poor that money than the mega rich who have shown that they will not reinvest most of that money.

See now you're just being irrational. 50% of business fail by year 5. You want to allow people who are being subsidized by the rich to be able to gamble away money on "crowdfunding" for a 50% chance of a return? Wasn't the benchmark so people could pay necessities? Now we need to pay for people to make high risk investments that have very little liquidity? It's better that low income people stay out of venture capital. You rarely hear of this "crowdfunding" because there isn't really an upside for the VCs and the entrepreneur and it really is too risky for people who can't invest a lot of money into it. Shark tank gives a false reality of what VC actually is. Although I'll agree at that stage its more of an art than a science, I doubt 90% of people would actually know what to look for in a "safe" startup. It's a dumpster fire waiting to happen.

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by mike1498

Let me ask you the next question then. Do you think people who need UBI should be investing in EXTREMLY illiquid assets? I mean I guess it does exist to some extent but I think there's a reason it doesn't exist mainstream.

The UBI, from my understanding, is a more consistent stimulus which will account for the economic peaks and valleys the country will inevitably go through. It's a blanket for people to meet basic needs, and for those operating in the low-middle income brackets to have expendable income to cycle back into the economy in whichever ways they choose. Mark Cuban has proposed a dividend which cannot be saved, but rather either cycled back into the economy over a 2-4 week period or lost back to the government if not spent.

Both proposals allow citizens/consumers to invest in whichever directions they so choose while accounting for the potential future job/wage losses due to technological progress and efficiency.

Should someone dependent on a UBI for their basic needs be reinvesting in high-risk, illiquid assets? No and I don't expect all or even most Americans to become involved in start-up microinvesting, regardless of any potential UBI, but both concepts create further entry points for a more balanced economy.

Originally Posted by Alvarez09

I think that it would give people more disposable income to do so and take that risk. I am not 100% sure what would be the cutoff for UBI though so that is a valid point, but if you invest in one start up at 500-1000 a year it shouldn't be too much of a burden.

THis has veered off topic a lot, but in general I think a large chunk of money that would go to people for UBI would go back into the economy in one way or the other, and I think you could argue likely a much larger chunk of money would make its way into the economy than what happens when we give tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy, unless you consider stock buybacks truly being money working its way into the economy.

Again, for me it comes down to that I would rather give the poor that money than the mega rich who have shown that they will not reinvest most of that money.

[SleeperCards]

UBI isn't socialism, UBI in the form Andrew Yang suggests is capitalism that doesn't start at $0.

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by Alvarez09

Again, for me it comes down to that I would rather give the poor that money than the mega rich who have shown that they will not reinvest most of that money.

Not sure what that means. The mega rich didn't become mega rich by putting their money in a hole in the back yard. Of course they reinvest their money.

As for giving to the poor, that sounds great until you realize what the poor do with extra money.

[ballhawkdawk]

Originally Posted by rcmb3220

What specifically was great about RDPD? I read it about 20 years ago and thought it is was vague and incorrect. I almost stopped reading when he said track of houses instead of tract. He also claimed you could write off business expenses that everyone knows you can’t and that home mortgages are callable. T t hard from what I can remember.

I couldn’t “specifically” tell you what’s great about anything I’ve ever read. I read these books for my own interest and don’t take notes. I can give a more general answer...

RDPD is a low level, easy to follow book with anecdotes on success. For me, it was a general starting point, an eye opener type book that helps you realize what is possible with the right mindset and the right approach. It’s the kind of book I’d recommend for someone looking to begin to generate wealth and improve financial intelligence but doesn’t know where to start.

The other two books I mentioned are harder reads (for me, anyway) due to the time period of the writing, but they hold up over time, and that’s what’s so impressive. Think and Grow Rich is better than RDPD in that it provides more actual guidelines to follow and stronger anecdotes, but I don’t think that diminishes RDPD. If you said RDPD was too general, had some mistakes, and the entire backstory is suspect, I wouldn’t argue, but I can easily discard these things to pull what I find valuable.

[Alvarez09]

Originally Posted by coachnip13

Not sure what that means. The mega rich didn't become mega rich by putting their money in a hole in the back yard. Of course they reinvest their money.

As for giving to the poor, that sounds great until you realize what the poor do with extra money.

A lot of the mega rich though did simply get born into it. See them Walton family heirs.

Also, what do the poor do with extra money? We do know what the rich do with extra money...they hoard it. It is why the wealth gap has exploded the last few decades as they have accumulated more and more of the wealth in this country at everyone else’s expense.

[gopherfan]

Originally Posted by Alvarez09

What are your ideas? The greatest economy we had in our country also had the highest taxes. It allowed us to take on a huge project like the interstate highway system, which is something we could never accomplish today.

Again, unless there are a bunch of multimillionaires in here, the taxes I want imposed would impact literally none of you. Why you shill for the megarich when you will likely never be in that group is simply beyond me.

I’ll never be black, Hispanic, Native, a woman, a Jew, etc. but I shill for them. I don’t advocate taking from someone just because they are successful. If everyone paid the same percent, we would pay off the debt quickly, and maybe, just maybe, people would quit voting to raise taxes all the time.

[gopherfan]

Originally Posted by rcmb3220

Fun fact: of all the people that started reading Atlas Shrugged, less than 10 finished it.

Sweet, I’m one of 10 in the world.

[Alvarez09]

Originally Posted by gopherfan

I’ll never be black, Hispanic, Native, a woman, a Jew, etc. but I shill for them. I don’t advocate taking from someone just because they are successful. If everyone paid the same percent, we would pay off the debt quickly, and maybe, just maybe, people would quit voting to raise taxes all the time.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here? If it’s a flat tax it I’d a terrible idea.

[gopherfan]

Originally Posted by Alvarez09

I am not going to deny it is doable. However in the richest country in the world it shouldn’t be so incredibly hard and terrible to do. That is my point overall. You shouldn’t have to live off Ramen And live on $300 a month after you pay all your bills If you work a full-time job

At first it was a living wage. Now it is not enough spending money.

[Alvarez09]

Originally Posted by gopherfan

At first it was a living wage. Now it is not enough spending money.

What after you talking about? Bills don’t include food, gas, and day to day expenses.

Let them eat cake, right? The attitude that the poor should just “make it work or die” is disgusting.

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by Alvarez09

A lot of the mega rich though did simply get born into it. See them Walton family heirs.

And they spend millions upon millions of dollars. Rich people don't put it in the bank and live on the basics.

Originally Posted by Alvarez09

Also, what do the poor do with extra money? We do know what the rich do with extra money...they hoard it. It is why the wealth gap has exploded the last few decades as they have accumulated more and more of the wealth in this country at everyone else’s expense.

Maybe because thinking beyond Friday night is sound personal fiscal policy. If you want to know what the poor do with extra money, ask Wal Mart about the spike in big screen TV sales after the stimulus checks went out.