Tuesday, 5 April 2016

Hope for the future


It’s easy to be pessimistic about the future, and curmudgeonly about younger folk. See.

Alex Epstein from the Center for Industrial Progress takes another view:

For the past several years I've thought that the Internet-dominated world will exacerbate certain kinds of problems for certain young people (manifested through all sort of addictive behavior and inability to concentrate on anything important) but enable other young people to become far more capable and productive than I and other "high performers" were at their age.
    I am thoroughly enjoying the latter category these days. One example is a group of high school freshman that are in my
Atlas Shrugged reading group. Another example is the applicant pool I've gotten since I posted last week that we're a) hiring and b) putting together a volunteer "champions network." These "kids'" understanding of value creation and their ability to create value right out of college is so far beyond what mine was at 22.
    If indeed there is a trend of ability skewing younger in our society that is good news for good ideas, because it is far easier to persuade youth of new truths than it is to persuade an entrenched establishment.

Start-up entrepreneur Danielle Morrill has a similar view, based on what she says of female founders of start-ups like hers:





  1. Agreed. As we get older there's a common tendency to only notice the negatives of younger generations, and not see the positives. Every generation seems to think the younger generation is taking us to hell, but thet can't be the case (more often than not), because if it were the human race would not be progressing like it is.

  2. Goodness, firms like mattermark and a host of other Silicon valley type tech companies are nt real business at all. If e did not have this zero interest rate policy and VC money highly concentrated in one group none of these companies would ever even be funded. mattermark will never make a profit--it is yet another SV con. This, of course, is not limited to "female founders", but certainly they are among those who lead the pack, and they are often just fronts.

    The whole Hi tech world is mostly just fraud. Do you really think that Facebook has an actual economic value greater than GM? Why is there really only one search engine, one social net work, and one online store? If there were such meaningful opportunities then we sould see some serious competition. Imagine in the late 19th century that there could be only one department chain in the entire nation.

    I would think that Libertairians would have a better understanding of what is going on in tech.

    Ms Morrill firm will no doubt get some money out of it somehow for her major backers, and they will see she gets something out of it, but most of the investors in that firm will get royally screw? How is this "adding value". How is yet another finacial analyst firm creating anything of value. We are now living in an "economy" that has over 10% of in composed of "financial services". How is this "productive"? How can this possibly work?

    Ms Morrill is just part of the con, and at the tip of the ponzi scheme.

  3. Are millennials still children at 25? At 30?



1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.