The 100m is not a sustainable model for a nation or world's economy. Everyone needs to eat, not just the single individual who runs fastest.
I agree with you that profitable businesses add value to everyone's lives, but there's a maximalist limit to the relationship where they start extracting value and opportunity overall.
Frankly, not all of the VC sphere is focused on value creation. Much of it seems focused on buzzwords and vaporware. Success in the VC world might mean keeping the hype and promises of hyperscale performance rolling long enough to successfully dump on retail. Sure, VCs and founders profit, but is it genuine value creation?
It is a symptom of an overly financialized economy. We should distinguish these cynical scenarios from genuinely profitable value creation.
1000% agree, thanks for the thoughtful reply
Your comment contradicts the "hyperscale or bust" mentality. Hyperscale is not a necessary condition to be competitive. You can put out a better product/service even before economies of scale are reachable. In the meantime, this hyperscale nonsense is nothing more than cargo cult mentality where the need for a sustainable business model is replaced with hand-waving and mindlessly repeating "hyperscale" as a mantra, which has been the death of countless startups.
To me, it seems exactly like the point of view that someone who wins the 100m would have.
> Nor to the US, whose system has if anything produced far too much food for its citizens.
Where people still starve, where people are still homeless, where people still live in poverty. What's your point here?
That's just your own assumption. Who cares what any of us imagines anyone else thinks? It's not really relevant.
Since you're responding and we're having a conversation about each other's opinions, I'd say it actually is relevant.