Comment by lake99 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lake99 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> I have nothing against the kickstarter approach. But it is insane to allow individuals to collectively donate millions to dollars to ventures without any ownership stake while at the same time barring them from funding the same projects and receiving an ownership stake in return.

In other words, "I have nothing against kickstarter, but it is insane to allow kickstarter to exist as it is". Contradiction alert!

> Almost all the criticisms of capitalism are derived from the pathologies of institutional fiduciary capitalism.

Having read on and discussed the topic extensively, I'd say that "almost all" is completely unjustified.

> However we can do better than allowing individuals to donate money on a hope and a prayer.

Odd seeing such a claim from a self-confessed supporter of capitalism.

> If we want capitalism to become less selfish, we need to enable each individual to become a capitalist.

Does he mean like owners of capital assets doing what they wish with it, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others?

That comment isn't anti-Kickstarter. It's saying: since KS exists, why aren't we also allowed to do this better thing?

Exactly. The article is not saying it's insane to allow Kickstarter donations, it's insane that current law makes it just fine to donate to a risky venture but not to invest and get a chance to share in the venture's upside.

The two are utterly different. A donation necessarily means you no longer have the money, and will not be getting it back. Even a purchase generally means you wont get it back (that is, under normal conditions, I'm not going to get $100 selling a gadget I bought for $100). This sort of (non-)"risk" is understood by everyone, and there has never been an epidemic of people losing their retirements because they donated to a cause or purchased a gadget, even causes and gadgets that turn out to be outright scams.

An investment is not supposed to be a permanent and total loss of capital. On the contrary, the intent is to get more out than you put in. People depend on their investments for their financial futures. And there is a well-documented history of vast numbers of people losing everything to bad investments, especially investments pushed by scam artists from the small to the very large (like Madoff and Stanford).

Fair enough. I don't actually have a settled opinion on the matter. I was, however, pretty sure the author was being misrepresented as being against Kickstarter-style donations, and wanted to clarify.

author of the post here - this is exactly what I meant.

I wouldn't have interpreted it the way I did, had you written "I have nothing against the kickstarter approach. But when individuals are allowed to collectively donate millions to dollars to ventures without any ownership, it is insane to bar them from funding the same projects and receiving an ownership stake in return."

This retains most of your words, but what you find insane is less ambiguous now.

Thanks for confirming the clarification. I'm all for power-to-the-people.

on the "less selfish" nature of individual capitalism, I simply mean that our economic actions when we deal with our own money are often motivated by many considerations other than the purely economic. Kickstarter is an excellent example of this.

But when I act as a fiduciary responsible for investing someone else's money, I have to maximise economic return by law.

By allowing the masses to invest in small businesses, we obviously allow them to participate in the economic returns from these businesses. But we also allow them to express their more charitable altruistic goals within a well-developed framework where they can be more confident that their money is being put to good use. If nothing else, as an owner I am entitled to receive regular audited financial reports.

> But when I act as a fiduciary responsible for investing someone else's money, I have to maximise economic return by law.

No, you don't! That you say this just highlights how uninformed and unqualified you are to have written this article.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com