[drewcoo]

Or it could be that in tech entrepreneurship, goals are quarterly instead of long-term, they're measured in dollars instead of happiness and welfare, and completely failing, folding, and starting anew is admired and encouraged. This approach seems incompatible with the public good.

[TeMPOraL]

In tech entrepreneurship, goals are growth metrics that indicate the chance of for the business to have "an exit" in a year or two.

A startup that dies quickly after proving itself non-viable is a good thing, because it doesn't take money or attention from investors anymore. And if the founders were any good, they've learned things that will be useful on their next venture.

A startup that shows large exponential growth is the best, because the investors can sell the hot potato to a bigger fool before it implodes or gets gutted by the buyer. This kind of company is the whole reason behind tech investment.

The worst is the sustainable, slowly growing business. Such company isn't going to bring home 10x return for the investors. And it stubbornly refuses to die. The people running such company are more proven than random first-time founders, so it would be better, from investor POV, if they just killed their company and get back to the startup game.

Hence failing, folding and starting anew is admired and encouraged. Because it's better for the investors than succeeding, but not succeeding big.