|
|
|
|
|
by R0b0t1
1662 days ago
|
|
People who don't really understand the cause and can find employment separate from it likely aren't committed to it. A banker may not have the necessary training to understand what is going on and likely can find employment with someone else who needs paperwork filed. They may be necessary but putting them in charge of the money is a bad idea because they don't have expertise on the things they are deciding and get paid lots of money (but maybe slightly less) even if they are wrong. In some cases they just rig the rules so they never lose. To be clear what was happening was random gadgets or improvements to an existing product would be discussed, and then invariably we'd see it later. You can claim it was inevitable but if we knew years before they ever did it then the only reason we weren't the ones making money was a lack of capital. |
|
I understand your point.
But all that is just saying “The only reason I am not Batman is my lack of batsuit, mansion and a butler”.
Most important, I think “technological insights” are overrated. Insights are valued exactly because among investors tech savviness comes rare. But If you want to play in the same field, you need all the other pieces and skills (including the capital, but you might also get hired as an analyst or consultant, so it does not seem to be a critical blocker of capitalizing your knowledge).
So what really stops you from “fighting crime”?