[j245]

This is a common argument I hear, it just doesn’t hold water.

We should absolutely hold Big Tech accountable for their business models and actions.

On the whole though, they have released many orders of magnitude more useful things than Hedge Funds.

Is there a Citadel Maps I can use ? Or a TwoSigma framework like React ?

At least Big Tech has ad-powered useful services.

Hedge funds gobble up PhD holders and the cream of the crop and use them to make 0.1% of the population 5% wealthier ?

[giantg2]

"On the whole though, they have released many orders of magnitude more useful things than Hedge Funds."

Well no shit - you're comparing an entity that creates "things" to one that doesn't!

"gobble up PhD holders and the cream of the crop and use them to make 0.1% of the population 5% wealthier"

Um, Google does this with data scientists. Maybe they do create a useful app, but make no mistake that their primary goal is to make the stock owners (mostly the top 1%) richer off the backs of their unsuspecting users.

[j245]

You’ve missed the point…

An entity that puts nothing into the host system, but consumes resources from the host to fatten itself is a parasite.

In the case of hedge funds, it’s a zero-sum game. Either you or the counter party lose depending on how the bet goes. In aggregate, society gets nothing, but the cost of the net zero value is high (highly skilled people, taking resources away from other things). It’s profitable but net useless.

In the case of Google Maps, no one has to lose for me to make a journey. It’s profitable and useful.

Saying, ohh but they both operate in a capitalistic system to make money for shareholders is not relevant.

How is that money generated ?

[giantg2]

"An entity that puts nothing into the host system, but consumes resources from the host to fatten itself is a parasite."

You seem to miss how the system works. Those companies are where they are today because of financing. Stock purchases, including demand for existing shares drives that.

"In the case of Google Maps, no one has to lose for me to make a journey."

No, you trade your data (lose privacy) for that journey.

[j245]

> You seem to miss how the system works…

Yea, the way it works with hedge funds is, do whatever it takes to make a profit, underlying company be damned - see naked shorting GME.

Where is the “financing” in that?

What about all the companies that “got to where they are now” aka dissolved because shorting to oblivion would generate a profit ?

The fact you are scraping the bottom of the barrel and claiming that just buying stock = increasing demand = creating value should be a red flag.

“No, you trade your data”

How exactly does that happen in offline mode ?

[giantg2]

Sure an individual can use maps in offline mode, but if people did that at scale, Google would use a different revenue structure. Also you miss many if the valuable features built on that data, like traffic.

"Yea, the way it works with hedge funds is, do whatever it takes to make a profit, underlying company be damned - see naked shorting GME."

Who's scraping the bottom of the barrel now? Not all hedge funds operate that way.

"aka dissolved because shorting to oblivion would generate a profit?"

Please elaborate. Shorting does not itself lead to a company dissolving.

"claiming that just buying stock = increasing demand = creating value should be a red flag."

I've claimed no such thing. Stop straw manning. Demand for shares increases stock price, which allows the company to issue shares at a higher price, generating more capital for future expansion. The company can increase demand by increasing their value, either realized or speculative.

You seem to have an emotional vendetta against hedge funds and aren't interested in a real discussion from a systems thinking perspective. Hopefully some third party has gained something from this conversation, otherwise it was a complete waste of time.