[dachworker]

From my European perspective, VC capital increases social mobility for the "engineering class" and the builders of society. Those who have talent but no access to capital. The alternative is, that there is no VC capital and only people who are already wealthy are allowed to undertake entrepreneurial ventures. Is that somehow better?

So I think VC firms reduce wealth inequality over all.

[gadders]

Yes, but sadly only 8 or 9% of people in tech companies in the UK are from a lower socio-economic background, so you're really just making some middle class people richer.

[vdvsvwvwvwvwv]

Yes this makes sense. VC has created more billionaires which isn't bad: I'd swap an Elon or a Bezos for 200 billionaires with different viewpoints.

Same with mortgages: they unfortunately push up house prices, but more ordinary people end up owning their home. They also allow capital to build new homes (modulo planning laws)

[makerdiety]

It kinda really upsets me that you believe a strain of liberal-democratic sociopolitics is capable of hosting technological and scientific innovation. A bunch of arrogant, proud, or overconfident nerds are not actually destined knights of capital. Why should a bunch of mediocre dweebs matter and get affirmative action and its access to upward capital mobility?

Instead, people should have to prove themselves. They should prove that they are worthy of the resources needed to perform great technological and economic deeds. A monarchical family dynasty is one of the best natural selection aligned filters for that decision making job. Not populist crypto-socialist Marxism (which is what Silicon Valley's pseudo-meritocratic venture capital investment funding ends up looking like).

So, there should be a return to an endorsing of royal families as part of a clear indication of ability and responsibility. If modern society is collapsing right now, then it's surely because civilization incorrectly selected the wrong ethnicities and races to lead society. So, a great reset is in order to correct a huge bio-cultural mistake that was made. Part of the mistake and strategic lesson to learn from was that recent history decided to force mediocre and stagnating genetic bloodlines to the top positions of industry and management. That's especially fatal when efficiency maximizing Malthusian conditions are being approached in the area of responsible leadership for hard, large scale problems like distributed systems engineering and operation.

Queen Elizabeth the Second of England, someone who is supposed to be ordained by God to lord over countries and empires, died while having done nothing sitting on her dysgenic fat arse. She didn't contribute to the development of a new and robust software development framework. Therefore, evolutionary Darwinism strikes back in a sneaky, subtle form; God brings down a matriarchal wrath upon misbehaving human bosses like in Christianity's eschatological mythology. That picture is easy to understand, yes?