|
From the outside looking it, I would say it just looks like a rational model is being imposed on a chaotic system as a means to control and understand the risks. Can we take it for granted that the primary motivation of investors and entrepreneurs is to make money (aka prestige/power/status), and things like changing the world, enjoying their work/team, creativity and other motivations are secondary? If so, since investors start with the money (prestige/power/status), they have the upper hand in a rational model, where successful investment always pays back dividends. The cause of this situation is the accepted superiority of money (prestige/power/status) and the way investments are structure to ensure the return of more of it to the ones making the investment. The only alternative would be a kind of philanthropy, where investors gave money (spent as capital and income on necessities), without asking for a return, to those they believed would do the most good with it. Personally, I think that there are other ways to acquire/demonstrate social status other than money, but they aren't as easy to use in algorithms and economic models, so they aren't given as much attention. I think people need to spend more cycles on considering these other ways of measuring status. Certainly we can't dispense with money, because it makes perfect sense to use a common way of measuring the value of most everyday things. But in terms of how you measure a person's significance and contribution to their society, I think it's very limited. EDIT: some examples of alternatives to money which bequeath status, and which can work as currency or to enhance bargaining position: unique or protected (patented) knowledge, talent (artistic, athletic), beauty, perceived wisdom (spiritual), nobility/heritage. All of these are familiar, but subverting bankers/investors seems to always involve having access to some amount of one or more of these, because it can be translated into followers (audience, buyers). The growing pool of entrepreneur/labour may have some amount of hustling skill, but if it's not unique, then it is doomed to be commoditized. Anyone who is trying to emulate a Gates, Jobs, Zuck, or other uber-hustler is automatically not unique, and therefor expanding the replaceable pool. Anyone who can acquire followers independently of capital is on to something new. They can escape the dictates of the imposed model and set their own terms, because they have a different sort of capital. |
An 'entrepreneur' would look at investors as bags of resources, which he will leverage to enrich himself. To an 'entrepreneur' investment funding is not intrinsically an more important a resource than say the right labor team, etc...
The mindset of the investors have the money so obviously by rationality they must have the upper hand is a key fundamental world view difference between an 'entrepreneur' and a high paid labor.