Comments on: If I Ruled the World – Or Were At Least the President…..

By: David

David — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:21:35 +0000

$100M is chump change, sorry Brenda. Sequoia, just to name one well-known tech VC fund, just raised $929M, in a horrible time for fund-raising. Just one fund. Just the most recent raise. Just biotech (my industry) private companies raised almost $12B this year, a horrible year. Last year companies raised over $30B, just in biotech.

As for the other points. Global meltdown in the ’70s? Weren’t you there? Stock markets went down about 60% to start the decade, and finished flat in nominal dollars, but inflation was in the double digits. Unemployment was higher, etc etc. The ’70′s stank.

As for herbals, I know it’s a matter of faith, so I won’t argue, except to say the plural of anecdote is not data. Dozens, if not hundreds of herbals have been tested in the clinic, and the handful that have worked have been adapted into drugs, and research continues to find the next handful.

Dilution? Let’s say the owners/employees still have a majority of the company, not the VCs.

By: brenda.keener

brenda.keener — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:58:00 +0000

I made the correction to $100M BTW. And I am not so sure…….I think I have a few better ideas than the candidates we have to choose from.

But you don’t have to worry. I am not ruling yet!

By: walt

walt — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:36:15 +0000

Right on, David. Brenda needs another 20 years of seasoning before she’s ready to rule.

By: brenda.keener

brenda.keener — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 02:44:01 +0000

I hear your criticisms, but I also see no new solutions coming out.

Yes, there were gas shortages but we didn’t go into a global meltdown like we are in now.

Yep, I meant to say $100M not $10M. I have been in several startups that lived for years with $2M initial rounds. $36M?? What kind of dilution are you experiencing?

And for the $100M, I was thinking just a FEW carefully chosen companies would be funded. If each could prove a concept on $2M – this would fund more than a few. Plus, if you look at TechCrunch today you will see that the venture funds are dramatically down in terms of being able to raise money.

I disagree with you on herbals. Several members of my family would not be alive if not for herbal meds.

By: David

David — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:04:50 +0000

Well, I’m glad you don’t rule the world. Your solutions have all been tried before, and don’t work. Nixon tried your first “solution”–result: gasoline shortages. Your next “solution” would result in even more inflation than is likely to result from the current bailout plans. One point below prime? That’s just repeating the last bubble problem. Next, why should r.e. jobs be specifically protected? Give me a break. How about all the tech workers back in 2001? ARMs–not a problem anymore. That ship has sailed, and anyway, rates are low now; if your loan adjusts, you’re probably not seeing an increase in payments. $10M for a venture arm? That’s a single round of financing for just about any capital intensive start-up company. Just one round, just one company (I know, my company raised $36M last year, first round). I don’t see why the gov’t needs to do this, as there are many funds dedicated solely to those purposes that command far greater sums of money. The health thing would likely cost more money (at least 1/3 of the “uninsured” are people under 30 who don’t use much health care, ergo spending money on “preventative care” will cost more. QED). As for herbals, there have been plenty of studies on plenty of ‘remedies’–they just don’t work, and if they did, they’re part of a traditional medicine already, i.e. Taxol for cancer (derived from Pacific yew tree bark, originally). Or aspirin (willow tree bark).

By: brenda.keener

brenda.keener — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:08:37 +0000

I am not disagreeing with you – but I also know that many who were stung were not educated, and some barely spoke English and merely trusted their greedy realtor. Should they be punished? Should the laws ALLOW this to happen? No, they shouldn’t.

Yes, some people were greedy and thought that as soon as their next IPO stock pop hit, the 10x income ratio would narrow – but that pop never came.

And no, I am not a realtor. I am a Redfin writer, and one of those crazy Silicon Valley execs who thought the stock in my last 10 startups was actually going to be worth something….

By: Jack Hannah

Jack Hannah — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:53:03 +0000

Are you a realtor or do you work in a sector that is dependent on housing?
Your theories completely omit the fact that predatory lending was not the only factor that led to this bust. It was greed. Pure and simple.
I was there,I know it. Realtors forcing their buyers to “get in or they’ll miss out”. People buying because they knew “housing always goes up”.
Investment banks buying CDOs / CDSs because they knew people would buy this theory.
When a person buys a home 10 times their annual income, they are either very very poor in Math or extremely short sighted. I don’t believe a lender , no matter how “cunning” would convince me I could sustain a home that much skewed from my annual income. Simple economics kids in third world countries can teach you. Spending