Comments by "looseycanon" (@looseycanon) on "I don't understand modern day IPOs" video.

  1. Well, Louis, you're not as bad at business as you imply here... You may be terrible at HR, but here I'm not surprised about your confusion. The problem is, there is a lot of psychology in trading. As a result marketing companies, that don't have actual working products, seek out the money and, since they are essentially only very effective sales and nothing else, they outcompeet you, who has actually built something, that work's, on the bid, securing funding for a company, which will inevitably fail, because it's either failing on or outright lacking the product/service to sell. Sometimes, it goes as far as denying the laws of physics. Look at Hyperloop, for instance, You get Elon's sales capabilities, so there is no problem getting the funding, but if you look at the science and realise, what Hyperloop is from engeneering standpoint, you'll understand, why it can't be done. And then you'll get fanboys of the project, who will defend the idea to the point of denying the laws of physics, because Elon told them, it will work, and people with same approach to stuff will support these ideas, be it with purchase of the product or service, or outright investing in the thing. Or electric planes, Elon him self admitted, that in order to get the range from such plane, to fly, he'd need the plane's wieght on takeoff to be 70% just batteries... which kind of make's landing such plane rather problematic. It is for precisely this weight reason, because planes are extraordinarily heavier on takeoff, that planes have to dump fuel, if they pass safe landing wieght limits. The gear might actually collapse, because of that extra weight. Meaning, an electric plane, that's majestically flying through the sky, would likely never be economically feasable, because it looses capacity on the count of being capable of safely landing. To ilustrate this. Imagine flying a 747 or an A380, with total passenger capacity of 30 due to weight constrictions. Yeah, and such ideas get the green light from investors and governments alike, because global warming has some damn good PR and is an actual major problem to solve. A bunch of marketing heavy guys, like Elon Musk, exploit the psychological component of the situation and simply profiteer from sale of '"solution", that is economically, or outright scientifically, impossible to implement. And yet, people, who have the ability to divert the money, sometimes even elected ones, don't do their math right on the subject, or outright join in on this, building political capital off support for these useless "solutions". If this remind's you of someone banned from youtube and other social media platforms, yep. It's Alex Jones all over again, the only difference is, that Elon doesn't create the threat, to which he's selling a solution. I use Elon, because he is probably the most visible person to point this stuff out, but there are scores of mobs of people like him. All of these people competing with you for money of people, who trade on the market, and governments alike, and who don't do extensive research of the ideas they support with their money. They aren't interested, in actual ROI, but rather on perceeved ROI, which, unfrotuantely, isn't based off real life context. As a result, the stock market doesn't represent real economy, the devide between it and real economy is only growing, and people, who actually have sensible, but not so bombastic or revolutionary ideas for solutions, don't get the money they need to fund their projects. Another idea, that is fortunately getting traction, but one that also make's the selection process even more difficult, is longer term ROI. It realizes one key idea, that while company is growing, it can't be proffitable, because everything earned is/should be reinvested in the company itself. Problem is, this combined with what I stated above, lead's to a motherlode of money being wasted on the market by people, who didn't properly think about the company they are investing in. About Uber. You are WRONG. While it is true, that the car was purchased by the driver and it's serviced and maintained by the driver and the car need's to be insured etc. etc.. Well, same hold's true, if you hire a car. It still need's to be insured (at least where I live, car owner's insurence is mandatory) and everything, because even the guy leasing the car, in this case with himself as a driver, need's to make a profit and therefore wouldn't (psychological influence excluded) be willing to lease for compensation, which wouldn't cover his costs. Therefore, if UBER get's fully autonomous cars, they could ditch the driver's sallary (or at least the portion for actual driving) and set up a maintenance facility to laverage economies of scale, making the maintenance costs low enough or even lower than what a driver would demand for maintaining his car. Therefore they could become profitable, because fewer people could tend to a larger fleet of vehicles in circulation, lowering the largest expense on most income and expenses statement. In theory, unless we're talking catastrophic vomiting escapades, which would render the car impossible to maintain, there is actually a way to make this massively profitable for the company, not so much for everyone else, because all the variables here can be influenced by the compnay. Silf driving car ban/demand for driver to be present, when car is in operation? Well, you could lobby against such legislation. Not enough money? Make an IPO or try to sell more shares. Yes, it is a gamble for both the investor and the company, but one that actually has a businessplan, which could work, if the idea hold's and is not dependent on something, that literally can't be controlled, like the ammount of materials needed to invest in the plane or the impossible task of maintaining near vaccume in a tube serveral hundred miles long, regardless of the number of sections.
    1