 |
|
|
|||||
Catherine Bracy is the Founder and CEO of TechEquity, an organization working at the intersection of tech and economic equity. The company advocates on behalf of policies that ensure peoplenot companiescontrol how technology shapes their economic futures. She was previously Code for Americas senior director of Partnerships and Ecosystem, and founded Code for All. During the 2012 election cycle, she was director of Obama for Americas Technology Field Office in San Francisco. Whats the big idea? Venture capital isnt just funding innovation; its shaping what kind of innovation is possible. Right now, that system is failing us. It forces startups to sacrifice real problem-solving and innovation for the sake of chasing unsustainable growth. Our economy will be better off if we create and rely on a startup ecosystem that rewards real value rather than speculative hype. Below, Catherine shares five key insights from her new book, World Eaters: How Venture Capital is Cannibalizing the Economy. Listen to the audio versionread by Catherine herselfin the Next Big Idea App. 1. Technology isnt the problem. Venture capital is. A few years ago, I was in a strategy session with labor advocates who were trying to get gig companies (Uber, DoorDash, and the like) to treat their workers better. It was a room full of smart, committed people with great ideas about how to create fairer wages, better protections, and a pathway for these workers to have more stability. As we talked, something clicked for me. We were strategizing ways to convince these companies to changebut at what point in their growth cycle could they have made better choices? When they were tiny startups, just trying to survive, they had no time to think about worker protections. Then, seemingly overnight, they became billion-dollar global giantsexcept by then, their exploitative business models were too big and too profitable to unwind. Venture capital demands exponential growth fast. This struck me as different from how industries used to grow. Traditionally, companies had middle stages: periods of stability where they could adjust their practices, adapt to regulations, and build systems that worked for both employees and society. But tech doesnt work that way. Some of that has to do with software itself because its cheap to build, easy to scale, and can reach millions of users almost instantly. But most of it has to do with the economic incentives behind the companiesand that structure is venture capital. Venture capital demands exponential growth fast. Theres no pause button. No moment where a company can afford to step back and say, How do we do this more responsibly? In the venture model, companies arent built to be stable. Theyre built to scale or die. As Charlie Munger said: Show me the incentives, and Ill show you the outcomes. The economic outcomes were living with todaythe erosion of worker protections, skyrocketing housing costs, and the growing concentration of wealth in fewer handsarent accidents. Theyre a direct result of the incentives baked into venture capital. 2. The Power Law is shaping the economy in ways you dont see. The Power Law is a statistical principle where a few extreme values dominate the dataset. Think earthquakes: most are tiny tremors, but a few are catastrophic. Venture capital portfolios follow this same pattern. Investors spread their bets across dozens of startups, expecting just one or two to hit it big while the rest fail. These extreme successes are called unicorns in the parlance of Silicon Valley. Think earthquakes: most are tiny tremors, but a few are catastrophic. That might sound like a reasonable strategy since startups are risky. But heres where it gets dangerous: As venture capital evolved, the Power Law went from being an observation of how venture capital funds look as a result of pursuing these risky companies to a guiding force for how investors should invest. In other words, instead of pursuing breakthroughs and achieving Power Law distributions as a natural result, venture capital became about pursuing Power Law distributions without any regard to the kind of company that was creating it. It doesnt matter whether a business is solving a real problem, whether its good for society, or even whether its profitable. What matters is scale. This is why we see: Monopolistic tech giants instead of diverse, competitive markets. Growth-obsessed startups that burn through billions with no clear path to profitability. Essential serviceslike housingbeing financialized to fit a Silicon Valley growth narrative. Venture capital started as a way to fund technological breakthroughs. But now, its become a system designed not to create value, but to chase billion-dollar valuations at any cost. That cost is one that the rest of us are asked to bear. 3. Venture capital destroys more value than it creates. Because venture capitalists do not know which startups will be their unicorns, they force every company they invest in to chase billion-dollar growthwhether or not it makes sense. That means: Exploiting workers to cut costs. Shipping half-baked products just to scale faster. Skirting regulations to stay ahead of slower-moving competitors. Committing fraudor at least getting very, very close. The tragedy is that many of these companies could have been solid, sustainable businesses. But because they were forced to chase unrealistic growth, they collapsed. Great ideas get destroyed not because they werent good businesses, but because they werent venture capital businesses. Take LocalData, a startup that helped cities manage property data to increase revenue and prevent blight. It was profitable and growing. But because venture capital investors didnt see it as a billion-dollar opportunity, they pressured the founders to pivot to a different market. The pivot failed and the company shut down. This isnt just one companys story. Its the story of an entire ecosystem that rewards financial engineering over real innovation. 4. The problem isnt the companies that venture capital fundsits the ones it doesnt. If you are an entrepreneur with a great idea that doesnt fit the venture model, you have two choices: 1) Take venture capital money and distort your business to chase growth you cant sustain.2) Get no funding at all. This is especially dangerous in markets like housing and clean energy, areas where we desperately need innovation but where venture capitals demand for hypergrowth doesnt fit. Venture capital doesnt just fund bad businesses. It crowds out the good ones, siphoning capital away from sustainable solutions and into the next specultive bubble. If we want innovation that solves problems, we need new funding models that arent beholden to the Power Law. 5. Its time for the Indie Era of Startups. When I started writing World Eaters, I thought it would be mostly about how venture capital is harming society. But as I talked to entrepreneurs trying to build differently, I realized the story was bigger than just whats broken. There are founders who want to build companies that are profitable and sustainablewho reject the unicorn model in favor of something more resilient. There are investors experimenting with alternative funding models that reward long-term success rather than short-term hype. We can build a startup ecosystem that rewards real value, not just speculative hype. These are companies like Butcherbox, whose founderwho had soured on venture capital after venture capitalists killed a previous business of hisgot his startup capital from a crowdfunding campaign. Butcherbox is now a $500 million per year business with the time and space to take on efforts to improve jobs in the meatpacking industry and support sustainable ranching. Now is the perfect time to help businesses like this succeed. With higher interest rates, the market is shifting. Investors cant throw unlimited cash at money-losing businesses anymore. Companies must prove traction earlier. That means we have a window (before the next bubble inflates) to show that another way is possible. If we do it right, this could be the moment where the Indie Era of Startups begins. Entrepreneurs, investors, and policymakers dont have to accept the Power Law as destiny. We can build a startup ecosystem that rewards real value, not just speculative hype. If we get it right, we wont just fix techwell fix the economy. This article originally appeared in Next Big Idea Club magazine and is reprinted with permission.
Category:
E-Commerce
After a three-day weekend, investors attention was trained on the stock market this morning to gauge how a new trade warning from China would impact stocks. So far, its not a very pretty pictureespecially for some of the markets most influential tech stocks. As of this writing, the S&P 500 is down 2.32% since last Thursday (the market closed for Good Friday), the Nasdaq Composite has slumped by 2.61%, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average is likewise down 2.30%. Its the continuation of a trend for the three major U.S. indexes: Each has dropped in three of the four previous weeks as a result of Trumps tariffs on major trading partners, causing experts to warn that we may be entering a bear market. Major tech companies saw a brief reprieve last week, when the Trump administration clarified that some electronic goods would be briefly exempt from existing reciprocal tariffs. Today, though, both the overall indexes and every member of the Magnificent Seven are back in the red. Heres how Magnificent Seven stocks are faring at the time of this writing: Alphabet Inc. (Nasdaq: GOOG): down 2.26% Amazon.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: AMZN): down 3.42% Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL): down 2.77% Meta Platforms, Inc. (Nasdaq: META): down 3.29% Microsoft Corporation (Nasdaq: MSFT): down 2.05% NVIDIA Corporation (Nasdaq: NVDA): down 5.49% Tesla, Inc. (Nasdaq: TSLA): down 6.86% Why are tech stocks and markets falling? There are two main factors that experts believe are driving the decline. First, President Trump has spent the last week openly criticizing and calling for the immediate firing of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. The Fed is the central banking system of the United States, and it has long upheld an independence from politics that most economists feel is essential to the reserve functioning effectively. However, experts are concerned that, should Trump follow through on firing Powell, the move could represent the end of an independent Fed and send stocks into a tailspin. Second, on Monday night, China issued an official warning against any countries striking deals with the U.S. at its expense. The warning came in response to a Bloomberg report that the Trump administration planned to pressure other nations to cut down on trade with China in order to negotiate their own tariff exemptions with the U.S. In response, Chinas Commerce Ministry said in a statement that it would take countermeasures in a resolute and reciprocal manner. Currently, the Trump administration has levied a whopping 145% tariff on Chinese imports, leading China to enforce 125% duties on U.S. goods. For most tech companies, strained trade relations with China have major ripple effects across operations. Most Apple products, for example, are manufactured in China, while many products sold on Amazon are made there as well, and Nvidia chips are manufactured in Taiwan. Likewise, Tesla relies heavily on parts made in China. Later this week, investors are due to get a more overarching sense of how Trumps tariff whiplash has impacted major tech companies, as big names including Tesla, Alphabet, Intel, and IBM are set to share their first-quarter earnings reports.
Category:
E-Commerce
The Centennial State may become first in the nation to require retailers to warn consumers that burning fossil fuels releases air pollutants and greenhouse gases, known by the state of Colorado to be linked to significant health impacts and global heating. The warning is the linchpin of a billHB25-1277that narrowly passed the state House on April 2 and is scheduled to be heard in the Senates Transportation & Energy Committee this week. Its Democratic sponsors say the bill will raise awareness among consumers that combusting gas in their vehicles creates pollutants that harm their health and trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to more intense and extreme weather, wildfires, and drought. The groundbreaking measure would require retailers to place warning labels printed in black ink on a white background in English and Spanish in no smaller than 16-point type on fuel pumps and in a conspicuous location near displays offering petroleum-based goods for sale. Proponents compare the stickers to warnings labels on cigarettes that scientific evidence found motivated consumers to reconsider the health impacts of smoking. The labeling bill is backed by environmental groups, including 350 Colorado and the Sierra Club, and opposed by gas stations, chambers of commerce, and energy trade associations. About 136 lobbyist registrations were filed with the secretary of state in the position of support, opposition, or monitoringa benchmark of the measures divisiveness. The bill, as youve heard, seeks to drive systemic change and to help us meet our greenhouse gas emission goals, state Rep. Junie Joseph (D-Boulder), a sponsor, testified at a House Energy & Environment Committee hearing on March 6. Colorado is actively working to reduce emissions to comply with the Clean Air Act and state climate targets. Colorado is on track to meet greenhouse gas emissions reductions of 26% by 2025 and 50% by 2030, over 2005 levelsalbeit a year late for each period mandated under state law, according to a November report compiled by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Colorado Energy Office. Yet the state is woefully behind in its compliance with federal air quality standards. Emissions from energy industry operations and gas-powered vehicles are the main drivers of the nine-county metropolitan Denver regions failure to clean up its air over the last two decades. The states largest cities rank among the 25 worst in the nation for lung-damaging ozone pollution. Several days before the labeling bill passed the House, the states health department said it planned to ask the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to downgrade its air quality for the second time in a year. The request is intended to give regulators more time to draw up a plan to reduce pollutants that cause a toxic haze that blurs the Rocky Mountains from May to September. Colorado repeatedly touts its nation-leading greenhouse gas emissions reduction laws targeting oil and gas production, as well as requirements that utilities transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Yet to make long-term progress toward a state mandate to cut emissions 100% by 2050, officials need residents to drive less and carpool and take public transit more. The bills sponsors cited a first-in-the-nation labeling law in the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, as proof such initiatives work. The Cambridge City Council enacted its greenhouse gas label law in 2020. City inspectors affix about 116 bright yellow stickers that read: Warning. Burning Gasoline, Diesel, and Ethanol has major consequences on human health and on the environment including contributing to climate change in pump bays at 19 gas stations annually, along with inspection stickers, Jeremy Warnick, a city spokesman, wrote in an email. Early research into the impacts of Cambridges labeling law suggest that peer pressure that results from one person seeing a label on a gas pump and telling friends about it at a party can indeed motivate people to reconsider their transportation choices. A measure instituted in Sweden in 2021 that requires labels depicting each fuel grades impact on the climate to be installed on gas pumps produced similar results. The warning stickers communicate to people as theyre pumping gas that others in their community acknowledge petroleum products create emissions that are warming the planet, said Gregg Sparkman, an assistant professor of psychology and neuroscience at Boston College. Sparkmans research found Americans function in a state of pluralistic ignorance, essentially walking around thinking others dont care about climate change. A study he co-authored in Nature in 2022 found that most Americans underestimate the prevalence of support for climate change mitigation policies. While 66% to 80% of people approve of such measures, Americans estimate the prevalence to be between 37% and 43%, on average, data showed. Warning labels can cut through this apathy, he said. These signs chip away at the miragethey become one of hopefully many signals that an increasing number of Americans regard this as an emergency that requires urgent action out of government, citizens and everybody, he said. In Colorado, gas station owners, as well as representatives of retail trade organizations and the American Petroleum Institute, among others, testified against the labeling bill at the three-hour March 6 House energy committee hearing, calling the legislation an unfunded mandate that would shame consumers and target retailers with exorbitant fines. Some warned it would make gas prices rise. The law would require convenience stores to design, buy, and affix the labels and to keep them in good condition. If a consumer reported a defaced decal to the state Attorney Generals Office, a store owner could face a $20,000 penalty per violationstandard for violations under the Consumer Protection Act. An amendment added on the House floor would provide retailers with 45 days to fix a problem with a label. The gas pump itself is already cluttered with words, numbers, prices, colors, buttons, and payment mechanisms, Angie Howes, a lobbyist representing Kum & Go, which owns Maverik convenience stores, testified at the committee hearing. The message will likely be lost in the noise and we question the impact of such a label toward the proponents goals. Republican and Democratic committee members alike expressed concern about the fines, asking bill sponsorsto consider reducing them. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, or CDPHE, also opposed the measure, citing the states efforts to make it easier and cheaper for Coloradoans to reduce their energy use by taking advantage of electric vehicle and heat pump subsidies, among other voluntary measures. Colorado is already first in the nation in market share of new EVs, Lindsay Ellis, the agencys director of legislative affairs, testified. This bill presupposes that awareness alone is an effective strategy for changing behavior and does so at the liability and expense of small businesses like gas stations, she said. We should continue to focus on solutions with measurable emissions reductions to improve air quality. Gov. Jared Polis also appears dubious of the measures ability to effect long-term change. When contacted by Capital & Main for comment, spokesperson Eric Maruyama cited legislative and administrative strategies that have cut hundreds of millions of metric tons of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions since 2010. Like CDPHE, Governor Polis is committed to protecting Colorados clean air and reducing pollution through proven strategies that are good for the environment, good for consumers, and that empower Colorado businesses and individuals to take meaningful action that improves public health, Maruyama wrote in an email. Governor Polis is skeptical of labeling requirements and will review any legislation that reaches his desk. Doctors and scientists who testified at the House energy committee hearing on March 6 disagreed. I take care of children living in some of the most polluted zip codes in the country, and I can tell you firsthand that burning fossil fuels is making them sick, Dr. Clare Burchenal, a Denver pediatrician, told the committee. Warning labels can connect the abstract threat of a climate emergency with fossil fuel use in the here and nowmy patients and their families have a right to know how the products theyre using are impacting their health. Jennifer Oldham, Capital & Main This piece was originally published by Capital & Main, which reports from California on economic, political, and social issues.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||