> Why should anyone else worry or care?

Big, bad investment decisions have systemic effects.

In any case, the worry about scooters is overblown. They are an experiment. If it works, we gain a new transportation mode between walking (uncomfortable), cars (cause congestion) and mass transit (expensive).

I disagree that mass transit is expensive. If done well, it's the most economic mode of moving a massive amount of people over relatively large distances.

I also don't get what's wrong with walking. For me, personally, it's the best mode of transportation in the 15 - 30 minute range (granted, on a nice day in a city that's made for walking).

To each his own, I guess.

> I disagree that mass transit is expensive

Capital intensive would have been more accurate. And in terms of maintenance, too, it’s more expensive than a road. Its economics only balance above a certain density threshold.

Sure, it's capital intensive. But that goes for all necessary infrastructure in dense, urban areas.

Shit needs to be channeled away and cleaned, electricity and networks need to be provided, water has to be served, etc.

Public transport is not different. And calculated on the amount of people it serves I'd argue that it's cheaper than cars. Especially if the externalities are factored in.

I'm not saying that scooters can't add something to the mix if done right. But the situation - as is - is not as bad as you make it out. Especially for cities that do it right.

Do you have an example of mass transit 'done right' in a city in the US?

Seems to me that scooters (or bikeshares etc) are highly complementary to mass transit, since you're never going to get rail lines everywhere.

Caltrain from SF-SV works well, but it's far from cheap anymore. Round trip from Sunnyvale (Lawrence) to SF, for example, is over $20 now.

Roads are way more expensive to maintain than a track, which is why rail is cheaper than road shipping costs.

Cities that aren’t big at all like Bern really show off the advantage of mass transit infrastructure.

> I think capitalism can handle it just fine.

I think there's a lot of truth to that view. But the way SV VCs and the current capitalist environment operate are a bit strange. I think that's what the article tries to shine a light on.

SV VC capitalism is extremely motivated to find new, nifty companies that will dominate and own new, nifty "tech" niches -- even if they're never profitable.

People care about this because the tech industry provides so much of the economy's growth. The underlying question is: why is so much cash lavished on businesses that, in general, are not profitable? What opportunities are being missed in the larger economy?

What is it about our overall system that means that companies that attack America's really vital problems (health care cost control/transparency, health care mistakes, health care inefficiency, public health problems, elementary education inefficiency, relatively high murder rates, high death rates from car accidents, infrastructure repair backlogs in big cities, the shortage of seats at the elitist colleges, opioid addiction and death) do not get this high level of funding?

They should care if stupid VCs going bust is correlated with other leveraged positions in unrelated sectors.

Mind going further? I read “leveraged” as “debt-funded”, but VCs get their funds from LPs (or from cash on company balance sheets). Where does leverage come into play?

One underlying reason for VCs making bad investments could be recent fiscal policies pushing interest rates way down. This causes large investors (e.g. pension funds) to look for returns in historically riskier investments, leading to much more money than usual being invested in VC funds. This leaves VCs with a huge pile of cash and looking for companies to fund which means they will make riskier investments than usual (including investing larger dollar amounts than normal). All of this, in turn, leads to a potential bubble with all the negative impacts we've experienced in past bubbles.

This may not be a huge deal if it's confined to the tech startup space. But these large investors are not putting all their eggs in one basket, they're spreading money out into many other industries like housing, financials, emerging markets, etc. If this large amount of money chasing returns has the same effect in these other industries, then we have the beginnings of systemic risk. This is now a very big deal for everyone.

The premise makes sense (per industry), but how are the bubbles potentially connected to make systemic risk?

I’m kinda looking at it like this: per-industry, there is a local-minimum solution which is being exploited

For transportation, let’s call that “cars”. Scooters are a bet that if we climb out of that hole we might be able to get to an even lower minimum (but investor dollars are the fuel that’s burned on the search path).

So despite these walkabouts in the solution space (ie companies), there remains the local-minima solutions.

Now, for pension funds and what not other LPs that invest in VC firms, they have made commitments for returns to their share holders (eg retirees). I think it’s disingenuous to guarantee returns for 30 years (effectively what these fin products are), which also kinda sucks, but I don’t understand the problem outside of helping previous investors keep promises they weren’t able to make in the first place. That feels like a pyramid scheme.