Economic value exceeds or matches market value. Market value drives revenue. Profit is a function of revenue and cost.
These are well defined terms; please be careful saying things like "If they aren't making a profit they aren't creating value." It detracts from your otherwise strong argument.
If that line were true, non-profit organizations wouldn't exist.
But we aren't really talking about that sort of concern here, we are talking about for-profit companies that aren't doing research and any externalities are tenuous.
It is completely unreasonable to say that such a company could be creating value. They are clearly a wealth transfer mechanism from who-knows-where to consumers. It doesn't make sense if it isn't malinvestment. People love to pull out hypothetical externalities to justify things they like that just aren't worth doing; they aren't going to justify running a corporation at a loss.
A very interesting statement. I'd like to understand this cash path. Can anyone describe the flow of cash from the central bank to Silicon Valley VC firm? How exactly does this work?
Also do low central bank rates guarantee the kind of money losing VC investments we're seeing? Are their other central banks outside the US with low rates but no accompanying flurry of money-losing investments?
I'm going to have a blog post about the economic situation that led me to taxi driving. The tl/dr is basically that they loaned me a car for 12 hours at a time. In the beginning I made enough to make it worth my while...
In principle, in a fair market economy, that is OK because someone has to take the risk of being wrong about what is a good idea.
The concern being voiced is that monetary policy is diverting resources away from people who are known to make good long term decisions and towards people who have access to loans from the central bank. At some point the people who are borrowing money can't pay it back and the losses are revealed - not in and of itself a problem; those responsible take the hit. But in the mean time, the people who would have used the resources more sensibly to build infrastructure or sustainable logistics chains havn't been because they weren't being given the time of day by the markets.
The worry is that a dropping tide lowers all ships. If value is being systematically destroyed and the cause is government incentives then the potential for that to crop up in unexpected places is quite high. I'm always tempted to link monetary policy to the themes of pension issues, low real wage growth, poor infrastructure and rising inequality seen in the US.