I believe they meant underappreciated by the general public when assessing differing outcomes or new policy ideas. Clearly capital owners don't underappreciate capital.

Yes that’s what I meant

Everyone can’t have access to capital. It’s a scarce resource. The study of economics is literally the study of the allocation of resources. If you distributed wealth completely equally across the world. It would take long before the world looks exactly as it does now. Some people make bad decisions and would lose it. Others would have it stolen. Others would be frugal and accumulate, and other would be bold and become extremely rich. Once that happens, do we strip it all away again and start over? Life isn’t a Monopoly game where we get to reset the board each time someone loses.

And that's why we should have an aggressive tax scheme that covers income, capital gains, and estates and a process that is able to rapidly respond to loopholes.

Mhh, I simply suspect that a family would rather fund their son’s projects and their friends because of human’s nature, and since one can’t ask a stranger to fund him, and not everyone can be bff with rich dudes, this is probably a problem better solved by the gov

“...and since one can’t ask a stranger to fund him...”

That’s been a solved issue since at least the 17th century with joint stock companies. What else is an IPO but asking strangers for money so you can do business?

Name one company that raised its first million with an IPO in the last few decades. Let alone one that did so while producing something like Google

Last few decades? You do know that includes the dot com boom that was filled with tech companies doing early IPOs with basically nothing to show?

Also, the only reason early IPOs aren’t popular anymore is because capital is so easy to get from VCs, despite what you’re suggesting. The difference is that you want money without a business plan or a plan to grow, which is not how private, nor public, money should be squandered.

Again, name one company that has been world changing and raised the seed round in an IPO. None.

And no, this is simply an idea that would offer funds to the vast majority, who don’t have access to VCs.

99.9% of VC funded companies are not world changing ideas (even if they worked at scale as intended). And 99% of that came thru an intro. So yeah.

Heck, this is the thesis of YC, except they also fund petty companies, because they’re optimizing for returns, not far fetching ideas.

> You do know that includes the dot com boom that was filled with tech companies doing early IPOs with basically nothing to show?

And, even so, exactly zero of those, AFAIK, were so early as to have raised their first million that way, underlining the grandparent’s point.

Sometimes it's a substance-free scammy marketing exercise.

But if you ask them about it they'll tell you they're practically giving it away!

Terms and conditions may apply though...

OP meant the importance of it compared to ability.