Here is why the statement is way too optimistic:
- Resources always move to places where they can be used most effectively (econ 101) unless there is a significant friction
- For that type of resource (talented programmers/mathematicians) the friction is very small
- Russia has bad regulation and bad business environment in general
- Specifically, very hard to get investments[1], and investors interests are poorly protected[2]
- Silicon Valley utilizes these resource much more effectively, so that even other places in the US - NYC/Boston/Chicago - could not compete effectively
- Also, managerial talent in Russia is concentrated on more profitable business, like participating in natural resource explorations or working for state-run monopolies - very profitable and risk free if you have the right connections
Disclaimer: I'm Russian living in Silicon Valley. That may have affected my judgement.
[1] I can share the following anecdote: When I was helping some friends to find VC funding in 2008 in Russia, I learnt that most VCs in Russia require kick-backs(!) from startups that they're investing in - presumably as a way to steal from their limited partners (and even provide some advice on how these kick-backs could be recorded in accounting books).
[2] Khodorkovsky's and Chichvarkin's examples are probably the most well-known on the West.
There are stories on HN all the time about US investors requiring the same. There are fancy meals on the company's tab, first class airplane tickets from all around the world for board meetings and various other abuses that HN founders complain about.
I guess straight-up cash would be a novelty, but that probably comes from the IRS scrutiny it would engender. Is an exacting tax authority part of the root of American exceptionalism?
Another interesting feature: there are plenty of 'funding advisors' that can help connecting you to a right VC[1] for a fee, typically a few percent of the funding.
Kick-backs are also typical if you are a mid-size company a need to get a commercial loan.
[1] They all claim to have connections to some government-backed VC funds such as government-backed Rusnano or Russian Venture Company.
June of this year. Here we go: http://www.businessweek.com/1998/45/b3603184.htm http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/06/07/the-us-ipo-...
Particularly if those financial services are extractive in nature?
Russia is decades ahead of other countries, but they have a long path ahead of them. A good start would be teaching English in elementary school.
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011/11/21/hedge-funds-kiss-...
Buffett knows what he's doing. And we all know that the wast majority of managed funds perform worse then index funds.
And Buffett did not bet on any one hedge fund, which might actually outperform. He has bet on an index of them! And not over a short time period, where again, they could outperform. But over 10 years!
I would be SHOCKED if Buffett loses this bet.
For instance, if you ran a fund that simply bought BRK shares, and, each year, bought just enough out of the money options to protect against a %10 decline in BRK, that would be a hedge fund. Buying the puts is a hedging position, but I would say that such an investment would be damn conservative, and certainly in line with Buffett's investments strategy. (He cautions against derivatives, but covering a long position with puts isn't what he means.)
I wouldn't be surprised if they had simply agreed on a subset of prominent hedge funds from '08 that the two agree represents whatever range of investments they think is important. I'd assume they're unwilling to disclose the methodology simply to avoid any accusations of outside manipulation or something.
Makes sense to me, at least.
Thanks for sharing the site!
0. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_of_the_Long_Now
1. http://www.seattlepi.com/ae/article/You-don-t-have-to-be-a-s...
(I even copied over most of the Long Bets: https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=longbets%2Eorg%20site%... )
OWS is not anti-business, it is anti-corruption, and there's few things more damaging to progress than corruption.
I guess this is the problem with any protest movement - you have no top-down control, and so any good messages can get lost in the noise. I think the occupy 'brand' is pretty much damaged beyond repair for now, but if the core of the people believes what you say, then it's possible to create a new organisation and leverage from occupy before it's forgotten. But a new organisation would have to be top-down and control the message to get the point across.
For my part, I agree with the points about regulatory capture and corporatism. Large businesses pretend to like capitalism, but in reality, they get terrified of smaller startup companies stealing their lunch money and rendering them irrelevant in a decade or less.
Too big to fail is indeed too big to exist. The role of governments must be to prevent monopolies from forming, not to legislate them into existence.
I do not think OWS, to the extent it has a coherent set or ideas or ideologies, is anti-business per se; I think it is opposed to the zero-sum thinking that characterizes much of Wall Street and political life right now. See, e.g.: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2011/11/21/it_s_the... :
<blockquote>In fact, blame for the failure of the congressional super committee belongs with every American who failed to vote in the 2010 midterm election. Nothing encapsulates the dysfunction of American democracy better than the fact that we abdicate responsibility for governing our country (and running our economy) to a radical minority every four years out of laziness and, to a smaller extent, deliberate efforts by both parties to depress turnout they know will favor their rivals.</blockquote>
Or, from HN, http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/18/clayton-... (Clayton Christensen: "How Pursuit of Profits Kills Innovation and the U.S. Economy.")
Notice how people are not saying "Occupy tech firms in Silicon Valley," and I think they aren't because it's pretty clear that Apple, Google, etc. are generating real value that improves lives; it's not at all clear finance and many parts of government are doing so at the moment and it may be that they're actually destroying value while taking advantage of an insider's feedback loop that prevents market forces from actually acting on them in any serious way. If anything, I suspect OWS, to the extent it has a coherent ideology, would be pro-business, as long as that business isn't doing things to hurt people, institutions, or government.
No, I think OWS is very pro-zero-sum thinking. Its core messaging pits "the 99%" against "the 1%". It's class warfare in its purest form.
There are many smart people who are painting more reasoned critiques of our society onto OWS than the movement is actually articulating. Perhaps that's inherent to mass movements in general, but I judge OWS by its most common messages, which are far from what you've described.
There are two OWS-related messages that would have broad appeal, and I'd suggest they focus on those: "Our Laws Are Not For Sale" and "Too Big To Fail Is Too Big To Exist".
An example: progress requires, above anything, a rentier class not hell bent on furthering their greed at the expense of everyone else, via shadow banking, obscure contracts and general, short-sighted stupidity. Regulated, if you will.
I don't see many "pro-business" governments doing anything to solve that. I see many of them giving their corporate friends cool, undeserved subsidies under the pretense of "industry being of national interest".
Nobody has taken the other side of it. I'm skeptical (but intrigued) by bit coins, but I wouldn't take the other side of this bet, simply because bit coins have just started out and aren't yet a "fully mature form of money". That is to say, its a lot easier for a penny stock, or any other cheap commodity, to double (or outperform by 2 orders of magnitude) a global currency or form of money that has millions of owners, and relatively stable value.
You should be more than happy to take this bet, at any amount that he's willing to offer. I know I would be, as long as it was denominated in USD.
Let's say the wager was $10k - if you buy about $198 worth of BTC at the start of the bet, you're guaranteed to come out ahead by at least $9,802, regardless of what happens. Do the math if you don't believe me - that's a bet I'd be happy to take...
If the bet was in terms of Bitcoins instead, then I'd be a lot more hesitant - you could still hedge against an unbounded loss by buying the BTC up front, but if the price of BTC went down by more than 50% you'd end up losing USD even though you won the bet (also if the price went up by a factor of more than 100 but less than 101, which is unlikely enough to mostly ignore), so you'd need to be somewhat of a BTC bull to be comfortable with that.
Edit: I see now that Longbets mandates that proceeds go to charity, which means that if you followed my strategy you'd be making a donation in some cases since you don't see winnings from the bet. I suppose that changes things a little bit, but even so, I'd happily throw in $198 of my money to make sure with 100% certainty that $10k went to charity.
Which makes it extra scummy if it's true that the offerer of this bet won't accept any challengers...
>[Me:] "Must the makers of predictions (eventually) accept a challenger? I get the impression that several of these predictions are dubious yet have been sitting for awhile without forming a bet. It seems against the spirit of the site to allow predictors to grand stand without having to put their money where their mouth is."
>[Them:] "Predictors put their money where their mouth is by paying $50 to be published. They do not, however, have to accept challenges to their Predictions."
If it were up to me, they'd also allow bets with odds other than 50-50. Still, I think it's a great site.
That's pretty shady, especially since it sends a misleading message to see a bet being offered with no challenger - without knowing about that part of the policy, I'd assume that meant nobody had the balls to take them up on the bet, not that they themselves didn't have the balls to accept any challengers!
Longbets should be removing bets from public display if too many reasonable challenges have been submitted without an acceptance. I'd leave it to them to decide what "reasonable" means, maybe something like falling within a certain range of amounts (perhaps making the offerer specify this beforehand?), with argument content that passes a cursory review.
I'd at least suggest that they manually review "bets" that pass a certain threshold of page views and/or challenge requests, and tried to determine whether the bets were proposed in good faith or not, up to and including interacting directly with the people offering the bet and asking them for explanations about why the challengers didn't meet their requirements.
