CA didn't start out as a deliberate scam, and continues to run today despite being essentially a scam for many years. The companies we're talking about today --- Groupon, Zynga --- don't have long enough track records as publicly traded entities for us to presume they're run in good faith; variants of the things that got Kumar sentenced probably aren't even crimes when they happen during mezzanine funding, when the people being "scammed" are sophisticated investors.

You implied, Zynga isn't a pump-and-dump scheme because Mark Pincus still runs it, and nobody would inflict the management of a poorly-performing public company on themselves. Well, that's just not true.

There are better arguments against the assertion that Groupon is a pump-and-dump scheme than "it must suck to be Andrew Mason these days" (it does not suck to be Andrew Mason, by the way). For instance, Groupon was open about its liabilities and the enormous risks it faced, and its whole industry sector was very carefully scrutinized.

I'm done arguing this point. My nerdly brain just couldn't handle the idea that being Andrew Mason in Q4'12 is so painful that simply holding his job imputes him credibility.

Sure, but these accusations shouldn't be taken as personal attacks against specific companies, but, rather, as a sense people get of "silicon valley" and the startup economy. It could just be jealosy or schadenfreude (which shouldn't be entirely discounted :)), but I take it as a political statement. Even if the facts in some particular case can be refuted, these statements express a true and valid sentiment about the state of affairs.

I wasn't suggesting that it was conscious con-artistry (though I don't completely rule it out either).

I worked in business consulting for a bit. Part of what I learned is that at least some emperors have no clothes. There were really two main types I encountered:

(1) Extremely competent, hard-working executives who try their best to build real value.

(2) Fast talking dominance machines. Sociopaths, really. They make big promises, send a lot of primate dominance gestures, and generally build vapid unsustainable businesses that eventually fail. Yet the failure never sticks to them, and it often never sticks to their initial investors. Usually it's handed off to someone down the line (later investors, the public, employees, etc.).

When I see a resume that consists of a series of a series of unsustainable businesses where the early investors and executives made out well by handing a bag of flaming poo to later investors, I tend to suspect that we're dealing with category (2) players.

I also suspect that when I hear of extremely magnetic reality-distortion-field personality types. There is a certain kind of charisma that I take as a contrarian indicator.

It's interesting to me that api's vague attack on the leadership of certain companies is pushing your buttons - going so far as to call his comment 'drastic' and 'absurd'.

The key point here, I think, is to be very careful to distinguish between a failure to build sustainability, and willful maneuvering for maximum personal gain at the expense of sustainability. The former is a noble failure, the later is deeply unethical (if not illegal) and ne'er the twain shall meet!