

Why the Smart VCs Are Boarding their Jets - transburgh
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/02/20/why-the-smart-vcs-are-boarding-their-jets/

======
krschultz
The basic crux of the article is that VC != technology investors, and that
money spent in emerging markets on relatively commodity businesses can yield
returns similiar to those seen in the 90s with tech businesses here, while
here tech businesses are maturing and not returning the same as they used to.

I think this is a good thing for the world overall, the more people that come
up to the middle class, the more people that will have disposable income to
spend on products. I just think that there are plenty of promising ideas here
to invest in as well if they start looking past Web 2.0 in favor of more
concrete businesses.

~~~
old-gregg
Very nice to hear: _"good thing for the world overall"_ , how cute. However,
quality of life basically translates into resources/population ratio _within a
country_ and that's a zero-sum game. The planet at the current level of
technology couldn't even provide for all _existing_ Chinese to suddenly start
living like people in US/EU do, yet their populations, especially if measured
in number of households, much more relevant than just counting heads, keeps
growing.

And no amount of Internet innovation will solve the problem of diminishing
clean water, oil, ocean fish, disappearing forests, soil erosion and
increasingly bad air quality. Right now 1st world countries are basically
"exporting" these problems to developing nations, eventually these issues will
be averaged out: eventually China won't be so poor to accept our non-
recyclable electronic garbage anymore, what then?

~~~
pg
_Any increase in someone's quality of life comes at someone else's expense._

Historically that has not been the case. Historically quality of life
improvements have come from technological discoveries (e.g. penicillin) and
social evolution (e.g. of the middle class). Who loses if penicillin is
discovered? Who loses if some former serfs decide to become artisans instead?

The single biggest improvement in quality of life for most humans over most of
history has probably come from improved hygienic practices. How does that come
at someone's else's expense?

I also disagree with your specific claim that "Internet innovation" can't
improve physical world problems. Would you claim books don't help solve the
problem of clean water? Not literally, obviously; you can't use books to make
clean water, except by ripping out pages and using them as water filters. But
think how much harder it would be to solve the problem if books didn't exist.
And the Internet is an innovation on the scale of printing.

~~~
old-gregg
I just finished the 2nd book by Jared Diamond (Collapse) and he claims that
population growth diminishes the advantages of technological progress. Without
penicillin, Internet, improved hygienic practices we wouldn't have nearly 7
billion people living on this planet right now.

At the current rate of population growth we'll have a density of 10 people per
square foot (!) before year 3000, and the population growth is what usually
follows a country's increased economic output.

~~~
old-gregg
Let me express my surprise: being downmodded for offering UCLA professor's
anti-globalist claims for open discussion on HN isn't terribly encouraging.

You don't have to agree with me but why shut the conversation down? Am I
offending anyone or posting fart jokes?

Meanwhile a lot of folks are debating either _"technology and globalization"_
approach will work, and some of them aren't stupid. At least you downmodders
could try to use some curiosity and open up a little to what they have to say.

That's a pity: while reading the book I was actually thinking about bringing
this topic up for discussion on HN.

~~~
pg
No one's shutting down the conversation. If you wanted to continue the
conversation, there was already a reply waiting for you:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=489006>

------
vaksel
because there is more opportunity oveseas now. India and China will each have
more internet users than USA within a few years

~~~
dpeq
This does not necessarily imply innovation happens there.

~~~
vaksel
thats the point, those countries are just starting out. You can just copy
paste proven ideas from the states and make millions.

Like Mint? Angry that you missed the boat? Good news! Invest overseas in the
same type of company, and watch it grow to become a market leader by having a
monopoly. And you have a guaranteed exit lined up, when Mint enters your
market and decides to buy you out.

Sure the core innovation will still come from the states, but the first
innovator is rarely the guy who profits from the idea.

~~~
warkaiser
I agree with part of that. Look at the German LinkedIn competitor, which is a
publicly traded company. It is the local leader, but that did not stop
LinkedIn from moving in there. In the long run, the only strong brand is a
global one. I do not see an opportunity for every region to have a successful
me-too competitor.

~~~
moe
_I do not see an opportunity for every region to have a successful me-too
competitor._

Don't forget though, that the cultural gap between the US and Asia is much
bigger than between the US and europe. It's quite likely that a successful US
product can be made successful in europe by the same people. It's a different
story when you move from US/Europe to India, Japan or even China.

The japanese Facebook (mixi.jp) looks quite different to the US and european
variants. Not only in terms of aesthetics but also in many subtile usability
and feature aspects.

~~~
potatolicious
The Chinese facebook (xiaonei.com) is another good example of this - it
started as a complete facebook ripoff, but has now gained more momentum than
facebook has in that country, and is evolving its own feature set.

This goes to support the point that, for the next while at least, "me too"
business models WILL work in developing nations.

