You have an economic system when swaths of population live on money printing outside of the constraint of economic reality.<p>Where money is free, over the years everything becomes a game to stay near the money printer. From politicians, financiers, management all the way to scientists. It's all politics where every insider is personally incentivised to prop other insiders. So they can all live of money stolen from the public via inflation. Oftentimes without really realizing this is the case. After all they were all born into it and told this is normal.
C-suite folks and "idea gurus" don't use the same success metrics as engineers (and to a lesser extent, designers) do. Sheer charisma, being able to pitch some hair-brained idea over drinks, political machination, and notoriety are their metrics with rare exceptions which leads to classic study cases such as this.<p>They're far more like politicians in that sense if I can be cheeky.
When I see stories like this, I think of a few things:<p>1. People are winning here. Any press is good press.<p>2. Failing up is a unique way to describe it. WeWork guy has actual skills to grow and market a company that will make investors money despite "failings".<p>3. Investing in residential real estate and labeling as "tech" happens all the time.<p>4. Charisma only wins people's attention. You have to actually do something with it.<p>5. At least we get a season 2 of WeCrashed
Most of the incompetent management I've had the miserable displeasure of working near has failed upwards. I've seen no evidence of consequences in my time in the industry. It's been very disheartening.
Maybe investors don't actually realize that ideas are worthless and that implementation is everything. Not that there even seems to be a solution here. So maybe if you pick a big enough problem (and this is a good one), investors don't even care if you can actually address it.
He gets to fail up because there is too much money floating around the system and too little will to spend that money on long-term investments.<p>Hundreds of billions of dollars are gambled away on crazy short-term schemes when that same money invested into providing an excellent education & infrastructure in one of the world’s many destitute states or countries would enable that locale to leapfrog into modern times and, consequently, become a hotbed of valuable productivity… but that payout is decades into the future, and the sloshing stupid money wants a return by the end of the next quarter.
Why do so many people think that people who previously succeeded will continue to do so in the future? A16z is showing wisdom by re-investing with Neumann, realizing the factors involved with success and failure.
I don't trust the guy even a little. I certainly wouldn't want to involve any company of his in something as critical as housing.<p>And this...<p>> It also looks like the project will involve the blockchain.<p>Is a total showstopper.<p>Still, good luck to them, I suppose.
The guy created a $4 billion business that changed the game for co-working spaces. He just made the mistake of convincing people it was a $47 billion company, and Soft Bank threw fuel on the fire. (and he did some weird shit with the IPO)<p>What he accomplished is still incredibly difficult, and by all accounts he has a rare skill set for getting people excited about a vision. Plus, his failure mode is widely known now.<p>I'd throw money at him if I had some to throw, for sure. Don't bet against crazy and smart.
in life, if you're too good you will be a chump, if you're too evil you will be doing 10 consecutive life sentences in max security jail. but if you're right in the sweet spot then you're mr neumann (if thats his name)<p>it helps if you know the right people too...