This is one of the reasons why I like HN, because nothing in my lower-to-middle-class upbringing prepared me for the notion of stock as anything other than shares of IBM which you held at the brokerage until you needed to retire. Pretty much everything I learned about the mechanics of tech investing I learned as a direct consequence of this site, in many cases to material effect.<p>One would hope that investors, on dealing with unsophisticated entrepreneurs, would tell them "Hey, it seems like you don't know the ropes of this yet, let me explain it to you" but the overwhelming number of anecdotes where I hear that have that sentence followed by advice so bad it shocks the conscience.
Can someone explain to me how this is even possible? I mean, when a corporation is created, before it takes any investment, <i>someone</i> has to own it, right? How is it possible for the founders to not start out owning 100%?
The story of all the small investors surprised me, because i thought there were more rules about who could invest in a company. Are these rules new, or do i misunderstand something?
This is painful to read, especially the part about rich establishment late-comers whining about early, small investors getting "too much" payoff. Apparently people from middle-class backgrounds who "got lucky" don't deserve it. This reminds me of when Mark PinkAss whined in public about the Google chef making $20 million.<p>The people at the top of society really don't want anyone else to win because, as they see the world (and the OP clearly does not subscribe to this) it's completely zero-sum. These people do not believe in fairness <i>at all</i>. They're constantly looking for ways to take advantage of people, which I suppose is how they ended up at the top, but it makes the world ugly and I wish it would stop.
I've started one business and had options in two. In the end, one of those businesses (not the one I started) wound up paying me some lump sum. Presently I distrust futures of any kind; to put it simply, I am more interested in present-day pragmatism than greed.<p>I think the author comes from a similar line of thinking, as his tone seems to suggest. I'm not rich but I do fine. I'd recommend: do what you love; money comes and goes, someone with more flexible morals or risk affinity will certainly make more of it, but in the end you won't regret it.