Over at Boing Boing, Jacques Vallee — a computer scientist, partner in a venture capital firm and author — wrote a post titled. Stating the Obvious: If you don’t have a house you don’t need no sofa.

It’s a good post, questioning issues of consumerism, lost houses and the media’s attention span in a crisis that isn’t telegenic, just tragic. The obvious point he makes is that if you lose your house you aren’t going be going out buying stuff. Here is my response:
It’s great that you have stated the obvious.
Now please tell me what you are doing behind the scenes politically to help.
Being a Venture Capitalist or VC means you have money. And you are probably still sending it to the companies that are in your portfolio. But are you also funding groups that are working to stop relief?
Do you support lobbyists that are screaming about the deficit in the face of horrific unemployment? Have you supported groups that have worked Congress to pass bills that let our corporations send jobs overseas and get tax benefits for it? Do you believe in fair markets or in fake "free markets"? Is your first concern your "global competitiveness" or in the ability of Americans to buy sofas with a living wage? Maybe you tell yourself that you have to look out for your business first, but then do you donate money to groups who make it easier for capital to chase cheap labor around the globe?
I’ve worked with VCs and Silicon Valley companies for years and I know that when the VCs suggest something, things happen. Because they represent money. But they don’t just spend that money on their companies, they donate money to groups that have worked hard to make this "obvious situation" happen. There are groups actively working against the people whose fate you bemoan.
And I’ll go a step further, if you aren’t supporting these right wing groups are you supporting the groups that are FIGHTING these groups? Are you supporting anyone who is effectively fighting the right wing think tanks? Are you donating money for fighting a right wing noise machine that constantly pushes a economic world view that is failing? Groups like the Center for Media and Democracy and Media Matters need your money.
Or do you think that what they say on Fox, and talk radio is irrelevant and is ignored as non-serious and unworthy of challenging? Are you supporting groups that are fighting Grover Norquest’s Club for Growth, the Heritage Foundation or the AEI? Are you funding or fighting groups like FreedomWorks?
Norquest and his friends can promise a great ROI. A few million here and lower taxes there. But what can other groups promise you for ROI? Is it all about ROI or do you have a sense of duty to the American people who might buy your products?
No rich VC was willing to fund me when I was fighting the right wing radio hosts and their calls to hang journalists, liberals and murder millions of Muslims. The hosts had the standard conservative economic views that have lead to this 22 percent real unemployment. I and a handful of bloggers cost the right wing media millions, but we didn’t generate revenue, so that means that it wasn’t a valuable exercise in our ROI world.
I’m glad I did what I did but I paid the price of getting involved with "Politics" in Silicon Valley by pushing against a conservative viewpoint that is shared by many very rich people in the valley. Maybe I should have just focusing on helping people with messaging, the media and ROI, because I’ve helped some SV companies make billions over the years
I know the power of VCs, it’s not just your public pronouncements, it’s your private views and where your money goes when it’s not flowing into companies that counts.
If you would like to tell us what you are doing in that space I would like to hear. I would like to know if you ask your fellow VCs the same question. What are they doing behind the scenes? Are they supporting people who want to keep the Bush tax cuts? Are they supporting rules for keeping estate taxes low – do they call them "death taxes"? Have they demanded real financial regulations or are they all afraid to piss off Wall Street for when they need them for an IPO? (Wall Street Bankers are the one group that I’ve seen VCs worry about pleasing during road shows.)
If you can’t bear to tell your tax accountants not to create shell companies in the Caymans to cut taxes on your company, can you at least support the regulations that will eventually make it illegal or hard to do that? Your fiduciary responsibility might force you to lobby to reduce taxes, but your moral responsibility isn’t the same as your fiduciary responsibility.
I don’t doubt your sincerity here, what I want to know if you are following through on your views backstage where it really counts these days.



27 Comments




recommended and tweeted spocko. do you think he will reply to your inquiries?
I don’t know, but two different people in the comments section asked for him to respond to me.
One guy, Peter, said, “Let’s hear it for Spocko. His comment is as good as- if not better – than the original piece.”
And John Greg who said, “I think this comment of spocko’s is essential reading. Thank you for posting it spocko, and I hope we hear a response from the post author too.”
So we’ll see.
recommended spocko hope ya get an answer.. but I don’t think they care about anything but making bazillions more dollars..
El reccomendo, my pointy eared friend.
Blog Lots And Prosper!
Righteous rant, Spocko. I gave up on the VC community several years ago after raising a reasonable amount of money from them. I decided that they have a complete removal of all moral fiber before they are allowed to take the job. There might be exceptions out there, but I talked to lots of them and didn’t find one. Don’t hold your breath on getting a response to your questions.
Good on ya, Spocko.
Let us know if you receive ANY answers.
And, let us know … if you don’t …
DW
Ah, all good questions, Spocko. Love the “punctuation” of the dog photo. Recommended!
Well it’s possible. I’m one of those people who starts from the premise that people are good. I think I was polite. I asked in public. The people at BB know me, and know I’m not a crank.
One of the nicest, smartest person I know is an angel investor, so you never know.
The hardest workin’ dog in the west!
Spocko, email me if you want some more background on Vallee. Nothing “startling,” just background.
Oh, yes. Angels and VC’s are very different critters. I’ll go along with that part.
Nailed it, Spocko.
Standing up is hard work…
Thanks, spocko.
Thanks. My friend Dave quotes Ralph Waldo Emerson who once said, “What you are shouts so loudly in my ears I cannot hear what you say.”
RW had it right, except that the current culture of shout (and it’s relative prominence) was beyond his foretelling. And I would not blame him for lack of imagination.
I think you get some good results because you are coming into it from the “people are good” viewpoint. Truly admire your work.
Thanks. Sometimes I comes off as naive to people. But most people don’t see themselves as monsters. They make rationalizations everyday for why they do what they do. Sometimes I appeal the the people’s deeper nature.
Sometimes when you push people they will explain their rationalizations in public, but know in their heart they are wrong. That is one of the reason that many on the right love to talk about the charity that they give to because their world view doesn’t want to think that their desire to destroy government has any relationship to actual people who will be and have been hurt.
It is why they like to talk about self defense vs making war.
There are some people who I have time and time again given the benefit of the doubt and pointed out the thinness of their rationalizations. For those people I move on to exposing them to people whose rationalizations aren’t as strong.
Peoplelike Vallee don’t give a rat’s ass about the unemployed, the underemployed, nor the exploited workers in the countries where our jobs have gone. Call me jaded, but I cannot find it in my heart to feel charitably toward people like him.
Hats off to ya, Spocko…! A fine job indeed…! ;-)
Sometimes you have to give people a way out of there rationalizations.
For example when I contacted the advertisers I told them that they didn’t have to say way they were leaving, just leave. And I make sure they knew that it wasn’t limiting a host’s speech to pull their ads, just removing their financial support.
I actually appealed to their stated values on their web page, I also at times tried to show that their continued association with the radio hosts was BAD for their finances. This way they could have a reason on both sides of the equation.
What some people don’t know is that I also worked the same argument with the new owners of ABC Radio station K S F O. I make them listen to the host’s sexist comments. I made sure they heard the hosts calling the ABC national radio news people “Presidential butt kissers”, liars and incompetent dopes.
I made sure that they knew that these hosts were going to cost them money way before I started contacting the advertisers. And then I proved it.
Understanding the motivations both financial and personal helps.
Right now I’m thinking of how to help Elisabeth Warren whom I think is going to be great for out country. I’m still thinking of ways that I can do this that will expose people’s rationalizations (so they can be batted down by her and us) as well as let others see the motivations that are egregious because of their unlimited nature.
Totally OT– I just learned that on the Indian continent black dogs are adored and seen as retrievers of stolen things. That would be one really smart dog!
Actually if you read his post at boingboing he does say he cares. I asked him to show me how he cares in other fashions, under the public pronouncements.
When you start asking some right wing people to clarify their capitalistic world view with their Christian world view it is interesting. Because of their Right Wing authoritarian views they often can’t see the conflict, or they instantly go to their charity works. They work very hard to construct in their mind the connection between the two even if their is not connection. In Robert Altemeyer’s great book “the Authoritarians” he talks about how they can hold very opposing view in their heads. At times I can be content to point out the differences in these two world views, other times I know that change in their mind set is not something that is easy, so I simply work orthogonally on a method to get my desired result.
Think of it as Eliott Ness getting Capone off the streets with tax fraud.
I felt, and feel that the right wing groups that push their violent rhetoric, and failed economic views are bad for this country. and I can’t argue them out of place, so I look to other ways to have an impact by appealing to the good people around them.
HA! I wonder if this is a stripper’s dog.
When I last asked an extremely conservative capitalistic type who I know on these apparent conflicting philosophies, he informed me that he didn’t know any Christians who thought that way. Those could only be the views of those “Godless Socialists that I so admired”. The kicker is that this guy was the biggest partier and most radical person ion the room who I knew back in the day.
David Dayen is upstairs!
Chris Hayes Highlights the Failed HAMP Program on The Rachel Maddow Show
I have worked in 4 different VC-financed startups in SV (hit the jackpot in 1, thank you very much), and have sat in many presentation meeting at VC’s headquarters. I know many personally.
What I have observed repeatedly is that money-seeking is the glue that holds those ventures together. The individual partners agree to keep political issues off-premises, or they would soon dissolve over the differences spocko cites. It might seem very standup to challenge their non-investment choices, but those are personal, not partnership choices. So it’s fine to challenge them personally, but it not going to work to expect them to make a crusade of anything political in any way that challenges their VC partners.
I agree with spocko that folks with a lot of money can have a lot of influence for better or worse. but to focus on VCs is kind of going after the low-hanging fruit.
The grandest evils done done by folks with lots of money are done not by those VCs trying to get ahead by helping others to get ahead, but more by those with a lot of inherited money trying to prevent those without inherited money by getting any more, or even keeping what that already have (yeah,yeah,I know … Meg and Carly …even VCs make costly mistakes sometimes).
Somewhat OT, I learned that when VCs make 10 investments they expect 5 outright failures, 4 walking wounded, and 1 home run. The side effect of this expectation is that they are very quick to pull the plug on some promising investments, too often tolerant of marginal people in charge of the walking wounded, and take full credit for the rare home run, when in fact they never invested in any 1 of the 10 without believing at the outset that it was a potential home run. They invest billions, and reap the occasional home run by being in the game with a big enough stake to pay off in the end.
By the way, to answer spocko’s questions, my personal contributions go to NRDC, Oxfam, anybody opposed to Sharron Angle, and some blogs including FDL, thanks folks.
Whether we like it or not, how we use the technology of money is political. Here’s a food-for-thought presentation you might want to consider with respect to that (hattip BlueToe2).